How Important Is Opening Study?

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. I know it depends on the level. But what level have you found it important? 

As long as you aren't getting stomped out of the opening, you should probably focus on other things.

I wasn't getting stomped out of the opening, until my coach looked at some of the stuff I planned to play. God, that was terrifying.

I had never been more terrified than I was yesterday at 11:37 AM as my coach picked apart my reti-benoni (thing) theory

I feel like every part of chess important to some degree, but openings tend to be the most forgiving stage of the game. I guess it depends on what someone considers "opening study." If this means knowing the basic ideas and plans for each side, then even a 1400 should have a basic understanding of this. If opening study means comparing variations and rejecting one due to a transpositional nuance at move 15, then that kind of study isn't probably needed until at least 2000 rating and I know some 2400+ players who admit they still never studied openings much.

Opening knowledge can help you find the right ideas earlier in the game, but you also don't want to turn it into a memorizing session where you just know moves for lines your opponents are unlikely to play at that level. There is value in knowing opening motifs and structures (plans, ideas, patterns etc.), but to what extend is debated as it is probably not as beneficial to study compared to other areas of chess like tactics puzzles, theoretical endgames, middlegame structures and so on. 

Probably until master level chess, I'd imagine opening study of any serious kind helps, but perhaps isn't the most productive use of study time. It is good to know some opening knowledge, but not too deep to the point where it isn't useful whereas other chess topics you study might be useful and serve a practical purpose in your games.

you have a chess coach lol   

We all know how important tactics are. First thing is outplay the opponent in the opening. Then comes the tactical opportunity. Bang! Bang! Bang! It'mate or an easy endgame. That's how important Opening Study.

It's important but to varying degrees in one's progression. But I feel that it becomes more important as one ascends the rating ladder.

In general, you must have good, sound opening principles in hand - but not simply memorising the openings in great detail until you have built a solid foundation on other aspects of chess.

A chess game is, in general, never won by winning the opening phase of the game on its own (excluding players who fall to Fool's mate or some early drastic checkmates). The middlegame and endgame phases have to be handled in a meticulous approach or any advantage derived from the opening phase may evaporate over time.

For me openings are the most fun part of the game

idk there is something to it when u outplay ur opponent by  out theoririzing them

it feels good..hehe

(immediately blunders my queen ;-; )

Ok admittedly ive been lazy to chug down my theory recently ( one of the reasons why my rapid is low compared to blitz and bullet)

but hey ..currently im studying endgames from silman s endgame book and ive come to know that i know nothing about chess

#1
Opening study is not important at all below grandmaster level.
It is a waste of time.
Games are decided by tactical errors, not by the opening.
"Ninety percent of the book variations have no great value, because either they contain mistakes or they are based on fallacious assumptions; just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings." - Capablanca

At my low level, I consider :

• I need to know a couple of solid opening so the game is not lost before it starts. I am fine if the game is equal at the end of the opening.
• I need to know a bit about dubious but tricky openings (especialy when they are popular due to some streamer... Like the Stafford was a couple of monthes ago) so I dont lose the game in ten moves or less.
• I try to play according to opening principles which are important when someone goes for a rare opening. 

Well the openings are like the first bricks to the palace you'll be constructing throughout the game. They determine the power points, the weak spots, open files and diagonals, tactical chances, etc. So yes, a solid foundation is mega-important.

That said, there are so many good openings to choose from. Even something like a Van Geet, Owen's Defense, or Reversed Rat are playable and remain so to the ending. Even if it gets sharp at some points and beginners shouldn't touch them (like they shouldn't touch the Grunfeld and probably many Sicilian lines before deep study). But you need to be aware of where the cracks can start to occur. And you can't just play anything; there are specific opening lines to adhere to or the opening gets refuted in <15 moves and you are crushed.

I find the first 5-10 variations of each chapter of an opening to be usefull at my level. Quickstarter, sidelines and mainlines is what i start with in each book. I try and do 10-15 puzzles everyday ( usually in the woodpecker book) ill work on endgames once a week and drill my openings everyday, i should probably work on endgames more though.

So many different takes — fascinating. What about this. Is it better to play just several openings exclusively and exhaust them? Or would it be better for someone at my rating to switch from my e4 to d4 and my e5 to c5, etc? 

My IM coach told me that I should completely change all of my variations that I normally do so that I branch off. However, I've heard some people say that it's best to jus stick with a few variations. 
Thoughts?

Last summer, I spent a (reasonable) amount of time studying open lines. Abusing Chessable until I was a robotic-opening playing machine. And that ended up working pretty well for me, Good scoring in a lot of my prep, usually okay in the opening, unless in a very uncommon opening that I might have only seen a few times ever.

I've dabbled small amounts in a kaleidoscope of openings, and as an 1. e4 player, I have casual secondaries in 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.b3, etc, with a few rudimentary ideas and systems I'm familiar with. But outside several dozen blitz games and hundreds of bullet matches on a certain unnamable website, I don't play these. The actual plans, pawn structures and, well, understanding of the opening aren't there. They are confusing, vast seas of things I really don't understand. All I have is robotic development schemes forged in 1 minute chess. I wouldn't ever play these other moves in serious games, I'm just not good enough to get decent positions without theory and real experience.

I think being well prepped in your most mainline opening is worth it. Being familiar with tricky gambits or sidelines is worth it. There's usually far more things going wrong in the middle game, and the time trouble of the endgame. Study and practice in those situations always seems to be this shiny thing that I dream about doing, but never actually do. 

Both approaches are OK. I personally play many different openings.

I think the interesting question really is what does it mean exactly to "overstudy theory"... 

For example I enjoy expanding my knowledge in the Polerio Defense and learn challenging and counter-intuitive "holding on to the pawn as white" ideas. Most people will want to deviate to cause havoc or play direct Qf3 lines but I enjoy the weird and ugly looking Bd3 stuff... 

In that specific opening I feel it makes sense for me to expand deeper and learn more ideas to be prepared for anything Black throws at me, because I see that these lines do occur in my games and that opponent seems to know deeper than I do... so I looked at Wesley So's course on this line. 

However, against Phildor Defense, Petroff, and other examples - I feel no need to know anything more than a few ideas branching out from move 2 and 3... I'm OK with just playing it, failing sometimes and analyzing to fix it my own way...

So my bottom line is - the art of opening study is to develop the intuition and understanding of what are the openings you need to study main lines (or venomous deviations) in, and in which cases you are fine with purposely leaving book at move 2 - 4 and just playing (as your game plan)

Both approaches are good..depends on what u like the best 

1. Study everything and slowly increase ur rating by improving ur overall understanding 

2. Study 1 opening and get really good at it so that nobody can challenge ur knowledge in it and improve ur rating drastically ...

both have drawbacks as well as benefits so its all about preference...

drawbacks of 1st approach

u wont get immediate rating boost and u wont have very deep knowledge in any opening and u r mainly a positional player 

drawbacks of 2nd approach 

players can easily prepare against u and u r showing clear sign of  weakness by having preferences..

"Having preferences means having weakness" Magnus Carlsen

I honestly almost only study openings now