Is opening theory really that important?

@Devil_fish said in #26:

... You can study openings and play any openings
but you will lose if you play against a titled player. ...
@kindaspongey said in #28:
... For most of us, a titled player is not the usual opponent. ...
@Devil_fish said in #29:
... Im intuitive player...it means that i played
all this intuitived...Haven't study anything!
"... 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
@Devil_fish said in #30:
... I want to improve my self as a player...so
why should i only play against my own level? ...
I am not aware of anyone, in this discussion, urging you to play against your own level.
@Devil_fish said in #30:
... there is no point to play chess if
you only care about openings ...
"... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)

@Devil_fish said in #30:

If you only care about openings in chess then there is no point to play chess

Nobody is suggesting only caring about openings, of course that would be nonsense.

The problem is perhaps that opening theory can (and usually does) become and addiction and leads to the FOMO on books, courses etc.. Doesn't mean that it is not important, too much just isn't healthy...

It does not matter most play blitz or bullet and the rest are haters

@DvdB said in #33:

The problem is perhaps that opening theory can (and usually does) become and addiction and leads to the FOMO on books, courses etc.. Doesn't mean that it is not important, too much just isn't healthy...
To be good at poker it can be a good statepoint to be a mathematican...calculate pot odds and whatever...But it means nothing if you have bad gutfeeling and are bad at bluff. Just like chess, you can be a openingsjunkie...but if i know how to consolide well in the opening i can win many times aginst you if im a better chessplayer in general. U cant sacrifice a piece/pieces if there is no follow up or the opponent are good positional....Example Tal seemed to be addicted to saq, and many times he won games with it. But if he played today he would lost more games because these days players are much stronger positionally than old days...remember "game of the century"? Fischer played very well but his opponent Byrne played like he was 900 rated player..so the game looked like it was spectacular, but it wasnt because Byrne played poorly....another poorly opponent - remember the "the opera game"? Morphy's opponent blundered in the opening, it was a beginner mistake and Morphy could attack whatever he wanted...it was example a free rook there...
So till the end openings means a lot but it dondt means everything.

I think the main idea of "opening theory" is to spend 5 minutes on your first 10 moves and know that you're equal or better, rather than spending 20 minutes and not being sure.

It doesn't matter that you know opening principles, the first few developing moves are the least of your worries, because once you hit the middle game, if your opponent has a plan and you don't, you're at a disadvantage, that's the biggest advantage of studying openings.

@Devil_fish said in #35:

... - remember the "the opera game"? Morphy's
opponent blundered in the opening, it was a beginner
mistake and Morphy could attack whatever he wanted ...
A little known detail: About a decade before that game, Staunton had warned his readers against 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Bg4 ...

@kindaspongey said in #38:

A little known detail: About a decade before that game, Staunton had warned his readers against 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Bg4 ...
Anyway, Morphy's opponent played very poorly. Even a 1200 rated player have better play than that. Allowed an "easy" tactic in the beginning with queen.

@Devil_fish said in #35:

To be good at poker it can be a good statepoint to be a mathematican...calculate pot odds and whatever...But it means nothing if you have bad gutfeeling and are bad at bluff. Just like chess, you can be a openingsjunkie...but if i know how to consolide well in the opening i can win many times aginst you if im a better chessplayer in general. U cant sacrifice a piece/pieces if there is no follow up or the opponent are good positional....Example Tal seemed to be addicted to saq, and many times he won games with it. But if he played today he would lost more games because these days players are much stronger positionally than old days...remember "game of the century"? Fischer played very well but his opponent Byrne played like he was 900 rated player..so the game looked like it was spectacular, but it wasnt because Byrne played poorly....another poorly opponent - remember the "the opera game"? Morphy's opponent blundered in the opening, it was a beginner mistake and Morphy could attack whatever he wanted...it was example a free rook there...
So till the end openings means a lot but it dondt means everything.

You are highly underestimating Tal. Many of his sacrifices would at least lead to threefold repetition if, and only if, the opponent walked a tightrope line. He has one of the 3rd highest unbeaten streak in chess history among the best players. This was before computers were memorized to make your first 20 or so moves. He did not play some boring top level berlin or equivalent draws.

I also think a little discussed factor is it seems like he was an expert in the opponents feel. If the technical best move gives 0.0 evaluation and there is a sacrifice that gives you a -.02 evaluation and your opponent has to be a machine to find it is that really a better move than if one plays a subpar move that one is very confident to lead to a win? I would argue that if someone has a great understanding of there opponent; For instance a computer that is tuned to find the trickiest move that keeps the draw in hand that computer would have a higher rating than an objectively perfect moving machine. (against imperfect opponents)

We also see this from the best players all the time. They play a move that isn't bad enough to lose but that they are confident their opponent is not likely to be able to handle with the same precision.

Fischer is second best of all time in my opinion. Tal was 4-2-5 against him. Of course Fischer was young in many games but one does not win with bad sacrifices vs Fischer even young Fischer.