Chess Theory, do you learn it ? How far do you go ?

Until you get to maybe 1500-1600 (maybe even 1800), focus on being able to intuitively know what good moves there are to play, without worrying about memorizing moves.

After you get to those ratings, though, games will be decided not by who blunders first or makes the most mistakes, but by who makes the most "best" moves vs. who makes more "good" moves. This is when you start learning theory, where you learn the best moves for different lines, and it becomes a contest who can play "best" moves the longest (though "best" in this case doesn't necessarily mean the chess.com engine's definition).

Sharp openings require memorization. In quiet lines it's more important to understand the middlegame themes your opening is leading to.

But there's another piece to the puzzle here. In a sense it's as you say, strong players are constrained by good moves. But learning about these moves (not just memorizing them) eventually leads to understanding deeper ideas about chess itself that you can use in many positions. Particularly when you understand an opening move in the context of the middlegame its leading to.

For example in the game you shared 6.e5 was a tactical mistake, but it also violated some basic principles, such as minimizing the number of pawn moves in the opening and focusing on finishing development. There's also the basic idea that the more pawns move forward, the more vulnerable they become, particularly when there's a lack of development.

In other words your opponent could have avoided 6.e5 on principle without having memorized anything... but also these principles are learned more fully when a player has put some work into the opening and discovered what's good and bad.

As for freedom to choose, yes, in a sense the better you get the less free you are. But just as a painter is constrained by the canvas, or a musician is constrained by their instrument, creativity is creating something beautiful within those constraints. In most positions there are many equally good moves in the sense that the true evaluation (win, loss, draw) is preserved. Players choose between them based on preference, knowledge, even beauty.

I understand what you mean, but I feel like the only way to have a clue about intuitively knowing what good moves are in the first place is to learn/memorize what are these moves in the first place. As much as I want to believe in my intuition, there are concepts that will go over my head and that I won't understand until I see them in action. It's like you need to play stronger players to see how it's like and you can't really in my opinion get a feel for it until you're playing like 2300+ rated opponents and feel your entire positional game collapse before you even loss a single pawn.

There's this point where tactics cannot save you anymore because you're too positionally behind your opponent and you're stuck learning the chess theory just to keep up long enough with them. I feel like on the contrary, it's almost mandatory on long term because I believe knowing this will get you to the 1500+ because it will save you time on finding the best moves and you'll have a better general picture of what to do at any point. I definitely believe there's going to be a wall with either tactics/calculations or positional knowledge/theory if one side is developped while the other is neglected and it's probably why a lot of players are stuck at a certain rating.

If that's the case, I'm surprised there's not like groups of players dedicated to practicing specific openings over and over until the like is sharp to the point where you have this buffer of 30-40 memorized perfect moves where if your opponent doesn't follow along, you know you have the advantage. Part of me hopes this is not how chess works. I know you don't need to do this to reach like 1500 rating, but I think most people do to some extent for 2000 and higher.

Well, in the end, chess is not an intelligence test. It's not a creativity test either. It's a skill like anything else. It's a skill like how to repair a car engine, or paint, or play a sport, or dealing with difficult people.

And like any skill there are certain things you practice over and over until you intuitively understand them and/or can do them automatically. The stronger the player, the more work they've probably put into their openings. Not only by doing drills, but also by having played thousands of games over many years.

The idea that your opponent is using their memory and experience to "cheat" (so to speak) might be discouraging, but the same is true for any skill.

Well, this is a game where you're rewarded in thinking time for knowing beforehand how a game is supposed to unfold. In a way, that's as fair as it gets for a skill based game. It's more like a race of grasping as many concepts as possible and pulling it all together in a sequence while playing. There is definitely something beautiful about having a game that flows well or at least maintain an interesting equal position. I don't really see a problem here. I'm just trying to understand what it's like to understand this game in general for what it is.

It's like you need a mix of experience, tactics and chess theory to create this window of opportunity where you can create chess imbalances before your opponent has the time to react to it. I feel like the game will eventually be pushed toward which openings has the highest winning chances odds with white and black and/or doesn't force you into a sharp line where 1 wrong move can ruin everything if we're thinking in "human" terms. Well, not that I need to worry about any of this for the rating I have. It's just that it's always been tricky to conceptualize what you're supposed to do in chess. I've been always seeking for a way to like organize in a step by step manner how to play this game, but sometimes I just don't know. 

Oh, I love thinking about questions like this.

When you say you want to conceptualize what you're supposed to do, do you mean how a person gets better? Or how a game progresses in principle? Or what fundamental elements exist in a position that go into finding a good move? Something else?

