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

"And what is the focus?"  Oh, so for example, you know the basic pawn structure and the ideas it suggests (as the soltis book shows, there are only a dozen or so in all of chess).  You know some standard piece configurations for example in many lines maybe a knight heads somewhere or a bisohp preferes a certain diagonal.  These tie into the standard plans for both sides e.g. attack on the kingside with piece play or a pawn break in the center.  Simple ideas too e.g. a maneuver to trade off a bad bishop or keeping in mind that certain endgames are un/favorable.

And if you can get this context, then when your opponent deviates in the opening (or any time you run out of memorized moves) you can continue the game in an appropriate way.  Probably not the best way or with the best move orders a GM would find, but a reasonable way.  And when your moves all work toward a reasonable goal it's often more than enough to pressure / beat people under 2200.

"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."

Pretty much zborg's philosophy is, trust the "wise experts and masters" ... unless he or she happens to be Elubas -- we wouldn't want that to ever happen oh no!

You know what's hilarious about this whole thing is that contributions like those of yourself are completely useless, incorrect, three word answers, whereas, in many forum posts, I actually take the time to give people things to consider that may, heaven forbid, help them improve. All you can do is spew negativity as if that actually offers a constructive solution for anyone on these forums.

I guarantee you 100%, if you take people who have read even a few of my forum posts, they will have learned at least three times as much as whatever you have said since you have been on chess.com, as well as fewer wrong things. But ok, I'm the bad guy because of a "wall of text" or something. Talk about non sequitur.

You're a windbag, who couldn't write a concise sentence if his life depended on it.

And you're not a "teacher of chess" to anyone except the mirror, @Elubas. 

Get Over It.

You're definitely not concise mr loobs.  And you've been more argumentative than instructive in this topic for sure.

and @zborg, the hippo is fairly terrifying to play after you enter the middlegame.

As for hyperbole, I think there's a lot of it to be found in the quotes of strong players, who recall playing and improving at a 1600 level as well as I recall being 7, and for the same reasons.

So true

ture

False!

You need an opening repertoire at any playing strength but they should be selected according to your strengths or weaknesses(for practice) and current playing level.Its just my opinion of course

Very brief and accurrate.

Jesse Kraai was 1700-1800 when I first saw him playing blitz. That's why it's relevant. He studied openings as a kid before he ever broke 2000.

I agree with your statement. I remember when I was ~1700 strength I memorized a line of the Najdorf. I actually got the chance to play it against another 1700 opponent. We followed the latest theory for 18 moves, but then I forgot the move order and made a slight mistake. My opponent immediately blundered! I learned that day to avoid the long lines of memorization, at least against players rated under 2000. My rating soon jumped to 1899. (I had another significant leap in ratings later, which was tied to my learning not to fear my higher rated opponents so much. I went from 1899 to 2001 in one tournament. My rating never touched 1900 until much later when chronic illness forced me to give up playing so much.)

Sharon, I think you nailed it -- except I wouldn't say "need" but rather that it is highly advisable. The following link has some interesting posts with which you all may agree or disagree. Please post your ideas for opening repertoires in it.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/if-you-could-do-it-all-over-again-or-are-learning-now

I think that studying some system for white like London , and playing Scandinavian or Semi Slav for black will do. Don't study lots of openings , and also don't play without knowing what you should do in the first 6-10 moves. Don't waste time on openings , and don't ignore studying them too. I don't think that anybody can cross 1700 ELO without playing good opening

Both Judit and Susan Polgar are very strong GMs and Susan is a very experienced trainer so, if either said this, it should be taken seriously. I wonder where the quote came from as I haven’t come across it.  But, taken without context, what does it really mean? To improve one’s chess seems to me to involve lots of practice and study and, if you’re taking it really seriously, a good trainer. Learning about openings, middlegames and endings, and how they connect, is essential to this endeavour and, during this process it is all but impossible not to develop some sort of repertoire as you can’t learn everything equally across the board (no pun intended!). It’s pretty natural, and necessary, once the rudiments are learned, to go for positions in which you feel comfortable and then gradually build understanding from there. Most players, fairly early on, will find themselves to be mostly e4 or d4 players, and this obviously influences the direction of their study.  It’s a process of backing into an opening repertoire without really trying! If a player moves up the rankings , then their understanding will be progressively more searchingly tested and it makes sense to keep developing on what you know and trying to cut down on ignorance and weaknesses. So most players will develop their understanding of chess based on a limited number of openings and a repertoire is born.

