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

@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:

@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. ...
Instead of assuming (based on take-consistency?), I suggest that you go by the actual words that appeared in my #30.
As I indicated, you had written, "relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant."
I reacted by showing that an authority considered a worthy alternative goal to be to avoid difficult positions:
"... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
The Soviet Chess Primer quote was an immediate follow-up to (and illustration of) my observation that
"It seems to be pretty common for all of [endgames, strategy, and openings] to be recommended."
The Capablanca quote was a reaction to the V1g1yy comment about widespread opening-interest: "It's no wonder people advise against opening study."
It seems to me that the Capablanca quote indicated an easy way to give alternative advice about the extent of a player's opening study.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... 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, ...
Implications should not be trusted if they are arrived at in your mind by ignoring parts of what was posted by me.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... 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 ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #47:
@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. ... 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.
I mentioned the Heisman avoiding-difficult-positions comment as a reaction to some writing about an opening purpose being "irrelevant" or "pointless". I was naturally trying to refer to a relevant alternative purpose, and NOT trying to emphasize that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy. ...
You were the one who wrote, "avoid surprises and losses". As previously noted, the #30 avoiding-difficult-positions Heisman quote had a purpose that was not about prioritization. The Soviet Chess Primer and Capablanca quotes referred to openings AND other topics without specification of priorities.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... 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.
I deny emphasizing understanding-opening-ideas-are-more-important-than-middlegame-strategy whenever I notice you trying to tell people that I have emphasized such a thing and I can find the time to set the record straight.
Since I "never directly said that openings are more important", the importance of other aspects of the game is not a problem for me.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... you lean on the idea that one is missing out without giving priority to openings as much as they do to middlegames and endgames.
Another figment of your imagination.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
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. ... 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. ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #47:
... It is reasonable for me and any other reader to interpret that you place a higher relative importance on openings. ...
Since the purposes of the Heisman, Primer, and Capablanca quotes were indicated in #30, it did not occur to me that there might be a false perception by you.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... Your initial comments supported that opening ideas are a top priority for avoiding mistakes. ...
Another figment of your imagination.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... If you wanted to discuss about how transferable the priorities for advanced players are, then why do keep bringing it up ...
The Heisman "what works for one person" comment was a natural reaction to someone commenting about a specific person.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
... 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.
I see nothing in my posts advocating differing weights for the topics in the Capablanca and Primer quotes.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
My "responses on the quotes that you posted" were indeed disregarded in favor of reiterating my "false" statement of your specific emphasis on openings. ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #47:
... You're avoiding the main point by refusing to debate about it until you get the specific quotes, ...
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.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
You argue that those quotes don't favour openings.
I actually wrote: "NONE of those statements said that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy."
@BabyPoltergeist said in #46:
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.
The phrase, "foundational necessity" is YOUR language and YOUR problem if you use it to invent supposed implications of what I have posted.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #47:
You sidestepped the perception that I was trying to convey by asking for specific quotes
Asking for specific quotes was an (eventually successful) effort to procure a clear acknowledgment from you that I "never directly said that openings are more important".
@BabyPoltergeist said in #47:
knowing full well that my use of language was poor. ...
Your use of language seems to be sufficient for you to be aware (and state) that I "never directly said that openings are more important". Those things should have happened immediately in your #39 ~11 hours ago.
It is not appealing to attempt meaningful discussion while you have continued to defend misrepresentation of my views.

@discoooooord said in #49:

... you shouldnt rigorously memorize mainline moves to get ....
qpalzm123456 was writing about the desirability of "understanding what opening you're playing".
@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #50:
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. ...
I have sometimes encountered the suggestion to use one's own games as a guide to indicate where more learning might be useful

@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #50:

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.
Exacty. For most of us, the time we can - and want to - spend on chess is limited. And while opening study is useful, beginners and intermediate players usually have other study topics that can be even more beneficial. The key is to find what you need most at the moment.

