Is opening theory really that important?

@KingSacOnG1 said in #1:

Is it really worth putting so much importance on opening theory for someone below 2000-2200 elo?

It depends. If you are clever enough to see good opening moves, you don't need it.

If you are rather early-blunder prone or just panic when facing seemingly strong moves (that gives you the chance to earn a little advantage) like Fried Liver, Cochrane Gambit, Bowdler Attack, etc... you better learn the correct replies. If possible, understanding why.

@bizzylizzy said in #3:

... one naturally learns lines as they play. Even 1200's will
stumble into Ruy Lopez main lines and such naturally.
@kindaspongey said in #4:
"... [Evans' Gambit] is attributed to a Captain Evans around the year 1830 ... For the rest of the 1800s it was practically the main line of chess, but it almost died out around 1900 due in part to 'Lasker's Defense'. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman (2013)
Perhaps, it might make sense to read a little bit about it rather than strive to reinvent the wheel.
@bizzylizzy said in #5:
I promise you Lasker's defense will not
be played well by sub master players. ...
Does it have to be played "well" in order to be of some use to "sub master players"?
@HPC10411038 said in #7:
... Until I was rated around 1400, all I did was to remember
opening moves and solve for tactical ideas. But I took a step
back and about 20 months later I made fine progress
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
@bizzylizzy said in #8:
I agree that studying openings is worthwhile once you play masters.
"... you must choose what openings you will be using. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom (a book for beginners by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin)
@verylate said in #10:
For many players, "studying the openings" usually amounts to researching the
databases to find which variations are played most often, which yield the most
favourable statistics for whichever side you want to play, then committing
specific move orders to memory. ... What I much prefer to do now is to study
complete games by strong players who have used a specific opening. And that
means going back to those who pioneered certain openings half a century ago or
more. ... Once I have been through as many games as I kind find (by as many
great players), then I look to the opening reference books and the online
databases. ... some opening books age very well, even when the analysis is
entirely outdated. These are the books that use exemplary games to illustrate ideas. ...
"... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. ... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
“... [First Steps: 1 e4 e5] is a fun and informative book. ...” (2018)
https://chesscafe.com/book-reviews/first-steps-1-e4-e5-by-john-emms/
"... As it’s a First Steps book, I’ve tried to avoid encyclopaedic coverage. In any case, you certainly don’t need to remember every single variation and all the notes before playing the opening. Take in the first few moves and the key ideas, and then try it out in your games!" - GM John Emms (2018)
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/First-Steps-e4-Everyman-Chess/dp/178194413X?asin=178194413X&revisi&format=4&depth=1

@kindaspongey said in #12:

"... As it’s a First Steps book, I’ve tried to avoid encyclopaedic coverage. In any case, you certainly don’t need to remember every single variation and all the notes before playing the opening. Take in the first few moves and the key ideas, and then try it out in your games!" - GM John Emms (2018)

www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf

I love Emms' concept and style of writing!

@KingSacOnG1 said in #1:

I've achieved an OTB rating of almost 1800 FIDE while I have never studied any opening theory. I generally rely on opening principles and ideas without ever learning the tedious variations and move orders. Is it really worth putting so much importance on opening theory for someone below 2000-2200 elo?

Hi KingSacOnG1,

Everyone's different. I can give an example. I'm third highest active crazyhouse player on lichess at the moment, and I never studied any crazyhouse theory on my own. Part of it is because I think crazyhouse theory is boring, and the other part of it is that I played so much bughouse in the past that my crazyhouse skills were easily attained from playing so much bughouse. I learned from the best on FICS. chickencrossroad is a household name; jasugi99 is from my generation; catask is just out of this world. and you have other players like GM Jeffery Xiong whom I learned from. Small class sizes do help, in my opinion. The bughouse community on FICS was very tight knit. I got to play and even talk to the very best. Helped me invent my own new opening theory (e4 Nc6 Nc3 pATd4 is my invention for black in bughouse, as is e4 e5 pATf4 for White)

Everyone's different, so when it comes to classical chess, well for me I hate reading chess books and so I like learning opening theory on my own. I like to just have a blank slate, or maybe take inspiration from a game I played, and just look at openings openings openings. I love openings. I'm not an endgame player. Endgames are too much math for me. I'm not very good at math. I got an A in Calculus, but I'm not Asian-good at math. And I am Asian, by the way :). But no, where was I? Oh yeah, I don't think one ought to think too much about like let's say "Oh I learned this opening and that opening. Therefore, what is the probability that it will show up in a real game?" I think everyone's different. I learned openings because well first of all I loved going into sidelines and confusing people. I played e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2 h6 as Black, and e4 c5 c3 d5 ed Qd5 d4 Nc6 dxc5 as white, and quirky stuff like that in order to try and get my opponents out of book. But I'd study the lines extremely in depth. I'd go super-deep into these lines like the ... h6 line and the dxc5 thing, and I'd study these openings .. well, and first of all, studying openings can give one inspiration for other things. For example, I studied so much into the h6 French that I gained confidence. I gained confidence in myself like "Hey! I can really know more about the h6 line than 99.9% of people (don't take that number too seriously. it's an estimation. a complete estimation)"

So yeah, instead of thinking: "Oh I should devote 1000 hours to openings, 4,000 hours to endgames, and 5,000 hours to tactics," or stuff like that, I think it's important to just do whatever feels right to you. Once again, things work differently for each individual. Everyone's different.

Best,
Kent

Yes

@bugfan said in #14:

I gained confidence in myself

I think this is a very good point: if you have knowledge and confidence in your openings (or endgames, or whatever) your brain works better and has more spare capabilities for difficult issues.

It's very important to come out of the opening and not have a losing position.
It's important to come out and have an idea what the general plans are.
It's modestly important to come out and have a position you find interesting and fun to play.

bill

@KingSacOnG1 worth it yes. Necessary no.

Yes, it is as important as tactics, strategy, and endgames. In the middle game, tactics and strategy are on the radar. That's why it is more noticeable.

Opening theory is not super important. All it matter is that the pieces work togetther and have some harmony, occuping squares, and so on.
Sometimes i experiment with openings. I have example played Duras gambit, heard about it? It not a solid gambit or solid opening for black, but even Magnus Carlsen have played it. Once i played a varition in that opening. Instead of sac 1 pawn i saqed 3 pawns in front of the king. As a compensation i had strong counterplay...I delivered mate because i had so many open lines with bishop pair, rook and the queen.

Why arent many player very strong when they are very good in opening and are very theoretical?
Because many openings transposes into about equal position, gambit or not.
Example when playing Scandi - if queen takes the pawn in centrum then the opponent have +0,7 balance, and the queen have 3 good squares to go, queen have to move away and it is tempi loss. But imedetely the slightly advantage is gone. Caro Kann is a super solid opening for black, but even it is very solid it doesnt mean automatically that i will outplay you and win til the end.
I win in general because i have better understandment for chess in general. I win because im comfortable because i chosen "The right direction and had better plan than my opponent" im not winning because of 1 or 2 moves in the opening, i win because i have less mistakes in the game...

Example of shitty opening that i played but still win. I have played this kind of opening (maby 10 times total) and still havent lost with it, icluding a GM. Imagine that! Of course im not playing that opening when im dead serious, but only sometimes when i want some fun and want to experiment.