Is opening theory really that important?

If you are already beaten in the opening, you won't last to the endgame. Especially against stronger players. I cannot understand people who say openings are not important. I need to play well right in the opening up to the endgame. You play bad in the openings against me, I will definitely beat you. Best regards.

6yttttttttttttttttttno

@Devil_fish said in #20:

im not winning because of 1 or 2 moves in the opening

I think opening is more about not losing than about winning.

Edit to add:

• Opening study helps you not losing games.
• Endgame study helps you winning games.

@OctoPinky said in #23:

I think opening is more about not losing than about winning.

Edit to add:

• Opening study helps you not losing games.
• Endgame study helps you winning games.
  Is it? Me at my previous account...In this game i've decided me to experiment, i've decided me to saq several pieces and try to deliver mate with queen saq from move 1. Not a perfect game but almost. This was my first attemt to play in that way. And here is the result.
  Forget about material advantage, pawnstructure, and so on, checkmate finish the game - ref Nigel Short.

https://lichess.org/2FRi1rdu/white?fbclid=IwAR19KRB23adapB6miLvFHw6zgPcw-rOasYPdwbYDBNYjZ20uivJqlejYdn4

@Devil_fish said in #24:

Forget about material advantage, pawnstructure, and so on, checkmate finish the game - ref Nigel Short.

Oh, yes, if you are Capablanca, Carlsen or Kasparov you can forget almost everything and checkmate with the King, a Bishop and a button from your jacket. The rest of us usually need some more specific advantage to win.

In the games you posted, it is apparent you are a very capable player (I couldn't play like that in a million years) but also you had to wait for some blunders from your opponent.

@Devil_fish said in #24:

Is it? Me at my previous account...In this game i've decided me to experiment, i've decided me to saq several pieces and try to deliver mate with queen saq. Not a perfect game but almost. This was my first attemt to play in that way. And here is the result.
Forget about material, pawnstructure, and so on, checkmate finish the game - ref Nigel Short.

lichess.org/2FRi1rdu/white?fbclid=IwAR19KRB23adapB6miLvFHw6zgPcw-rOasYPdwbYDBNYjZ20uivJqlejYdn4
@OctoPinky said in #25:
Oh, yes, if you are Capablanca, Carlsen or Kasparov you can forget almost everything and checkmate with the King, a Bishop and a button from your jacket. The rest of us usually need some more specific advantage to win.

In the games you posted, it is apparent you are a very capable player (I couldn't play like that in a million years) but also you had to wait for some blunders from your opponent.
Im saying that if you play example one of the most popular openings ever - Ruy Lopez, it is a very good chanche that your'e opponent know how to do, because it is well known lines. The game in Ruy Lopez are not generellay decided in the opening but in middlegame/endgame. If you play rare lines or have unortodox playing style from almost move one it can be bigger chance to win or lose in risky play. You can study openings and play any openings but you will lose if you play against a titled player.
The titled players in general doesnt care to much about openings and can play any opening and still win.
Polish opening arent a super duper good opening but many can win with it, not because of the opening itself but the play in general. The positional play, tactics, strategies decides the game not so much the opening itself.

I didnt had to wait for the blunders...well if you are too greedy, like my opponent was then you lose, because all of those lines.

I play my own openings and can almost do whatever i want and still win. I have unortodox playingstyle and can beat really strong players sometimes. It is typical human to only follow well known patterns...Chess is psychological, almost only that.
I mean if you take a GM out of the theoretical and they dondt know how to do they can suddenly blunders or play like 900 rated in general...Magnus Carlsen often now and then play his own openings and sometimes he play rubbish in the opening, but still he wins because all of those factors.
Another example that i've outplayed my opponent, who is IM. I guess 99% of chessplayers in the world wouldn't play like i did in the opening because of 1 single move...and that move im talking about is that let my queen got pinned....Because we human only think material and patterns...

@Devil_fish said in #26:

I play my own openings and can almost do whatever i want and still win.

But... did you study previously thses openings or it is more an improvised thing?

@Devil_fish said in #26:

... The game in Ruy Lopez are not generellay decided in the opening but in middlegame/endgame. ...
But the opening can influence the probability of a favorable outcome. For example:
"... for inexperienced players it's risky to capture the e4-pawn [after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O] because White can attack in the centre and it's easy for Black to go wrong. ..." - GM John Emms (2018)
@Devil_fish said in #26:
... You can study openings and play any openings but you will lose if you play against a titled player. ...
For most of us, a titled player is not the usual opponent.
@Devil_fish said in #26:
... I play my own openings and can almost do whatever i want and still win. ...
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

@OctoPinky said in #27:

But... did you study previously thses openings or it is more an improvised thing?
Im intuitive player...it means that i played all this intuitived...Haven't study anything!

@kindaspongey said in #28:

But the opening can influence the probability of a favorable outcome. For example:
"... for inexperienced players it's risky to capture the e4-pawn [after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O] because White can attack in the centre and it's easy for Black to go wrong. ..." - GM John Emms (2018)

For most of us, a titled player is not the usual opponent.

"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
Openings means only statepoint for the game....chess is abstract and there is no final conclusion in chess.
For my part im not a true chessplayer, i've been soccerplayer since i was 5 yrs old. I was very good in soccer...Im selftaughted in chess, and when i've started to play online i was down to about 900 ratingpoints...I havent read a book yet...but many, many times i drew and win against every type og titled players, because of these kind of factors: No fear, and strongly will to win and awoid losing....my opoenings have nothing to do with these...I have good general understandment for chess and i now early if im gonna win, lose or draw....
I want to improve my self as a player...so why should i only play against my own level? Why this threadstarter mention this subject at all? Because he wants to be good as possible...If you only care about openings in chess then there is no point to play chess if you only care about openings...for my part i care about the whole game,but sometimes you have to take your'e opponent to the deep dark forest to win, and that is all about, not a opening with first 10-20 moves.