This is the only way for happiness in chess. Those who study openings like their life depended on it are not really enjoying chess or life.
I disagree. Opening study is one of my favorite things to do in chess, for both fun, and analysis training. Of course the studying is not pure memorization.
For example, every line of the KID is so intricate: There can be mutual wing attacks, there can be maneouvering but at the same time both player is trying to get the center clarified in their favor (black to play ...exd4 and white to play d5, giving black kingside counterchances). The french has themes that you may not be able to learn in any other opening because there is so much emphasis on pawn chains and maneouvers, though it can become open.
As long as you enjoy doing it - it is fun.
But trying to learn too much of the opening esp at the expense of the rest of the game has made many frustrated and stuck at a lower rating than if they simply just had fun playing.
Perhaps it was blitz games and cc games I was seeing. But playing 1000 long games is not that easy to do compared to playing 1000 blitz games. I have played about half that (about 50 in real tournaments, 450 in live) and I'm nearing more around 1700. And I get my wins from study, not from tactical attacks usually; it was more like my understanding of chess that I learned where I DIDN'T make a serious tactical error or actually played as I read. I had a phase where I thought master chess was easy after reading some silman books but when I actually played I didn't put it to good use. I think I've used play experience to convert what I know from studying to how I actually play to some extent.
But it was all based on study. It would be difficult to learn everything you need to know about positional chess by yourself, I mean it took the greatest players years to understand classical chess strategy and now there's modern strategy. You do develop instinct and experience though. But Kupov, how do you know people who played 1000 games didn't do any studying?
In my opinion study>playing if you want to improve. You should have the knowledge first before you test it. But you do need both, well ok, you really should have both. Or maybe people just get away with only knowing tactics, I dunno. We all improve differently.
We're probably at similar levels of chess ability when it comes to sitting down and playing out a game (though you're very far above me in CC), and I totally agree with you.
My main personal (I agree that it works for other people) problem with study is applying what I learn directly after I learn it. I tend to try and incorporate the strategic ideas that I just read about into a position where they are totally uncalled for. But I do find that,with study, ideas stores up in your subconscious and they are hammered into your brain with experience (which I don't have much of yet). I'm also veeeery lazy and tend not to do things which I don't derive much enjoyment out of, studying chess is (sadly) one of these things.
Also (and this is all theory) I think that study pays dividends later on in your chess career. From what I understand talented players can achieve ratings of 1900-2200 while still playing (strategically that is) quite shoddy chess. This is likely because while playing scores and scores of games they developed their own notions of what works, and how to play (you see this theory in action quite frequently at low levels. Beginners will play for scholars mates and quick queen attacks all the time until it's refuted by stronger players and they adapt to a new system of strategy). Since these players are tactically strong and their strategies do work (they simply don't hold up to the scrutiny of IM or GM analysis) they manage to keep winning games and improving their elo ratings. It's easy to win while playing based on your own set of chess rules (players below 1400 do this almost exclusively) and sometimes these rules can be strong enough to carry a talented player to master level, but likely not any farther. Whereas with a firm foundation of understanding chess concepts derived by much study AND experience, a talented player can ascend to Grand Master level and beyond.
The bold part is exactly how it was for me, and undeniably today, but I have it much better applied. As more of a positional player I notice I understand alot more about chess than people, sometimes even hundreds of points stronger than me do. I feel that if I practice my tactics enough that I see as much as these people, along with better endgame skill, I would be pretty high up there. So yeah, the study pays off in the long run as once I stop making blunders, I outplay many people. I guess I just studied tactics and positional play out of order lol, but it works for me.
It's hard to explain exactly how you exploit your knowledge to play like that in a real game, but experience is the main thing I think. I eventually see where the ideas I learned in the books fit I guess after playing enough games WITH the knowledge in your head.