Who else here despises opening theory and study???

I play for fun mostly, and I know very basic opening theory. I try and get players out of their opening preparation...though this sometimes leads to poor positions in the opening. I agree with Carlsen that opening prep is hurting the game.

apologize for double post of this topic...could a mod close one? thanks

I actually quite enjoy opening theory and study.

If you study openings and know them well you can move almost automatically. I hate wasting time in the first 5 moves trying to make sure I dont hang a piece or make a blunder. lol

      There's a group here for 960 chess.

Here Here! I hate studying long lines and variations, mostly because I've wasted a great deal of time doing so in the past! Sometimes, I fall into the psychological trap of thinking that, if I stay up to date in theory, that will make the difference in my games. Sometimes, I suck really badly in the opening, and sometimes, it is the reason I get an untenable position in my games, but more often than not, the reason I lose is that I miss some subtle (and some not so subtle) tactics, or I choose the wrong plan, or I play a weak, general, intuitive move in an ending (or position in general) in which cold-hard precision is required, all of which are errors that have little to do with openings. The only time I feel opening study could benefit me is when I respond with the Sicilian against 1.e4. Then again, if I had a better understanding of dynamics and some fine points of positional play, I wouldn't be so flabbergasted when my opponent responds with the c3 Sicilian or the closed Sicilian.

   Not to say opening study is useless for players at my level; just some basic study of the ideas associated with the opening, as well as copious amounts of master game study. This is what I did with the Caro-Kann, for example, but what I didn't do was massive memorization. This is why I enjoy playing it.

Yes, it's important to note that Carlsen knows more than he lets on. I remember in his games in Nanjing 2009, he was playing super sharp lines, possibly because of the influence of Kasparov at the time. Anand said Carlsen not being good at openings was a myth.
 

I don't take too seriously a master's claim about being lazy and not studying openings. That goes back to Lasker and Capablanca. I suspect they studied more than they admitted.

I dont know about "despise", but i made it to USCF Class A without opening study. 

Openings are fine, as long as your opponent knows less in the one you're playing.

Opening Tomes are in many players' laps as they play on this site.

Live With It.

You didn't even attempt to make an argument for why it's hurting the game. Everyone seems to cling to this idea that opening theory is evil but no one tries to explain why. Personally I like opening theory. It gives me an edge over lazy players. I've lost count of the number of times I've been handed free wins by players who know absolutely no opening theory.

EDIT: The diagram isn't meant to start at move 6. Should be played through from beginning.

That's extremely common.

It's getting past that where you need to start knowing opening theory.

Just another case in point why those that try to study openings at 1200 are constantly told that it's something you do around 1800, not 1200.

That said, on the flip side, if you reach 1800, and then no study openings at all, you are going to hit a major plateau very quickly.  You start facing players that know opening theory, and know what's wrong with your inferior moves.  Something a 1200 player is clueless about!

I know the openings I play regularly for a few moves (maybe 7 or 8).  I also know the ones that I play badly against and should really learn a bit more about (the French and Caro Kahn) but never get round to it somehow.

Seems to me it makes sense to know a few opening lines, but more important is to know what you are trying to achieve.

Yes, the Carlsen thing is funny.  Of course he knows loads of opening theory.  I suspect he tries to get his opponent out of it when he can because he knows that he will have good chances once out of book.

The idea that Carlsen doesn't know much opening theory is comical. He has completely memorized over 10,000 master games. Imagine having access to a 10,000 game database that you can use during OTB games... 

What I find amazing about Carlsen is how he completely shifted in style.  He used to be extremely tactical and aggressive, almost akin to Kasparov's style.  But now he is very positional and enjoys slowly outplaying his opponents in endgames.

That is interesting, how his style kind of shifted. Kasparov says he comes from a different world champion lineage than he himself does, but Carlsen prefers not to think in terms of style, it seems.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-i-don-t-quite-fit-into-the-usual-schemes-

A friend of mine is 2250, and he never studied openings. Yes, he analyzes his own games so he has a lot of feeling for the c3 Sicilian as white and the Caro-Kann as black, and he's played through some game collections, but he owns no opening books and has never studied theory.

Another ~2200 player at my club, who just scored an IM norm at the age of 50, never uses any engines or books and relies entirely on his own ideas. He analyses a lot at home, with board and pieces. I used to think that opening theory was needed for getting IM norms, but no.

Lack of positional understanding, choosing wrong plans in the middlegame, is what causes people to plateau, not lack of opening theory.

But theory is also a lot of fun :-)

Understandable, and this is why im happy back in the B section :-)