@mkubecek said in #53:

... while opening study is useful, beginners and intermediate players usually have other study topics that can be even more beneficial. The key is to find what you need most at the moment.
"... I am not a big fan of weaker players memorizing lots of opening lines they will never play. However, it is quite a different issue to spend a small amount of time learning how to play your openings a little better each time they occur. A long journey begins with a single step. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
If, for example, one gets into trouble after 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 etc., it does not take very much time to look in a book like First Steps: 1 e4 e5 and find the suggestion to play 3...d5 instead of 3...dxc3.
Of course, it might be a little more time-consuming if one decides that one wants to play through a sample game, but there has been widespread approval of sample-game-viewing as a worthwhile activity, even for beginners.
"... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)

@kindaspongey Let's cut through the semantics . You insist you never explicitly said openings are "more important," and I'll even grant you that technicality. But let's be cleart: when you repeatedly hammer on the "criticality" of openings to avoid "traps," "difficult positions," and "not be caught off guard" (even when you're responding to others about your takes by using quotes)—especially in a debate about priorities, any reasonable person interprets that as an argument for its heightened significance. Both myself and @V1g1yy interpreted it as such. Calling it as a "figment of your imagination" is very disrespectful. Your intent is your business. You might even agree with my points but the impact of your words is what we're discussing.
Now that we've cleared up the linguistic difficulties, let's talk about what actually matters for chess players who want to improve, particularly the vast majority of beginner and intermediate players with limited time to study.
Your theoretical arguments about avoiding subtle disadvantages fall flat against the practical battlefield for most players. Quoting Capablanca and that Soviet player is reasonable for any reader to assume that you place understanding opening ideas as equal as other aspects of the game like calculation. Even in an extreme example case, like chess prodigies who have nearly unlimited time to study chess, good coaches ensure that they have some imbalance in their style of play, where they are far stronger in tactics and calculation but weaker in theory and understanding opening ideas, since these skills take years to develop and won't get a player short term results. You can look at the games of these players, they often play sidelines and not necessarily respect the main ideas, often opting for unconventional structures and relying on imbalances. Check out the games of Faustino Oro and Yagiz Kaan Erdogmus.
Blunders, Not Openings, Decide Games: At the beginner and intermediate levels, games are overwhelmingly lost due to blunders like tactical oversights, hanging pieces, and basic strategic errors. These aren't abstract concepts; they're tangible mistakes that lead to immediate, decisive losses. A player could have a perfect opening, avoid any "slight disadvantage" and still throw away the game on move 15 because they missed a simple fork.
Limited Time Demands Ruthless Efficiency: Most players aren't professionals with unlimited study hours. Every minute spent studying chess must deliver maximum impact. For a player who doesn't want to necessarily improve, sure they can learn openings since they are more fun. But the uncomfortable aspects of the game like endgames(very boring to learn and calculate), middlegame strategy(getting good at timing pawn breaks, active piece placement) etc. often lead to maximum improvement
Spending that precious time memorizing opening lines to gain a minor positional edge is a luxury most can't afford and won't benefit from.
Prioritizing tactics, calculation, and fundamental middlegame/endgame strategy is the only logical and efficient path. These skills are universal, directly reduce blunder rates, and immediately translate into more wins.
Why Your Emphasis Misses the Mark for Most Players
You speak of "foundational necessity" and avoiding "slight disadvantages," but for the typical improver subtle Advantages Are Non-Factor. They lack the precision to exploit minor opening advantages, and their opponents lack the precision to punish minor opening inaccuracies consistently. The "compounding effect" of a -0.5 evaluation often doesn't show up in a game decided by a hanging rook or a missed mate.Gambits Prove the Point: The success of "dubious gambits" isn't because openings don't matter; it's because players at lower levels get flustered by chaos and tactical complexity, where calculation and handling surprises are paramount, not adherence to engine-blessed opening theory. The player who thrives in the mess wins, regardless of a "slight disadvantage." So, while you can cling to your semantic distinctions, the practical advice remains unchanged: for the overwhelming majority of chess players aiming to get better with limited time, focusing on core tactical and strategic skills is not just more important, it's the only truly efficient way to improve. Anything else is simply a distraction from what actually decides their games.
Refusing to acknowledge my apology and wanting to continue with this productive discussion about how important opening ideas are relative to the other skills I mentioned, in practical play, just proves me right that you're sidestepping the argument in order to focus on my mistake of implications " I want no other issues to distract from the identification of the false statement about what I had been posting." seems like you're just avoiding my argument even though I apologized for the false implications in my previous comments

