You don't need an opening reportoire until you hit 2000 ELO - ture or false ?

Haha. I think zborg just takes the first opening that comes to his head and writes it down. Since this way he can go on auto-pilot and doesn't need to figure out if what he says actually makes any sense, it's easier on his head :)

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/lies-about-improving?page=1#

Knowing the position types you like and how to get to them is priceless, know the Lopez like I do is over kill. You have to have some ideas of how to get where you want to be or your just gonna sit there reinventing what's already known.

No, you don't need extensive opening knowledge to play the first 20 moves of a chess game.  But you do need a Minimum Repetoire.

The thread you are currently reading is chockablock with blather and obsfucation from windbags like @Elubas.  This despite the fact the @Elubas is a relatively good chess player.  So What.

After 240+ posts, this thread scarcely begins to provide the intelligent reader with an answer to the question being raised.

The thread below contains information about opening repetoires, as well as entertainment and jokes along the way --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/opening-theory-and-vegetarianism-are-both-overated

Your choice.  Keep reading blather, or focus on the core issues.

On balance, a good "universal" repetoire book is all you need, until you reach the top 10 percent of the rating distribution.  Very Simple.

If you want more than that.  Be prepared for a lot more time and study, and a lot more books as well.

End of Story.  

Of course opening study matters, but knowing a bunch of Berlin Defense lines 20 moves deep doesn't mean anything if you drop pieces to simple tactics or don't know why certain theory moves are good. 

In annotated master games they describe various ideas behind their openings and plans. For studying the opening I've found it best to make a training database in Chessbase, sometimes even inputting variations and text from books.  I hear Chessbase opening encyclopedia is good but don't know if the annotations are just Informant symbols. 

In other words, studying openings is good.  Studying openings poorly is bad.  Just like the middle game and endgames.

Got it.

false

I have an opening repotoire I am 1900

Go ahead and tell us then, what did they do?

What some master kid does in 5 minutes games isn't very relevant to what U2000 players should do to win more tournament games at the U2000 level.

What do these guys do?  Go to any club and have your local 1500 players give you a lesson on the 15th move of some Najdorf line and I think you'll figure it out.  Especially when on move 16 they make it clear they have utterly no idea what's going on.

Right.

But what the "this is how you study openings" people are essentially saying (and they're right) is to study the middlegame... study the middlegame positions that your openings get into.

Yes, part of studying the opening correctly is learning the results of the opening.

I doubt the 1500ish USCF players at the club I was going to and playing with, know the Najdorf that deeply...

At the U2000 level I'd argue that studying "the results of the opening" comprises 90% or more of useful "opening study."

Sure, most don't.  My point was just that there are class players who spend money on opening books and have a deep repertoire, yet after years they remain relatively weak players.

To be fair to smyslovfan I agree with his other posts I came across as I skimmed the topic.

You'd be surprised.  Booked up fish have been a thing for decades here in America.  There's an old Soviet proverb that states, "Americans play the opening like grandmasters, the middlegame like experts, and the endgame like beginners"

I tend to think by the time you reach 1500, you begin to realize your tactical and end game deficiencies.

So how does one go about studying the typical middle games that ones opennings tend to get into and what is the focus of that study?

(Asking as I'm genuinely interested and have had quite a bit of difficulty finding resources that focus on the overally themes, strategy of certain openings, middle games etc.)

I definitely know some who are willing to give you a protracted opening lecture after a game...

Even if they allowed some minor but basic middlegame weaknesses, lose a few tempo and otherwise defend them poorly, and finish by voluntarily trading into a hopless endgame...

Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess is a good start.  Maybe just learn to recognize different imbalances then compose plans that revolve around them afterwards. 

Annotated master games in said openings can help.  Various books and Informants will have them.  If you have a certain chess hero then you can copy his openings and study his annotated game collection. 

I like oogieboogie's answer.  Pick up some middlegame book to get all the necessary foundational stuff.  Although it's all about pawns, I second his recommendation of Soltis' book.  Annotated game collections are also excellent.  Not all the games will be of your prefered opening, but I think just for the (sometimes few) games that are, they're worth it.  The other games round out your chess understanding (and many times sidelines of one opening can get you into the ideas most often found after completely different openings).