I mean, I think the easiest way to figure that out in my case would be to play against me and to ask why I played each move and then look up what the analysis says and figure out why it didn't match the engine moves. Not everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure you have an idea of what's giving you trouble as well. Maybe it's as simple as time management and being able to calculate faster to still win on time. Maybe you play completely differently on certain time control. I just feel like, especially for newer players, having the right mindset while playing the game is really difficult. It can go as far as just looking at someone's rating and be discouraged before even playing the first move. So, building that mindset and having goals to look for seems really important. If you can't identify these things properly, you might feel completely lost playing chess and may stagnate in rating as well. I had more success using chess games as a tool to identify what to study rather than playing this game to "try to win" because you don't just "try to win" and magically become a super GM. Well, if you do, I sure would like to know what you did.

Hmm, I guess everyone's journey is a little different. Thinking about your unique weaknesses and goals is the right approach I think.

holaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

Oh this sounds like quite a lot of resources. I will look it up soon. Thanks !

     Chess theory is important, but at your level specific opening lines are a waste of time if your goal is to become a good chess player. They will help a bit if all you want to do is get a somewhat better blitz rating.

     You will be much better at blitz and rapid if your overall game is stronger. You learn very little from playing hundreds of games so quickly that you have no time to think about what you are doing. The theory you need to learn is more general--opening principles, elements of positional play, and especially endgame technique.

     Play longer time controls so you can learn to analyze and calculate. These are the skills a good player needs. Analyze your games afterwards to see where you went wrong (and what you did right). Realize that if you wish to be a good player some time and effort is required.

Yes.  Lots of resources!   That's on purpose.  Since some may suit your purposes more than others.  Take your time and deal with them when and if you are motivated.  They will always be there for you.

It depends on what you mean by "opening theory" and what you mean by "study." What I consider "real opening study" is something more for 2000+ rating and I have many chess.com friends much stronger than even 2000 and they never got into opening study much. That "real" opening study is what I think of with subtle details like choosing your opening repertoire variations because of little elements like transpositional considerations or statistical winning chances; this kind of study simple isn't useful for the vast majority of chess players. 

Now if you just mean learning the opening lines and basic ideas for variations you play, then I'd start pretty early on but not have it be the focus of your studies. Just experiment to find a solid opening you like which gets you into middlegames you are comfortable with. For the ones you are less knowledgeable with, then just utilize chess opening principles: 

https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/opening-principles-again 

For me, opening theory is a slow process where I build literally move by move in some cases. I essentially play my opening a lot and analyze all my games (as one should be doing anyway) to see where I went astray and especially so when my opponent punishes my opening. Then I realize how they were able to do it and I study a little into the computer recommended continuations I should have played instead (while glancing to see how that compares with "opening theory"). It sounds complicated, but it is actually fairly straight-forward.

I just play what I know, then I inevitably mess up somewhere. I analyze and correct the error or find an improvement and then play that next time. The cycle repeats and I slowly build how deeply I know the openings I play Simply understanding the basic ideas and plans for each side is much more important than memorizing a ton of moves that might not even be played. 

Good luck and feel free to message me if you have any questions, need opening help, or just want to chat chess or something sometime See ya around chess.com

you might be expecting improvement to come about faster than it normally manifests itself, and it's not even winning games that show improvement in your overall understanding of the game. winning can often be a consequence of both sides playing badly and the other person having played worse.

you could say you have improved when you are asking different questions than what you have asked, and that the answers to those question will be more and more intricate and less clear cut.

i would just label it different levels of ignorance for lack of a better term. you start with not knowing what you don't know and then move somewhere long the lines of knowing a bit more about what you don't know and so on.

I think my main issue is that I want to learn in depth multiple openings at once and I'm overwhelming myself with information that I'm just not retaining well enough because I don't study and play enough these positions enough in the first place. To give you an idea, I knew the 10-15 first moves of the caro kann fantasy variation, but since no one plays this against me, I eventually forgot most of it. I'm trying to figure out what I should target in my studying to have the best return possible out of the time investment.

Study tactics, strategy, and endgames (more or less in that order too). Openings are the least important.

For openings memorize the first ~5 moves, and only of the main line. No one will play "proper" openings against you for a while. The opening principles are good enough for any position you don't have something memorized.

Of course you can look up what the proper moves to an opening would have been, after each game... and over time you can learn what's normally played that way. You'll slowly grow your opening repertoire through experience.

But yeah, that's more of an afterthought at your rating, IMO... as you noticed memorizing 10-15 moves is completely pointless.

I think I know how to handle tactics and endgames given enough time with a few exceptions. If you asked me to win an endgame with knight + bishop under 30 seconds, I would most likely fail to deliver even after practicing it, but I know how king opposition works and where to pawn break or how to count squares to see if a king can chase a pawn in time. Strategy is probably the biggest weakness because I strongly believe the entire concept of strategy is to develop a game plan around the imbalance a certain opening gives you. Sure, I can improvise, but the accuracy is almost always going to be weaker because I won't understand as well what the position wanted out of me unless it's a simple plan.