Do you have to study chess theory?

And you definitely don't have to study theory to become a good chess player.

Chess Theory is not "only" Opening Theory ... There is plenty of Chess theory in the Middlegame & Endgame as well & YOU NEED TO STUDY PLAY PLAY STUDY ... Stop Procrastinating

Actually, when people speak of theory in chess it usually refers to opening theory... and opening theory is way overrated. I wouldn't put positional concepts in the same box. As for endgame we are not looking at theory but proofs.

Nobody is obligated to study chess theory, openings, middle game and endgame. Please don't accuse those who studied of Unfair Play.

@TripHopKniGHts when people say „still theory“ while referring to the move order it means preparation of the opening theory. But at the same time queens might be off the board and 2-3 other pieces and we reached the middle game easily in a well known line.
Words mean different stuff depending on context, what you need to avoid is going back from specific meaning to general while ignoring the context or there will be misunderstandings. And you already knew this that’s why you added „usually“.

Of course tactics and positional concepts are theory, they are certainly not praxis.

For the endgame you invent a new word I’ve never heard in chess context (only math). So when colloquialism suits your argument you refer to that and when it doesn’t you invent new lingo and throw it as a red herring - highly confusing.

Theory is everything. It starts with how the board is set up and how the pieces move. Without theory you can’t even play proper chess.

There are all sorts of varying degrees of attention that one can give to the subject of openings. GM John Emms wrote:
"... For young, inexperienced players, this attack [(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5)] is ... not easy to defend. I've seen this position appear hundreds of times in junior games, and Black often goes astray immediately. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the player with the black pieces losing a rook, or even worse! ... even after [the good move, 4...d5,] Black has to be very careful. ... for now I'm going to recommend [3...Bc5]. ..." (in the 2018 book, First Steps: 1 e4 e5 www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf )
Seems as though it could be helpful to be aware of advice like that.

@TripHopKniGHts said in #11:
> And you definitely don't have to study theory to become a good chess player.

Well, I kindly disagree with this. Opening theory is essential for every single player and determines the type of position that can possibly arise in the various scenarios that are then played out. If you go and think that theory isn't important you are most likely going to play bad moves because of the fact that the human brain can not think of "imaginative ideas in a matter of a couple of minutes. Engines have already shown us what the best moves in a position are and not playing them will most likely result in some kind of inaccuracy or mistake that we humans have overlooked. (This of course doesn't include top-level players). If you play the opening well you'll have a good middle game and endgame, whilst not knowing an opening, will result in several weaknesses and an inability to understand the position which has happened on your game. Opening theory is more about understanding the plans and ideas rather than specific move order, although you do need to know some opening theory, at least 5-7 moves in order to not get in trouble immediately.

I hope this helps and that everyone keeps on studying the openings!

you don't have to study chess theory to enjoy playing chess.

the good thing about a large chess server is no matter what your rating, you can play against people with the same rating as you.

maybe if you're asking the question you find studying chess boring and you want to avoid it? same. there are some entertaining youtubers teaching chess though. john Bartholomew is my favourite. he has a video series for beginners.

@h2b2 said in #18:
> you don't have to study chess theory to enjoy playing chess.
>
> the good thing about a large chess server is no matter what your rating, you can play against people with the same rating as you.

This is correct -- you can enjoy chess at any level with no study or lots of study. The OP's question was about getting better at chess, not enjoying it, but you still make a good point :)

To summarize this thread...
High rated players: "You will need to learn some theory in order to get better at chess, yes."
Low rated players: "Theory is overrated and you don't need to learn it."

I suppose it's up to you to decide which is correct, but certainly the trend amongst good players indicates that they had to sit down and learn some lines to get to where they are. If @TripHopKniGHts were correct in their assessment, you probably wouldn't see a 1000 point rating gap between them and those who oppose the opinion they presented as fact.

I am critical of people endorsing old games of Morphy and company for chess improvement. Although their middle game is exceptional, we can't derive any educational value in the opening and endgame. I say study of historical games should start from Capablanca and Nimzowich.