Deconstructing "Openings don't matter"

I've often heard people say "openings don't matter," and it frankly annoys me as openings obviously do matter. In this post I'm deconstructing why "opening's don't matter" is a wrong statement, but ultimately well intentioned. 

First a GM Ben Finegold clip expressing exactly just this sentiment, so people know I'm not tilting at strawmen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPIMRMl0guA&t=2s

Reason 1 Openings Matter: Games are decided by tactics, but tactics flow from position and ultimately the opening

This one is a bit of a double for why people say openings don't matter, but they actually do. This is the most common refrain for why openings don't matter, is that games are decided by tactics not openings and it's absolutely true. Even if you're a strong positional player and get a dominant positional advantage it's well known you need tactical sequences to finish the game. Thing is the reverse is also true. Tactics flow from strong positions, and blunders flow from weak positions. Positions start to be established in the opening. Play trash like the bongcloud and good luck getting winning tactics unless you're playing people who are otherwise way below your level. 

Reason 2 Openings Matter: Openings set the tone and style for the game

In the advanced French after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6.a6, black has a big decision completely close the board with c4, or maintain the tension and semi-open game with Nh6, or start to open the game with f6. The three moves will lead to wildly different transformations of the position and different styles of games. Players, especially weaker players, have preferences for which positions they are comfortable with (closed, open, symmetrical, unbalanced) and can play well. 

Reason 3 Openings Matter: All three phases of the game matter to your level

Your level is a composite of all the things that go into winning a chess game. Play worse in the opening, need to play better in the middlegame and endgame to make up for it. Play better in the opening and you can be a little weaker in other phases of the game. In the above clip Ben Finegold says "if you're 1500 and start the game h3 Rh2, it won't matter." I will counter any 1500 that starts h3 Rh2 is almost certainly stronger in other aspects of the game than other 1500s. Converting to a reasonable opening might raise them to say 1550 or even 1600, because they don't start every game behind. 

So why, if openings obviously matter do players (especially strong players like GM Ben Finegold) say openings don't matter? Well I think there are several good reasons for why this mistaken phrase is often repeated in chess circles.

Reason 1 People Say Openings Don't Matter: Memorizing opening moves does not make you better at chess

It seems a common trap for new players is they try to play the "best opening" and memorize all the best moves. The problem is eventually you will be out of book (if you can successfully memorize all variations of chess then a) you're not human, and b) congrats on becoming world champion) and have to play chess. If you don't understand your moves when your opponent plays a bad off-book move you won't have the faintest clue how to punish it. Furthermore time spent memorizing openings can be far better spent training other aspects of chess or just gaining experience by playing the game. 

Reason 2 People Say Openings Don't Matter: Openings don't win games, playing the opening well, just means you have a good position 

In a recent Gotham Guess the elo video, Levy made the comment "Ok, you've successfully played the Fried Liver, now you have to do the hard part and actually play chess" The only time openings decide a game are when people fall into massive traps that either result in early mates or material losses that can't be recouped. Otherwise playing an opening well just gives you an advantage you'll eventually have to convert. If you aren't strong enough in other aspects of the game, you won't convert that advantage. 

Reason 3 People Say Openings Don't Matter: It's fairly easy to be ok out of the opening

People hate on the London system and the Scandinavian, but the reasons these two openings are popular is that they're both ways to "get a game" with minimal theory. A lot of strong players advice to new players is "Don't worry about openings, just develop your pieces," and this is honestly good enough in a wide array of openings. 

So there you have it. Why openings do matter, but well-intentioned people say they don't. 

I don’t think openings matter much in terms of which you choose until the highest of levels. They pretty much all, statistically do the same (with some exceptions). I’ve shown the stats a zillion times that the King’s Gambit (often called trash) does as well as the Queen’s Gambit (often called great).

So which one doesn’t matter that much. This is NOT the same thing as studying openings doesn’t matter. Pick an opening, any opening… just know it well.

I agree many openings are practically equivalent (or close enough) at the levels of chess most of us play at.

I disagree that opening choice doesn't matter. I think it's important to choose an opening that you like and suits your chess preferences. Although eventually you may want to play one that will force you to expand your horizons and work your weaknesses. 

 

I play the King’s Gambit because it’s hard, you’re in danger every game, you have to think about every move, every game is different, and almost all of them are fun. Others just want an easy game and want to have to think as little as possible. Some people play openings because they are full of traps and they like to score easy wins against noobs. Still others want to play what their favorite players play or because someone said it was the best. One could argue that some are better than others for whatever reason (pedagogical, safety, tactical opportunities, positional strength, etc.), but if winning is your metric, that’s not going to change a lot.

Also, don’t play the London—it causes impotence.

this clearly false piece of advice is often given as a warning to beginning and weaker club players who may feel overwhelmed and since they dont know how to divide their time, go for the one aspect of the game they have easiest control of and see substantial difference in when they deepen it/switch it up. (at least in the short term)

There is no real answer to the initial question because it depends on numerous factors including a player's level, the time he has to study, etc...

