Please note for my other comment that it was all based on a few masters opinion and not really studied in at or university or anything or by scientist.
What rating can you comfortably reach without touching openings?
Sort:
Reb wrote:
chessmaster102 wrote:
1600ish OTB and thats if your really really good. I saw this question asked before on a more professional level and the new average without openings is reaching 1100ish or slightly below (Class E) before the 1980's it was 900 or so (Class F)
you post reall fasti Just started typing my other comment and the second I pushed submit I saw this your speed isnt hogwash thats 4 sure .
chessmaster102 wrote:
1600ish OTB and thats if your really really good. I saw this question asked before on a more professional level and the new average without openings is reaching 1100ish or slightly below (Class E) before the 1980's it was 900 or so (Class F)
Do you mean the rating one can expect to reach without playing any moves that have published theory around them? If that's the case then I expect the only way to do that is to not play as people have theory about everything these days.
But if you really believe that one can only get to such a low level without serious opening study, I'm here to tell you that you're decidedly wrong and there's plenty of counter-factual examples at every chess club in the world.
1100 is certainly too low. The opening can't have the slightest importance when you hang pieces several time per game, something wich occasionally happens also to a roughly 1600 fide player like me (in fact i have not an official rating but i score about 50% against players with a rating around 1600 fide; here on chess.com i'm 1900). There's no way opening study is going to gain you even a single rating point at 1100 level.
It seems that there are two different questions being debated here. First, how high can the average person get without studying openings; and, second, how far can a very talented player get without studying openings. I think a very talented player might get to 2000 or higher. The average person would have trouble making it to 1200.
Well, in the case of a player having trouble making it to 1200, that player would struggle to make it to 1200 regardless of how much theory he knows. Knowing theory really doesn't matter at that level.
from personal experiance for 1450 to 1550 even quit after that cause I thought it was.... almost not fun to have to study to get better at chess. after some years I dug back into chess and plugged my personal favorite type responces or opening and learned what they were. I immediately learned some irrequivocally err'd. and with each new thing I learned (read and understood and actually put into gameplay despite it not being the I "like" to play) my rating would increase slightly. If you play at real high level you really got put in some work there are plenty out there that do!
Personally I'm a virgin and I find myself stuck and unable to get over 1300 both in live and turn-based chess. if this really does effect my chess game I'll have to consider using some openings.
Jan 3, 2012
0
#31
Memorizing openings isn't very helpful to anybody. You have to understand opening principles and the ideas behind specific openings, or you will be lost when your opponent goes out of book.
To answer the OP's original question, which I interpreted as "How high of a rating is possible to achieve without any opening study?", I would guess about 2000-2200 for two reasons. The first is that openings aren't very important until you are a strong player, and the second is that a strong player will be able to come up with good ideas over the board, without the need to study.
Jan 3, 2012
0
#32
I've played in a few themed tournaments that have virtually no theory. 1...the creepy crawly and, 2...the crab. Both openings give black an advantage, especially the crab, with white playing 1.a4 and 2.h4. MY POINT is that the stronger players still win with both white and black. An example is:- chess.com/tournament/danas-weird-crab-tournament
Secondly, just switch off the opening book on any chess computer/engine and see how much difference it makes. A super grandmaster would still rate 2200+ even if forced to open with 1. a3, 1.h3, a4, or h4.
streetfighter wrote:
On a more serious note, the Peruvian GM Julio Granda Zuniga reached 2600 despite claiming to have never owned or read a book. (Can't rememebr if he used a database or not?!).
In a copy of Chess it was noted how he went in to a long think after 1. d4 d5; 2. c4 Nc6, as he'd never seen it before (he said). He was in the top 20 in the world at time, as I recall.
Yes, from what I've heard titled players say, they still have tons of holes in their game (of course when I play them, they seem nearly perfect to me so I woudln't know myself 
)
So I assume if you're nearly prefect in the other two phases (i.e. better than any player alive today) that improvising your openings with that immense inhuman skill to back you up wouldn't be too much of a handicap. e.g. CM streetfighter said Karpov beat him with a non-opening.
People seem to consider opening studies tedious, but that isn't quite true. What's true is that rote learning is tedious and unhelpful. Therefore, modern opening books not only explain the ideas behind the variations, they most of all have annotated example games. This way we can see what the typical middle game plans are. I'd recommend to not delay opening studies for too long. Openings are part of chess and, if done right, building one's opening repertoire can be fun!
sarsaila wrote:
I think this is not true. For instance, I was always able to get a decent game against many strong players (an IM once, not in simul) by playing 1. e4 c5 2. c3. If I don't know an opening in detail, I don't venture into crazy/sharp lines. You can't be too wrong by making sound developing moves if you are unable to devise a proper plan for that opening.
Not to be rude at all, but I'd like to hear the IMs commentary of your opening moves and who stood better going into the middlegame 
You disagree with Reb, who's comment draws on decades of tournament experience, because of one (or a few) blitz game you played on ICC? Just making sure I understand.
Jan 4, 2012
0
#39
Over 2000. My opening knowledge has been my weakest area throughout my entire chess career, and the few openings that I know in depth are because I've played them before and looked them up after my games. Having very strong tactics can take you over 2000 quite easily; you would be surprised (this is for a lower player) over some relatively simple mistakes that experts and low-masters still make, especially when they get low on time.
1600ish OTB and thats if your really really good. I saw this question asked before on a more professional level and the new average without openings is reaching 1100ish or slightly below (Class E) before the 1980's it was 900 or so (Class F)