Beginner advice: Do NOT study openings (game included 2100vs2100)

lol yeah, there's always that 1500 who know's so much about openings ( not that that's a bad thing)
but loses in the middle game

Well havent seen anyone under 2000 and even above where you couldnt work out the ideas over the board. Also studying variations is counter productive, bcuz you dont think what the ideas are.

Kassanen always?_ honestly i find that hard to believe. 2 gms playing and white gm is telegraphing his plan?

I think 1750 USCF and 1700 FIDE is enough, as an 1800 USCF I have gotten very good positions from memorizing openings

@JARANDujo A very nice finish. But would you choose that opening in a 100 game match where the winner gets one million dollar but both players always need to play the same three first opening moves?

@Ernst_Weiss Of course not, I wasn't suggesting that the opening I played was good, but that is exactly my point! :)
At under 2000 level (I'm rated 2050 FIDE, I evaluate myself as 50-100 points stronger than that, at the moment) whoever calculates better, and VERY importantly, whoever blunders less will usually win. In the openings, as long as you develop your pieces, fight for the centre, get your king to safety and follow a few more basic principles, you'll be fine.

Famous GM Nakamura made an even more extreme statement than I did here. He said that up to 2400 / IM level, chess is 90-95 percent tactics.

@JARANDujo Totally agree. Going through a random sample of games on any online server will amply demonstrates how egregious mistakes, blunders and tactical oversights completely negate, on average, any incremental or even significant advantage "book knowledge" confers in all but the fastest (bullet, blitz) time formats under "Class A" level play. Many people under "Class A" who devote much of their time to opening theory just aren't open to the argument or the body of evidence supporting it.

I could always set up a live feed of my play with openings I don't know. If they are under 1600 I would even be willing to play 1. f3 2. c3 3. na3 to c2 or Nh3 to f2 to prove how opening theory is not necessary till certain levels. And guaranteed 1900 Fide is absolute minimum. I mean technically I am 1900 fide But I am like super provisional. I have several 2100-2300 fide under my belt and I didn't study openings till recently. I waited till 2000 USCF. Only because outta super hard to get fide rated where I am. But honestly I can say if I wanted I could have waited.

If people are interested I can have people call out my openings or even my first ten moves if they are not "bad" moves. Any interest in this? I don't have to be the only one either it can be several people. Cause then it would run home the point.

I mostly agree with what has been said in this thread. Once your play has become principled enough, you will begin to derive theory simply by intuition by knowing the positional utility of certain moves. At least to an extent. If you feel like your opening could have been more solid, you can check it on an analysis board, first on your own and then against a database/engine to see where the weaknesses were. Capablanca didn't put serious consideration into opening preparation until he began playing in world-class tournaments. It was when he started facing the cold memorization of Lasker or the subtle novelties of Rubenstein that he knew it was of value to do so.