I see people have been mostly talking about lower-level players, which is still vague (how much? which rating system?), but I guess it would be important to pick an opening you like, that's simple and doesn't require hours of study and pre-understanding of many positional concepts (like the Sicilian).

But overall, of course, openings matter, mainly for the reasons stated above but some people think it's memorizing 30 moves including 30 branches, and that's just not it for everybody.

!00% on everything in the O.P.

What you say is not nonsense, but it misses the point in a couple of ways.

First of all, Finegold is always joking. When he is somewhat serious (like here) then he is half-joking.

Second, he is trying to teach his twitch followers, who are all under-1000 players (most are a LOT under 1000). At this level, every player blunders 5 pieces every game. If you can reduce this to 2 blunders per game, you start winning. That is the only thing that matters. If you change your opening and still blunder 5 pieces, nothing happens.

Here is proof openings do not matter.

Take the good side of the worst opening you can think of: 1 e4 f5? or 1 d4 g5? and play it against an engine. The engine will destroy you despite the bad opening imposed on it.

It is better to play a bad opening well than to play a good opening badly.

you can play according to sound opening principles without memorizing theory... my stats are an average of 1700 & i think the one time i clicked on opening explorer was by accident.

my approach for improvement has been to target & eliminate weaknesses in my game, while constantly increasing my tactical strength with 11,000 puzzles.

when i determined that my planning was inferior, i took 1,000 strategy lessons.  after that it seemed like my endgames needed some work, so i went through the whole endgame trainer program provided here.

next area for advancement will probably be sorting out my opening repertoire, but i became a decent competitor by raising my overall level, rather than smirking at my deficiencies & regurgitating traps.   

The engine could give you double knight odds and still win. Would that prove knights don't matter? If you study only tactics eight hours a day for the next five years, the engine will still destroy you. Would that prove tactics don't matter? So please explain how your thought experiment proves anything.

all that matters is if you're better than your opponent. doesn't matter how, you just need to win.

He says the same thing every time he has the chance. Regardless of how many times you point out the flaws in his logic, the fact that many leading chess educators disagree with him, no matter how many times you show him games where it clearly mattered, he always says the same thing. His proof is never proof and he's never able to answer objections. It's just dogma at this point.

Agreed, I don't wanna criticize specific members, but this guy's arguments are always illogical.

How many rating points do you think studying openings is worth 100? 200? If you play e4 and just played 1.f4 all year without looking at lines or f4 games, how much would your rating go down?

Depends on the time control. In blitz or lower? My rating would probably be around the same...

in rapid? Still the same... Only really makes a difference in classical where the nuances matter.

Though it is true that changing it up can help... Learning the Vienna + tactics + being a bit underrated already got me from 1400-1600.

It depends on how much you're willing or able to memorize, really. The Chessable course on the Catalan opening, for instance, has like 900 lines in it that are often 15 moves or more deep. If you were capable of memorizing every one of those, which includes so many answers to common mistakes, tactical opportunities, and so many ways to exploit inferior moves and put you in hugely winning situations.... IF you were capable of memorizing all of those, then it would be worth hundreds of rating points. If you could memorize the King's Indian, and all of the Ruy Lopez courses (there are multiple), and knew all of the lines out to 15-20 moves, that would be hundreds for black. So if you were to memorize a deep white opening and a deep black opening for each for each e4 and d4, it would have to be worth up to maybe 1000 rating if you were lower intermediate, and maybe 500 if you were upper intermediate.

But we would be talking over 2000 lines that each run sometimes up to 20 moves deep, and sometimes to overwhelmingly winning positions, and sometimes even to mate.

But that's ridiculously best case scenario and it's hard to imagine that someone who isn't already a GM being able to memorize over 20,000 moves. But if you study it deeply, it's probably worth 100 points. Maybe 200 if you know a LOT.

But if you were to memorize all of those courses, your account would be banned for cheating because you're playing Stockfish top recommendations every game for half the game.

 

I can do the same to a 500 rated player. I play f5 in response to e4 against a player rated my equal in the rapid pool I'm in for a world of hurt. It's probably not instantly fatal, but I'd spend a large fraction of the game trying to recover from my opening choice and would certainly lose more than with my usual c5.  

^^^ This.

In a slow game if you make a mistake your opponent will be able to think about how to punish it. So in a slow game you have to think hard in an unfamiliar opening. Maybe you can figure it out, but it costs time on the clock. Incidentally, this is why opening knowledge spills over into other phases of the game. If two players play the opening equally well, but one plays from memory and the other figures it out from general principles + calculation, then the time saved means the memory player will play the middlegame or endgame "better". Anybody looking at the scoresheet later will conclude somebody "just blundered", which is not the whole story.

In a fast game you just make any old move, and now it's the booked-up player who doesn't have time to figure out how to punish it. So you might get away with it! Of course if you walk into the main line of some book trap, you are doomed....