Does anyone NOT study openings?

Hola,

I've been playing chess for about 18 months now and I never even think about learning openings.  I just play what feels appropriate.  It's all based on the opponents moves.  Im rated a 1520 on chess.com.  i dont know if thats good but i see alot more people rated lower than higher than me.  maybe many of you need to leave the openings alone and just play the game.

Get your bishops and horses out there in the center and you'll be fine : )

Just my thoughts,

-Sensuinaga

You are completely correct.

I remember vaguely a story about a master (probably international) giving exhibition matches in Russia. He went to one of his other master friends and said something about him being really worried, all the players were doing very well. The friend said not to worry, as soon as the players get out of the opening phase, they will be clueless. And surprise surprise, they all lost quickly after they ran out of book moves!

The moral of the story is simple. Sure, you can learn hundreds of opening lines to perfection. But why would you want to? Just learn the principles, maybe one or two of your favourite lines, and move on to more important areas, like your middlegame plan.

It will get you much further.

i dont study openings :)

I HATE STUDY OPENINGS... IT IS MY VERY WORST WEAKNESS...BUT I LIKE TO GET IN TROUBLE AND FIGHT HARD TO SOLVE THE POSITIONS WHERE I AM ALMOST LOST...

Although I think there are many benefits to studying openings, and I mean learning the plans, but I'll admit it's not as much of a priority as other things when it comes to chess improvement. But really the reason I study openings alot is because it's so damn fun, in the nimzo you see white fight for the bishop pair, in the french black breaks down a pawn chain, etc, I just love thematic ideas. And I think it's greatly helped my strategy. There is always a philosophy behind every opening, even a bad move like h4 (to try to confuse the opponent). On the other side there are freaks who like to find novelties in sharp positions ( I feel that's for the grandmasters, not amateurs), which is not really what I do, but still analyzing the tactics of an opening as well is quite fun.

I think that was Mikhail Tal.

Based on my limited experience here so far I would have to say that most people do not study openings and I hope they never do. I am probably 100 points higher than I should be because some people think they should try to hang onto the pawn in the QGA.

Even better, according to computer analysis many times I come out of the opening with a solid advantage and I get to practice applying pressure in the middle game.

My guess is that higher rated players give this advice out so they can always have a good start to their middle game and an easier time in tournaments. 

Depends what you're playing... a good KIA player knows boatloads of theory AND ideas.  The ruy exchange requires some knowledge of theory but is largely about ideas... the nimzo can be played up until the superGM level without too much theory...

All depends.  I think some knowledge of theory is a requirement. Period.

Possibly slightly stronger than International Master then. 

I have won plenty of games (upwards of 10) on theory alone, and often against good players. Tal said before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game. News flash---Before the middle game the gods have placed the opening and if you can't play it correctly you may not get to see middle game.

I study openings all the time. Alex Shabalov once told me that every part of the game (limited not just to op/mid/endgames but also psychology etc.) is equally important and openings are no exception. I am constantly rewarded for knowing my openings better than my opponents because my middlegame positions are better or easier to play. I don't get into trouble against tricky openings and I'm guaranteed to play at least into the middle or endgame.

Why not learn the openings as a springboard for the rest of the game? If you know why you're making the moves you're making and they're connected (presumably) to some later-game strategy you can predict middlegame positions (IQP, eg) or endgame structures (eg the French pawn chain f7-e6-d5). There are lots of ways in which studying openings is useful.

Mischaracterizing studying openings as "memorizing endless reams of rote variations" is common; if you're memorizing them mindlessly then your problems are bigger than not knowing openings, you just don't know how to study chess!

And I love it when I play the QGA and get to keep the pawn. What's better than an assured win after 10 moves? So many times I see the variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dc 3.Nc3 a6 4.a4?! Nc6 5.e3 Na5 -/+ and I'm a pawn ahead by move 5. It's not so difficult to hold on to, either. So to all of those who choose not to study openings, by all means challenge me on the live server and I will be more than happy to pit my openings knowledge against your whatever-else knowledge.

Yes although it's not required to study lots of theory beyond ideas, it certainly gives you some advantages in practical play. Maybe it's just a different apporach to the game that works equally well. If you're at the level where you know how to nurse advantages (material and positional) then sure opening knowledge can be very useful to show how you get to those positions. And that point where you "know how to convert" comes before 2000 I would think, although of course the converting skill is still far from perfect, but good enough, especially if he is playing other people who aren't perfect defenders either. But learning openings intelligently is simply fun to me, and annotating a thematic master game for each variation yourself is great practice once you're good enough to at least guess why a master played a certain move with plenty of thought.

It's simply not true that knowing opening theory is useless, especially when it comes to games lasting a couple of hours. There are many players at even average rating can keep an advantage from openings until the endgame quite often without any mistakes that can be exploited by his opponent.

People think slight opening advantages are unimportant because they play too much blitz where all kinds of blunders are made. They should try real chess for a change where random blunders are not the reason for the outcome of the game.

Also, opening knowlege is not only learning variations, even if that helps. You need to understand the opening. That means understanding where each peice goes, what it does and how the plan into the middle game works. If you do not know this you will just play aimless chess hoping for some tactical blow to ensure you a win, a blow that might not come if you're playing slower chess.

Capablanca didn't.

And Alekhine did. He even made much new theory.

I just don't like the idea of giving my opponent "opening odds", if that makes sense to you wagerers out there.

When I was a kid playing in tournaments I got to 1850 FIDE without knowing a thing about openings or strategy. I got into bad positions from the opening and learned a lot from fighting my way out of them. I kicked some butt with crazy kingside attacks and good tactical calculation.

I then grew up, got a job, had kids, forgot about chess.

On coming back to the game I thought, "wouldn't it be good if I could use my skills to fight back from an even position or a better position?" I learned a few openings and read a few books on strategy and, although some of my calculating ability has disintegrated along with my beer-soaked braincells, I am a much better player.

You say: "beer-soaked braincells" like its a bad thing.  

He was showing-off. Capa's openings were deep and sound, that "I never had a chessboard at home" thing was just a nice line to feed to the astonished public.

It's only bad if I make my moves while they are soaking.