Started studying opening theory.

...

Another possible title for this thread "Stopped studying everything else in favor of opening theory.." The opening is just as vital as every other phase of the game. Just try to have some balance and devote some time to the other stuff.

^ Yes.

Although, Count makes a good point.

I also read in a forum topic that mushrooms can help you see the board in "a different way".

Hope this helps.

Study a different opening!

Thank you for the feedback guys. 

@ Zirtoc, That's what I've been doing.

This happened to me but I have a lower ranking.  I found myself making "hand moves" too often because I "knew" the opening.

Sooooo.... I went back to Tactics Trainer and added 100 points.

Hit the tactics trainer.

My .02

I should have read your post closer.  Try studying ONE opening, rather than a whole bunch.  Get good with one and that will deepen your understanding.

i am also working on something like this...

instead of copy pasting openings..i suggest think thrice on each move.....

may be trying few forced move styles... will also work

interesting and worth doing!

Some people prefer going wide, while others prefer going deep. Botvinnik recommended going deep, where you specialize in a few select openings and you essentially drown your opponents by bringing them deep down into your openings' subtleties.

However, with the advent of Kasparov, going deep alone no longer seem adequate for top level competition. Kasparov has depth as well as breadth. Carlsen seems to favor breadth than depth.

Enjoy your games... as ratings goesup.. the flexibility will be lessor....

i have played few games with very highly rated and they all seems moving very cautiously with a below 1500 rated me...

i wonder what if i got a 1200 players... !!

Our author is not Kasparov.  (Yet, at least.)  I suspect learning one opening well is a better route for most players just starting to study opening theory.  Just my opinion.

I do this daily. I see no problem.

TMIMITW:  ROLFLMAO!  Endless possibilites with that one....  

LOL

As a footnote to the OP and other posts on this thread, they are right just study one opening to its depths.  Not a gambit though IMHO

Some top GM players suggests that study first the end game before opening, I don't why?

Chessnaivete: In Josh Waitzkin's book 'The Art of Learning,' he discusses learning endings first and how the end game became a strength for him. I think part of the argument was that it allowed him to see further into the potentials of each piece.

To OP, I have read that openings are there to get one to a workable middlegame. Among peers, that could be where the game hinges.

@chessnaivete:  It's called reverse engineering.