Why so many players are OBSESSED with openings?

Well with so many variations in the opening tree, i don't think i want to study them all. LOL

I think this is really a major stumbling block for novices. They are so interested in learning something that fits their "style" that they don't really realise they aren't good enough to have a real style yet. 

Many people like the idea of a swashbuckling style, or of a quiet positional style, but do not realise that in the former case, it involves recognising the difference between gambitting material for development and just dropping pawns in the opening. In the latter case, to play good positional chess, one must be able to work out their opponent's tactics. 

So in both cases, in order to play well, a person must understand both tactics and positional chess! "Style" only comes into the equation once a person has mastered the basics (perhaps +1700, or even higher).

i think SmyslovFan you are right but that is what many players think including me some times....

Estragon wrote:  But this doesn't make you a better player, it only postpones the point at which you cannot hide you are clueless for a few moves at best.

Besides the dangling participle due the missing comma after 'clueless', I say LOL!  

Anyway, cluelessness is always relative.  None of us really knows how clueless we are in the grand scheme of things nor about what and which kind of cluelessness ultimately matters most.

Therefore whatever cluelessness I exhibit in chess, I can claim to take with a grain of salt.

More people are obsessed with the idea that others are obsessed with openings.

Umm...

Rather than this becoming a giant noob-bashing CJ, I think it's about time a noob got to speak for himself here.

As a low rated player, learning the Queens Gambit opening semi-thoroughly taught me some really great strategical concepts. Before studying this opening, I had no idea that each opening move had a PURPOSE- an INFLUENCE on the center. The importance of central occupation is often lost in many e4 games, as tactics predominate amateur play.

Until I understood the opening, I didn't enjoy the opening. I didn't know what a "tempo" really meant, and I had no idea how to capitalize on my opponents mistakes, because i literally DIDNT KNOW WHAT A MISTAKE WAS! I've now moved on from opening study, and moved on from the QG to 1. e4 stuff, with varied success. I haven't even bothered studying 1.e4 openings in detail, because learning ONE opening thoroughly taught me all I need to know for now.

So don't be such a bunch of pretentious rank-pullers. Nothing wrong with opening a book, Opening books included =)

Most of us have entirely too many opening books in our libraries.

Better to learn from our mistakes, than make them on your own. 

This gets to the point.  i.e. memorization is easy and actual study and learning are hard.  Unfortunately for the lazy you always get what you pay for.

If you play the Sicilian defense dragon variation you only have to study black and then you can play the English for white to really cut down on study time. You can also play the Dutch against d4 and against c4 you can play the semetrical English which transposes to the Sicilian. Then you can transpose to thesicilian again against the kings Indian with c4. You'll never need to study hundreds of openings again and like me you can focus more time on your tactics :)

What about the Accelerated Dragon? Does anyone have any thoughts on this opening? What would a person do to master postitional and tactics so they can understand better the way each opening works against you and against your opponent.

1500 rated players and below  are not obsessed with openings its a myth. if anything its the "mediocre" chess players (1700-IM) who are obsessed.

Opening are just as important as the rest of the game just don't think memorizing the 1000 opening will help you win a king vs.king and pawns vs. pawn ending

I think some members already nailed it, the focus shouldn't be on how many openings you have memorized, rather how many openings you understand, the positives and potential drawbacks and how to effectively build up an attack or defense with the opening you chose. It is not some sort of "collectors" item lol 

I think people become obsessed with openings because of the fact that there are so many of em.  Learning a new opening is something new and fun to try rather than just studying tactics for hours.  Of course the latter is more beneficial.  I am just trying to rationalize why so many players do obsess over learning openings.  Pfren touched on the fact that players hope to get quick wins from learning traps that can arise in different opening which is very true.  When in reality these traps rarely occur.  I quickly learned that lesson and have been playing the same openings in practically all my games.

Hahaha that must of been something.

See my recent post - What to do to save (young?) amateurs from themselves.

My point is even more basic than here. I give some examples from games I earlier played with opponents in the 500-1,000 bracket. It soon became apparent from their automatic or strange openings, that they did not have a clue of what to do when sitting down to a chess board.

Forget your usual chess books or learning by mistakes, or even teaching them a specific opening, these players need guidance to formulate an opening plan or strategy. Hence, my guidelines in an earlier comment in this post:

Seek to control the centre of the board (your Pawns, or with a fiancetto of a Bishop), develop your pieces (Knights and Bishops), do not bring the Queen out early (rather place it on the 2nd/7th rank), castle for King safety, and so that your Rooks are finally connected, place a Rook on an open file when one appears or is expected to appear, and maintain King safety (don't push King pawns), etc.

And certainly, do NOT move one piece several times before development is completed! This simply wastes a move. If I remember correctly, and I do not exaggerate, one player moved his b2 Bishop 9 times in his first 15 moves!

Of course, my guidelines are an ideal, and must be flexible to take account of your opponent's specific moves. For example, a question arises as to where to place the King-side light-square Bishop - immediately attack your opponent's Knight (Ruy Lopez), go to a suitable square to link up with the dark square Bishop on 2 Queen-side diagonals, or defend a B3 Knight against a marauding enemy Bishop and free your Queen from heavy duty.

But none of these considerations deny the basic idea of having a sound opening plan, based on sound chess principles. It reveals little to you opponent and (as indicated) allows for flexibility.

And remember, with lower rated players, they need uncomplicated assistance where they can see progress and be encouraged. They are not experts, let alone GMs.

Even with tactics and mates, it is better to introduce simpler ones first.

I have to know how not to lose a game in opening. But real, live chess I play everytime same openings, for white and for black too. I know that winning in opening is not really often, mainly with players up to 2000 rating, but it is not impossible.

chess opening is a vital part of  the game.... as far as i know even great players still study chess openings coz they know its importance.

Maybe they want to improve?