Don't Study Openings

#14
It depends. If you play someone of similar strength, just as you might not know how to punish every inaccuracy your opponent will not put up the most stubborn defence. Understanding the opening will be an advantage, not a disadvantage.

How much of your study time you should allocate to openings is another question entirely and depends on your level and what you are struggling with. If you play e3-Ke2-Ke1 against everything you might want to revise that opening repertoire before you play the next GM-norm tournament.

That being said, openings are usually getting more attention than they deserve, but knowing them is not useless and understanding them is even better.

@pawnaway, of course is not useless if you wish to win strong tournaments against GMs. But this topic doesn't refer to such powerful players. Not at all.
Learning the basics first seems to be much better.

I think studying openings can be very helpful, because if you just do what seems sensible to you, you might fall into something. You can't get to the middlegame or endgame without the opening.

#22
My initial point was that it makes sense to be balanced in your training. Not in time spent per topic, but in relation to your overall skill level.

When starting out training tactics makes more sense than training openings, but very soon it will be useful to learn a little bit of openings. Not a lot, but like put a pawn in the centre, develop, castle and so on. Maybe a sample line of something as well. Not 25 moves in the Najdorf when you don't know that rooks are usually better than knights.

@pawnaway, it seems to me that "pawn in centre, develop, castle and so on" is not opening theory related but chess general principles. Nothing unusual. To study openings is something radically different, much more than the basics. And by the way, if we are to talk about general principles, some players of old didn't share the same enthusiastic view about "pawn in centre", on the contrary, they believe that occupying the centre later, in the middle-game, is much better. So much about rules and exceptions, coaching and misleading, dogmatics and narrow views. 1.e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 and so on, it is called Alekhine's Defence, no pawn in centre at all for black, moving twice the same piece in the opening- it was regarded as a huge blunder, you know? So, what is the point of studying complicated variations when one doesn't understand the purpose of 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ng8, which is very much playable. Isn't it?

Regardless of ELO, any player need to know the role of pieces and typical moves at the opening stage. As well, there are many popular openings like Sicilian where move order is important. As well, even lower rated players should recognize which variation they can play without getting into big trouble. Classical example: lower rated 1. e4 players which play Bowdler attack against Sicilian and after some inaccurate moves lose bishop.

The idea is simple: when you are low rated, don't be afraid to play whatever comes to your mind, because sooner or later the experience will teach you the sense of general rules, including openings. Play by the book from the beginning and you'll never understand the complicated process of creating good moves.

You must be tpr!

@Sarg0n
Who is tpr? Lol

I will beat you in a classical otb for sure 😁😁