Of course, as one develops chess skills and gains experience, one’s opening repertoire may change, though usually slowly, as new opening ideas are discovered or results are not forthcoming in pet lines. So both a measure of limiting one’s lines and a tendency to gradually diversify are all but inevitable. Therefore to say “one does not need an opening repertoire” would seem to be missing the point.

The only context in which it might make sense, I think, is when an improving player, often together with their coach, takes a long hard look at their games to fully comprehend their strengths and weaknesses. It is then that they might consciously develop a repertoire built to suit which places boundaries around the decisions they are going to have to make. Before one reaches this stage, however, it is probably sensible to diversify a bit simply to get experience in different kinds of positions and this suggests trying different openings. But even then, the choice is likely to be based on the existing repertoire.

So perhaps all the alleged advice of a Polgar means is that you should try to stay flexible until you get up to a 2000 Elo, and then nail down a repertoire that seems to work for you. A perfectly reasonable position to take which emphatically does not suggest that opening study is a waste of time until one is approaching master strength. After all, how would one get there without lots of practice and study? 

Unless you're much stronger than your opponent, it certainly is helpful to know some theory if your opponent knows it. Sure if I'm 2500 and my opponent is 1500, I don't care how much theory he knows, he's not going to win. But if its two equalish players playing and one knows alot of theory on a certain opening that is played and the other knows hardly any, the one that knows theory will have the advantage because they will obtain a superior position out of the opening, even if it is slightly better only. It seems like people are very radical about the topic, either "THEORY IS EVERYTHING, BOBBY FISCHER WOULD LOSE TO A 1800 IF HE PLAYED TODAY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW THEORY" or "YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANY THEORY IN ORDER TO WIN AGAINST SOMEONE, DOESN'T HELP AT ALLL, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERABLY WEAKER". Both seem extreme and untrue.

There seems to be varying degrees of what is meant by a knowledge of openning theory here... 

In any event, I can't even imagine a player ever getting (and maintaining a rating) above 1700 (USCF) without some sort of openning knowledge or at the very least a repotoire moves they employ when openning a chess game... 

In my opinion, a basic knowledge of openings is required to get better at chess.  After all, much of the language of chess is based off of a knowledge openings.  You won't even be able to converse with other chess players who are discussing a "Benoni-like structure" and the plans that are typical of such structures without basic opening knowledge.

This concept of leave them alone until you are 2000 is utterly silly.

Based on this quote I would say you are right:

Frank Brady, friend and biographer of Bobby Fischer, tells a story about his asking the future world champion for chess lessons in 1964.

“For the first lesson,” Fischer told him, “I want you to play over every column of Modern Chess Openings, including footnotes.”

Brady, understandably shocked, asked Fischer what they’d cover next.

“And for the next lesson,” came the reply, “I want you to do it again.”

On the surface this seems like a ludicrous instruction but I am certain Fischer did exactly that.  Were Fischer alive, I am sure his photographic memory of the 10th Edition of MCO and likely every novelty from 1960 - 1975 would give him better than equal chances against likley everyone under 2700. 

http://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/opening-videos/

I think you are over estimating the value of MCO's as anything more than a guide line for the beginner... If Fisher had an over reliance on any set of volumes it would have been the "Red Books" and not MCO, which in the chess circut is seen and was seen as having little value to any one but a club player... 

yes you all are beating a dead horse

Everyone who has experience breaking 2000 USCF/FIDE agrees that you need some sort of opening repertoire to get there. Even Kraai and the Polgar sisters studied openings before they broke 2000.