Openings are/ are not/ important??

So I go to see about lessons and he says "What do you want to emphasize?" I said that I wanted to work on openings. He's all, "Openings aren't important, just stick to the basic principles. Is there anything else you need help with?"

I said that I wanted to learn how to prepare for a game.

He goes, "Make sure you get a good night's rest, and be sure to study your openings as well as you can."

I am baffled by this.

Opening theory has gotten so indepth it's annoying. The problem is a lot of people want to study opening theory at lower levels, cause lets remember how to win move by move and not play chess. The problem is, you still need a system. I've been playing chess for 5 years competitive and I still do not have a complete opening system. Opening principles are the things you should use to guide past the opening (Avoiding Mistakes), but you still might get confused about the structures and ideas. Ask your coach, if he can help you develop a opening system, based on the ideas rather then the lines to remember.

completely agree with LazyChessPlayer3201....focus on tactics and fun too

Focusing on tactics and fun is a great way to get to -- and remain at -- 1800 elo.

The point of the opening is to give you a plan for the middle game. Think more about where you want your pieces and what you want them to do.

I used to study only openings (it was all I could study) now I only study tactics. Yes, knowing some move order stuff will help you a little, but injecting ideas into a position and recognising weaknesses will win you games.

Look at opening you will play, then look at what your trying to accomplish. Because all your move orders go right out the window if your opponent doesn't play along -- they never do lol

I tried studying how to make plans in the middle game, but the videos and books were all based on you know, mainline openings. So, there was an explanation for the benko gambit type structure, and they explained the plan for black was to take positional control of the queenside, for example. But in these cases,none actually showed how to come up with a plan in the midflegame for those who don't study openings.

I recommend trying to play 2 or 3 good moves at least before you reach move 80.

The problem is that you'll never be a "good" chess player without memorizing the first 15 moves of every opening and response. I understand what Bobby Fisher says when he says "chess is boring" now, because, even though im a low rated player, I understand how less "creative" chess would be at the higher level.

Chess960/Bughouse seem like they would be more exciting games than chess at the highest levels.

To say that there are "billions of moves" you can play in the first 5 moves is simply inaccurate since most of those billions of moves would be material or positional blunders. The fact remains that you can only really play ~5 moves or less at any one time in high level chess.

Play against a computer that does "random" moves. You'll see how bad it really is and how nonsensical it would be to think that you have very many options for moves in high level chess.

So true. I had a mild rant about the poor quality of opening instructional material (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/idea-for-opening-books-desired-next-move), and I still maintain that all existing learning material is lousy compared to what it could be. Fine's book, which is commonly recommended, is better than most, but still is greatly lacking. I once bought a book of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match that had *every* move described, as far as plan, tactics, opening, etc., and I really liked it. If only there were more books like it.

I keep extensive files on my own opening repertoire, and I'm in the process of filling in plans and motivations, pros and cons, stats, and names for virtually all moves. I did that once before but it was in a poor format, so now I'm concentrating on a consistent, workable, and comprehensive format. I'll be posting examples when my files get to a nice, static stage, but I'm so busy at the moment filling in new lines that I haven't yet mastered many of them, although I have mastered a few right up into the endgame such that I can predict with extreme accuracy what will happen right up to the draw.

If you don't study openings and are going to rely on guiding principles then at least get a copy of "Encyclopedia Of Chess Miniatures" (Chess Informant).

I don't have a copy myself yet (but it's on my to do list).

Personally I don't find being hammered in the first ten moves much fun... 

Openings...sigh.

So much of it depends on what level you are at and what sort of chess you want to play.

Obviously a 1200 player doesn't have to study openings the way a 2200 player does. On the way to 2200, however, the improving player will study openings more and more.

But what the right mix of opening study vs tactics, endgames, etc. at the various levels might be is not clear and probably varies from player to player.

Your coach might be generally against opening study or it might be he doesn't consider openings your best use of his time as a coach.

openings are not that important at lower levels,  in fact you do not need any opening at the 1400-1600 level if you can handle tactics and end games.  All you need to do in opening is play sound moves on principles and do not fall for cheap tricks.  If you must, just spend a couple days in read up on the opening books, but do not spend alot of time preparing your openings.

Who was the person you went to see about lessons?    I actualy agree with him about openings.  If you are a master or above i can understand the need for studying openings.  But if you are a class player, then way to much emphasis is placed on openings. 

I hear kids at tournaments going on how they know the <insert opening here> 15...20+ moves deep, but they drop pieces, have no idea how to formulate a middlegame plan, and have no idea how to play endings. 

Just follow the opening principles - control the center, develop towards the center, castle, connect your rooks. 

Wahtever openings you do play, learn the basics behind them - why am i making the move im making?  Pawn structures, etc.

Study tactics...tactics...tactics.  Get a good middlegame book like: Chess Training for Post-beginners: A Basic Course in Positional Understanding.

I've been studying using chess mentor quite a bit here lately, and I'm getting a lot better. I think I'm starting to understand how to look at a position early in the game and see what should be done. I'm sure that I don't pick the 'best' moves but for me and the people I play at my level, nobody knows how to take advantage of that fact. I think if i were to spend my time stuffing my head with a bunch of memorized openings 20 or more moves deep with all of the enless variations instead of trying to understand chess concepts, I would be a worse player... Like what is the benefit of knowing what you or your opponent "should have played" if you don't know why? Who cares what the 25th move of the yadayada variation of the Nimzo-african defense is if you don't even understand why the 5th move was the most "accurate"? In my humble opinion, memorizing openings would be a waste of time for me and anyone else at my level because I'm just not going to play whay you're expecting because I don't have it memorized :oP

But I would add though, that I assume if I can ever play like a 2000 level player, by that time I would be able to understand the nuances in the different openings enough to make studying them relavent. But even then, simply "understanding" should lead you to making accurate moves anyway, no? so wouldn't you end up playing the right variations - even if you might not know what they are called by people who have them memorized?

Carlsen has convinced me that chess success is not knowing opening theory. Having said that, the old way of study pre-computers works even better in the computer era; i.e., take your favorite player's games, start from early in his/her career, play over each game move by move, guessing the next move. This is a sure way to discover the player's approach to opening, middle games, and typical endgames resulting from those openings.

After getting down your favorite player's opening systems, you can climb higher on the ratings charts by following the games in Informant from early days of the opening and the improvements year by year.  This does take a long time, but it is the most scientific way to understand tabiyas.

So, I would say understanding tabiyas is the best way to chess mastery.

So I just tried to join a group on learning openings from the Dan Heisman Learning Center. I told them that I haven't studied the opening and want to learn. I got denied! ? Is there no good way to learn the opening?

I think what I mean is development. I want to study how different schemes of development lead into plans for the middle game.

I use unconventional openings. Check out my last few blitz games...

Why did the chess.com compuer analysis give this a ?? rating for my move on 28. Re7+ then the computer said I should 31. Nxa7+ Kd8 which is wrong:

28. Re7+?? ( 28. Rxa7 Nc7 29. f7+ Kf8 30. fxg8=Q+ Kxg8 31. Rxc7 fxg3 ) ( 28. Re7+ Kd8 29. Nc6+ Kc8 30. f7 Rf8 31. Nxa7+ Kd8 )