@kindaspongey said in #52:

I have sometimes encountered the suggestion to use one's own games as a guide to indicate where more learning might be useful
They are, analysis is important and analysis of several games over a time period helps a player identify their weak points that can show up repeatedly.

@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:

@kindaspongey ...
Are you aware that, ~22 hours ago, this discussion apparently struck an iceberg and began sinking into the depths? Since then, when a note is posted here, it no longer causes the discussion to move up to the top of the list of topics. I can only assume that some moderator has decided that it is best to let it gradually disappear from view, no matter how many times someone comes down here to say something.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
... when you repeatedly hammer on the "criticality" of openings to avoid "traps," "difficult positions," and "not be caught off guard" (even when you're responding to others about your takes by using quotes)—especially in a debate about priorities, any reasonable person interprets that as an argument for its heightened significance.
You are apparently referring to:
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
and
"... 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
I would hope that a reasonable person would base any interpretation on what was going at the time in the discussion when one of these quotes was mentioned.
As I indicated in #51, I called attention (in #30) to the last 19 words of the Heisman difficult-position quote as a reaction to your (#28) comment,
"... relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant. ...".
I was trying to show that an authority considered a worthy alternative goal to be to avoid difficult positions.
I did something similar to #30 in #6.
I mentioned the Heisman quote in #45 because of your (#42) comments about what my use of quotes was supposedly implying.
It was a similar situation in #51 when I mentioned the Heisman quote in reaction to your #46.
Here in #57, I am similarly reacting to your #55.
In #54, I used the Heisman quote as part of an attempt to indicate that one could do some worthwhile opening work in only a limited amount of time. I was reacting to #53 and #50.
As I indicated in #51, my use of the Primer quote (in #30) was an attempt to illustrate my observation that:
"It seems to be pretty common for all of [endgames, strategy, and openings] to be recommended."
As with the Heisman quote, I mentioned the Primer quote in #45 because of your (#42) comments about what my use of quotes was supposedly implying.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
Both myself and @V1g1yy interpreted it as such.
Previously (in #46), you wrote:
"@kindaspongey ... 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. ..."
Now you only indicate that you and @V1g1yy interpret "that" as an argument for the heightened significance of openings. If a person is interested in the views of V1g1yy, I would suggest looking at #5, #16, #25, #27, #31, and #32.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
Calling it as a "figment of your imagination" is very disrespectful. ...
In #51, I used the phrase, "Another figment of your imagination." in connection with each of your (#46) comments:
"... you lean on the idea that one is missing out without giving priority to openings as much as they do to middlegames and endgames. ..."
and
"... Your initial comments supported that opening ideas are a top priority for avoiding mistakes. ..."
Previously (in #39), you wrote:
"@kindaspongey ... No one advocated neglecting middlegame strategy, but you and OP keep emphasising that understanding opening ideas are more important than this. ..."
~5 hours later (in #47), you acknowledged that I "never directly said that openings are more important" (while nevertheless making claims about what was supposedly implied).
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
... Your theoretical arguments about avoiding subtle disadvantages ...
My actual words from #19:
"... Is deciding a game the only issue? Isn't it somewhat important as to who is more likely to be the one to make the deciding mistake? We have notations like

