@A-Cielbleu I'm not sure I agree with your analysis entirely. I believe the whole thing was due to a misunderstanding; it seems to me that the IM thought the original poster was claiming to be an opening expert (which is not the case), which, to a titled player, I'm assuming would be very insulting. That being said, I do believe the reaction was a bit harsh.
#1 There is an endless list of "Opening Theoreticians" in the history of Chess. These people specialize in opening theory and analysis. You are in good company, with such players as Reti. Try and explore every opening there is. It is up to you to find the openings you like. Perhaps openings that suit your style of play. There are also players, who are middle or end game theoreticians. :]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_theory Why not being an expert or a technician, despite a low level.
Working, studying openigs is a real challenge.
Leaning by heart every variation is an option
Knowing GMI players who are real experts, always playing the same opening.
Remembering a variation played in a tournament
Being aware of the last discoveries and trends
Learning the middle game pawns structures after the 10-15th move
Having a good point af view of the end game
May be 2 hours a day would'nt be enough !!
Probably a good chunk of the players that end up below e.g. 2000 indefinitely would be considered 'opening technicians.' Read a book, play with lines on a board using a computer, look at old games. It's fun and easy, and you can visibly quantify what you're learning. Compared to the grind work that it takes to actually improve, it's a joy. And so many people get stuck doing nothing but that. And anybody can indeed do it. For some time Nakamura actually had (has?) an amateur second, Kris Littlejohn.
But it seems to me that professional level opening study is dying at the same time it's become more important than ever. What I mean is that everybody now can get instant advice on any positions from machines far stronger than any individual will likely ever be. And that gap is only increasing. So the meta seems to be becoming much more defensive than offensive.
For instance I think most would probably agree that the sicilian is objectively black's strongest defense against e4, yet it's also entails a lot of risk and is subject to counter-preparation. And so its popularity seems to have sharply declined at the top levels, whereas not that long ago it was 'the' opening of champions. People don't want some amazing novelty in the najdorf. They want to get a position where they don't have to worry about their opponent's computer analyzed novelty in the najdorf! The Carlsen-Caruana match will be phenomenally interesting to see this meta play out.
I can only think of Fisher and Kasparov who played regularly the Najdorf tbh. I don't think it was the case for other world champions ? (i may be wrong).
Plus isn't the berlin defense objectively the strongest opening for black against e4 ?
Anand, Topalov, even Kramnik, and really most of all top playersin the modern era have played it as more than an occasional weapon. The only big exception I can think of is Karpov.
But maybe the Berlin Defense is a better illustration. It actually scores quite poorly. In my database white is scoring near 58.9% after 4. O-O and 59.9% after 4. d3. By contrast in the Najdorf white is only scoring 51.7% after 6. Bg5, and black is already ahead (48.8%) after 6. Be2. The Sicilian is literally the sole reason some players swapped to d4, Karpov being an example there as well.
Yet the Berlin is now incredibly popular. And I think that's in large part because of this phenomena of openings becoming simultaneously more important and less relevant than ever. You don't get the objective strength of a sicilian in a berlin, but you get positions that offer both players a little something something and less chances of ending up in a groundbreaking novelty that leaves you practically helpless over the board. In the sicilian you may get objectively better chances, but at the same time you get these very rich, very dynamic positions where major novelties are ever coming.
i don't understand. if you like openings, you can only like the middle game too because this is the result of your previous choices.
only the endgame should be less enjoyable for you but there is a beauty in it. you can find it if you try;)