Hot take: The notion that "openings don't matter" is hogwash

@BabyPoltergeist said in #36:

... @V1g1yy did point out that you emphasised studying opening ideas over calculation in order to reduce the "probability of blundering" Even though blunders can happen in all stages of the game regardless of the opening ...
@kindaspongey said in #37:
#36 seems to have been subsequently "deleted by user".
@BabyPoltergeist said in #38:
That was a poorly written comment. ...
And perhaps you will acknowledge that it was false?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #35:
@kindaspongey ... You keep emphasising that understanding the opening is one of the 3 most important skills of chess ...
Have a specific sentence by me to quote?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #39:
@kindaspongey ... No one advocated neglecting middlegame strategy, but you and OP keep emphasising that understanding opening ideas are more important than this. ...
WHERE is there a specific sentence where I emphasized that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy? This is getting to be a REALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM, and apparently it is necessary to hang a lantern on it.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #38:
... English is my third language so it's difficult for me to convey some ideas
Under the circumstances, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ADOPT THE DISCIPLINE OF QUOTING THE SPECIFIC SENTENCE THAT SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORTS A PUBLIC CLAIM BY YOU ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED BY SOMEONE ELSE.
Here is a sentence that I DID write:
"Didn't palzm123456 include 'understanding what opening you're playing' in a list of 3 (or perhaps more) priorities?"
As you can see, that is a sentence that was ONLY about describing what palzm123456 had written.
Here is another authentic sentence that I posted:
"Are reaching- advanced-levels priorities necessarily appropriate for all levels and all players?"
That is a sentence that raised the QUESTION of whether or not priorities are the same for everyone. It did NOT emphasize (or even mention) understanding opening ideas as being more important than middlegame strategy.

@kindaspongey did you even read my last post properly? I replied on several quotes that you took from chess players who all claimed the importance of opening study and how it is necessary in order to avoid surprises and losses. By quoting them, you imply that you claim openings are more important than the skills I mentioned.
Besides, aren't you making these replies in order to defend OPs comment on how openings are in the top 3 priorities? And you still haven't responded to my claim of you contradicting yourself. You conveniently cherrypicked some statements based on emphasis about your claims, disregarding my responses on the quotes that you posted. Besides if the advice of putting importance on opening ideas were so important, why do many players not practice it and still progress? And if progression is not the goal, isn't it much easier to maintain current level just from doing puzzles instead of reading on opening ideas?

Always keep Rule #1 in mind...

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-made-list-of-chess-ideasthoughts-ive-picked-up-the-last-couple-of-years-got-any-to-add?page=2#16

@derkleineJo can you elaborate? I didn't understand.

@BabyPoltergeist said in #39:

@kindaspongey ... No one advocated neglecting middlegame strategy, but you and OP keep emphasising that understanding opening ideas are more important than this. ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #42:
@kindaspongey did you even read my last post properly? I replied on several quotes that you took from chess players who all claimed the importance of opening study and how it is necessary in order to avoid surprises and losses. By quoting them, you imply that you claim openings are more important than the skills I mentioned.
So, you (incorrectly) invented an implication, and publicly chose to present it as if it were a fact without mentioning that you knew of no occasion when I posted a statement that "understanding opening ideas are more important than [middlegame strategy]".
Your #39 mentioned:
"... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
"... Strategy clarifies what we need to do, ... endgames incorporate a boundless variety of specific ideas and subtleties of various kinds. ... if you understand the essence of your opening system, if you have mastered its fundamental strategical ideas, you will not be caught off guard by something unexpected. ..." - The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career
NONE of those statements said that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy. I posted those statements because I thought that it was of interest to look at what those authorities ACTUALLY wrote.
Perhaps, you will agree that, when publicly claiming that I emphasize some position, you should immediately acknowledge when you know of no statement posted by me that asserts the position, and you are presenting an implication claimed by you.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #42:
Besides, aren't you making these replies in order to defend OPs comment on how openings are in the top 3 priorities?
I DID write:
"Are reaching- advanced-levels priorities necessarily appropriate for all levels and all players?"
That did not claim that palzm123456's priorities are currently correct for palzm123456. I was simply trying to raise the question of whether or not priorities are necessarily currently correct for palzm123456 if the priorities are coming from someone who is currently reaching for advanced levels.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #42:
And you still haven't responded to my claim of you contradicting yourself. You conveniently cherrypicked some statements based on emphasis about your claims, disregarding my responses on the quotes that you posted. ...
I specifically looked for statements by you about my supposed emphasis that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy. I want no other issues to distract from the identification of the false statement about what I had been posting.