=
(for "white stands slightly better"). That certainly does not mean that "white has a decisive advantage". We have a separate notation ("+-") for that. So, how can the "advantage" be anything other than it being harder for Black to avoid a decisive mistake? Isn't it therefore somewhat important as to who manages to avoid a slight (or not-so-slight) disadvantage? ..."
In #30, in connection with that comment, I also mentioned:
"... For young, inexperienced players, this attack [(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5)] is ... not easy to defend. I've seen this position appear hundreds of times in junior games, and Black often goes astray immediately. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the player with the black pieces losing a rook, or even worse! ... even after [the good move, 4...d5,] Black has to be very careful. ... for now I'm going to recommend [3...Bc5]. ..." - GM John Emms (in the 2018 book, First Steps: 1 e4 e5)
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:

... Quoting Capablanca and that Soviet player is reasonable for any reader to assume that you place understanding opening ideas as equal as other aspects of the game like calculation. ...
As I indicated in #51, I called attention (in #30) to the Capablanca quote in reaction to the V1g1yy comment (in #25) about widespread opening-interest: "It's no wonder people advise against opening study."
It seemed to me that the Capablanca quote indicated an easy way to give alternative advice about the extent of a player's opening study.
"... 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
I do not "place understanding opening ideas as equal as other aspects of the game like calculation."
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
... You speak of "foundational necessity" and ...
As I pointed out in #51, the phrase, "foundational necessity" is YOUR language (#46).
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
... Refusing to acknowledge my apology ...
Will that do?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
... the impact of your words is what we're discussing. ...
What you seem to be discussing is your perception of the impact. I have little interest in such a discussion beyond improving the description of what I actually wrote.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #55:
... let's talk about what actually matters for chess players who want ...
You can talk about whatever you want here, but, as I write this, your contribution is ~9 hours in the past, and the discussion is now below 16 other topics in the "General Chess Discussion" list. 7 of them have not had a contribution for 10 hours or more.

@BabyPoltergeist said in #56:

They are, analysis is important and analysis of several games over a time period helps a player identify their weak points that can show up repeatedly.
Sometimes it works. For example, not so long ago I realized that for some time I have been struggling with IQP positions and often felt really clueless when playint them (for either side). So I tried to focus on them in my study and my latest two games with IQP positions already felt much better.

However, sometimes it can be much harder to identify the underlying problem and it requires a more skilled and more experienced player to tell you what the real problem is.

@kindaspongey said in #57:

I can only assume that some moderator has decided that it is best to let it gradually disappear from view, no matter how many times someone comes down here to say something.
AFAIK this is automatic, IIRC a result of topic age and number of comments (you may try to search the forum for details). At some point the topic gets a "penalty" when the topic list is sorted so that it shows lower than it would according to the latest update timestamp.

@kindaspongey,
Let's address your latest attempt to derail this discussion with more semantic acrobatics and irrelevant distractions. Your concern about forum visibility is a transparent smokescreen. This conversation is "sinking" because you're desperately clinging to technicalities instead of engaging with the substance.
You can continue to dissect your own past statements, meticulously explaining the intended purpose of every quote. It's exhausting, and it entirely misses the point. The impact of your words, in the context of a debate about player priorities, is what matters. When you flood a discussion about improvement with "criticality" and "avoiding pitfalls" derived from openings, it's not a "figment of imagination" for me or any other reader to infer a strong emphasis. It's a reasonable interpretation of your chosen argumentative strategy. Your refusal to acknowledge this perception, even after an apology, is not a sign of rigorous debate, it's a sign of stubborn defensiveness.
You repeatedly deny emphasizing the importance of openings, yet your entire argumentative approach revolves around defending their "criticality" against practical advice. You're trying to have it both ways, and it's transparent.
The truth is, while you might not have explicitly said "openings are more important," your chosen framing, your quotes, and your consistent pushback against de-emphasizing them for practical improvement strongly imply that exact prioritization.
So, let's drop the pointless debate about your intent and focus on what genuinely helps players get better. Because right now, your continued semantic diversions are the biggest obstacle to any meaningful discussion.
You again refuse to comment on any takes I have on how openings are way lower priority for practical improvement. Seems like you refuse to argue with it because my advice might be right.