@kindaspongey Regarding your claim about my implication and assuming your aim was to highlight the importance of opening ideas in chess development in general, as it is consistent with OP's and your take. If this was truly your consistent stance, why did you feel the need to quote multiple authorities specifically emphasizing the importance of openings in response to a discussion where the relative priority of opening ideas versus other skills was at stake? You repeatedly bring up the importance of this in your previous posts, with quotes suggesting it helps "avoid surprises and losses" or understand "fundamental strategical ideas" to "not be caught off guard," it inherently elevates its significance in that context. You can claim your intention wasn't to prioritize it, but the effect of your posts, particularly given the quotes chosen and the context of the debate, strongly implied such a prioritization, and yet you deny it when the argument is not going in your favour since you clearly know there are far more aspects of the game which are more important than understanding opening ideas. Your explanation for quoting several players, you lean on the idea that one is missing out without giving priority to openings as much as they do to middlegames and endgames. the constant framing it as a necessity to "avoid surprises," "difficult positions," and "not be caught off guard" implicitly places it as a prerequisite, which can be misconstrued as more critical than developing good middlegame skills for positions that aren't obeying opening theory.
And about your defense of supporting @qpalzm123456 priorities, you focus on the priorites being for the advanced level and not how valid they are for OP. Your initial comments supported that opening ideas are a top priority for avoiding mistakes. Feels like you're tracking back from your posts. If you wanted to discuss about how transferable the priorities for advanced players are, then why do keep bringing it up to make it look like a secondary justification on the importance of opening ideas?
when I brought up specific points about the importance of middlegame strategy and the comprehensive views of authorities, you seemed to selectively engage with those aspects of the quotes that supported the foundational role of openings, while not giving equal weight to the balance emphasized by Capablanca ("be equally efficient in the three parts") or the boundless variety of ideas in endgames as mentioned by Maizelis.
My "responses on the quotes that you posted" were indeed disregarded in favor of reiterating my "false" statement of your specific emphasis on openings. You argue that those quotes don't favour openings. emphasis on "critical not to continually fall into opening traps," "difficult positions," and "not be caught off guard by something unexpected" highlights the preventative and foundational necessity of opening knowledge to avoid immediate disadvantage. In a discussion about the relative importance of different phases, constantly bringing up how openings prevent negative outcomes can be interpreted as placing a highvalue on them for success in a game when there are several skills that are superior.
the way your arguments were presented, including the specific quotes chosen and their context, strongly implied a greater emphasis on opening study than on improving middlegame strategy. While you now clarify your intent, the public perception created by your posts was indeed one that suggested openings held a higher importance.

@kindaspongey While you never directly said that openings are more important, you consistently implied it in the context of a debate about priorities. your method is to bring up numerous quotes emphasizing the criticality of openings in avoiding immediate pitfalls and establishing good positions. It is reasonable for me and any other reader to interpret that you place a higher relative importance on openings. Even if the Capablanca quote about "equally efficient" was included, the weight given to the "avoiding traps" narrative from other quotes leadz to the perception of emphasis. You sidestepped the perception that I was trying to convey by asking for specific quotes knowing full well that my use of language was poor. You're avoiding the main point by refusing to debate about it until you get the specific quotes, which again I apologize since you never stated that openings are mroe important, quoting about the usefulness of openings to prevent bad positions which is helpful later in the game but refusing to acknowledge that middlegame strategy, calculation and evaluation are far more important in order to avoid disadvantageous positions.

@kindaspongey in a practical perspective, most beginner to intermediate players have limited time to study openings. Your argument of avoiding subtle opening disadvantages by purposefully spending time to learn opening ideas is only valid for long term improvement which is not the priority for most chess players. At beginner to intermediate level, games are decided by blunders and there is a low impact of subtle opening advantageous. Bringing up personal experience was wrong from my part but my point still stands. Again, learning opening ideas is not wrong but in the context of improvement and limited time, most players would be better off prioritising skills like tactics, calculation, and endgames. Consistently falling into slightly disadvantageous positions in the opening is a bad habit but the effects of it rarely show up until a player reaches advanced levels, which again is not the goal for the majority of them. Prioritising its correction over immediately impactful skills like calculation is a questionable use of time. Before you revert back to your "I never said they were more important than openings" argument, remember that they can be interpreted as so from your repeated statements on the criticality of openings in the context of player priorities

studying openings is important its just that you shouldnt rigorously memorize mainline moves to get a slightly better position that you manage to turn clearly worse in a blink of an eye, Opening traps, punishing major inaccuracies, taking the opponent to an uncomfortable positon and being familliar with the middle game you arrive to is whats most important. 1. e4, e5, 2. Nf3, f6, here you can play Nxe5 with the follow-up of Qh4+ . Another example - 1. d4, d5 2. Nf6, Nc6 or even 2. Nf6, Bf5. Here, c4 is a critical challenge to the black position, and if black takes or defends improperly, you will gain a good advantage. In delayed catalans, londons and colle's, c4 is a good move to keep in mind whenever black makes a move such as Nf6 before c5 or Bf5 leaving b7 weak.

• Tricks and ideas like these are more important to know than memorizing variations upon variations and when learning opening play, effectiveness in games is a plateu

Intermediate players benefit less from investing large amounts of time in opening study, because generally, after a few moves they will be out of theory. I can vouch for this, as nearly all my club games end up off the beaten path as i enter the middlegame. At that point, its far more important that I know how to formulate a middlegame plan based on the position in front of me.

That means i need to know how to assess the features of a position. What are my strengths and weaknesses? What about my opponent? What are the imbalances that could help me? What plan therefore suggests itself from this assessment? What about my opponent? What is their plan? Can i thwart it while advancing my own plan?

After I make a plan, i need to be able to assess the threats and tactics in each position i encounter on the way to realizing my plan. How can i make tactics serve my strategy? Those are chess skills i need to devote hours to, in order to become a better chess player. If i spend hours and hours memorizing deep opening theory, i will have less time to devote to basic chess skills i just mentioned.

I think that is the point. Its not that opening theory is useless, its that other skills are still lacking, so that devoting more time than is needed for a rudimentary understanding of various openings you might encounter, can end up being an inefficient way to progress.