Are Opening Courses Worth Buying? Evidence by Rating

No measured rating-outcome data exists for opening courses. As of 8 November 2026 we found no study and no seller dataset that compares players who took one with similar players who did not, so nobody can honestly tell you what a given course will add to your rating. What exists is one archival study of how deep opening knowledge goes, memory research that was not done on chess, and coach and forum opinion, which leans toward "buy little, buy short, and keep opening study small below master level".

ChessCourseFinder has not joined any affiliate program, so links here earn nothing today. Read our affiliate disclosure.

Test depth: Public information only. Nobody at ChessCourseFinder has taken any opening course. This page reports what published sources say and where they stop.

What kinds of evidence exist

Three kinds exist, and none measures whether a course changes results. This page deals only with openings. For the wider question of paying for any chess training, with price-per-hour sums and a general test to run before you pay, see free vs paid chess training.

Opening research: one archival study. Chassy and Gobet (2011) took 76,562 games from 2008 between players rated 1600 to 2399 and used the Fritz 12 opening tree to find where each game first left known theory (PLOS One paper). A "ply" is one move by one side. The average game lasted 78.73 ply, of which 16.76 were theory, about 21%. Depth rose with skill by about 1.25 ply per 200-point class, and the group the paper calls Masters (2200 to 2399) averaged about 18 ply, or nine moves a side. The paper's regression (depth = 0.0065 x Elo + 3.0446) puts a 1700 player at about 14 ply, roughly seven moves a side (our calculation from that formula).

Its limits matter more than its numbers:

• It is correlational. Stronger players knew more theory, but that cannot show that learning theory made them stronger.
• It covers no one under 1600, and these were recorded 2008 games rather than online rapid or blitz.
• Depth marks where the first of the two players left the tree, and the authors accept that a player can hit a book move without knowing it.
• It says nothing about courses, or about how anyone learned their moves.

Our reading, and only that: even between strong amateurs in that sample, shared theory ended early on average. What a course teaches after about move ten only pays if your opponents go there.

General study and memory research. A survey by Charness and colleagues (2005) found serious solo study the strongest predictor of rating, without addressing openings (DOI). Reviews of spaced practice (Cepeda et al., 2006) and testing yourself (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006) used verbal material, not chess. They make opening trainers built on repeated recall plausible, and they do not show that such a trainer raises a rating.

Coach and forum opinion. Forum posts, a coach's article and one player's essay. They are individual views, and some have conflicts of interest noted below.

What does not exist, in what we found: a study or seller dataset that reports rating change after an opening course, by rating, with a comparison group. A seller's claim of rating gains is marketing unless it shows how it was measured; our guide to spotting biased chess course reviews explains what to look for. We have not invented any figure to fill the gap.

Why a deep line pays off less often than it looks

A repertoire is a tree, and you only use the branches your opponents choose. If you assume opponents follow the course's main move a fixed share of the time, the chance of reaching a given position shrinks fast. The percentages in the first column are assumptions chosen to show the shape. They are not measurements.

One real figure shows the first step. Our Italian Game Mastery review records Lichess's numbers for 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, read on 8 November 2026 at default filters: 64% of those games continued 2...Nc6, 15% 2...d6 and 12% 2...Nf6. So at that single fork, 36% of games had already left a line built on 2...Nc6.

This does not make theory useless. Short branches you meet every week can be worth knowing well, and a sharp line may need exact moves. It does mean the useful question about a course is what it does at the branches near the start, and what plans it gives you once the moves run out, rather than how deep its main line goes. One Chess.com poster made the same complaint from experience, saying expensive courses cover lines you rarely reach because opponents deviate.

Evidence by rating band

The thresholds below come from opinions, and they use different rating systems. GM Noel Studer quotes FIDE ratings; the forum posters we read mostly do not say which system they mean. Chess.com and Lichess ratings run differently from FIDE, so treat every number as rough.

Two posters in different threads said that much of what they bought went unused, and a Lichess poster, seen only in a search snippet because the thread page returned an error (so that thread is not among our sources), argued that courses show you an example to copy rather than teach the opening. We report those as opinions, not as findings.

The case against, and the case for

The sharpest case against comes from players who overdid it, and it is one person's account. Junta Ikeda, writing in February 2023, says he worked through dozens of Chessable opening courses over 12 months from July 2021 and then had his "worst performance in years" at his first overseas tournament since 2018, concluding that his opening knowledge had improved while his chess got worse. He advises testing lines in real games and using databases to see which lines come up, on the ground that rare engine lines get the same review weight as common ones. The same comment thread holds the opposite experience noted in the table.

The case for is conditional. Studer says he long answered "No" to amateurs buying grandmaster courses and now answers "Yes, if", because his objection was to bad courses and hard selling. He names three failures: too big, not specific to the buyer's level, and moves without understanding. He also warns that early quick wins from memorised lines can leave "a bloated rating" and no plan when opponents deviate. That is a coach's observation, and he reports no numbers.

How to weigh the sources

These opinions are easy to check for bias, and several have commercial ties. Studer's article names ChessMood and Chessable courses as good; its ChessMood links end in a referral code ("?r=nextlevelchess") and the body has no disclosure that we could find, and Studer sells his own courses and is listed as a ChessMood coach. We saw no statement of Ikeda's ties either way. Forum posters have no stated reason to favour a seller, but they are anecdotes: one person's experience is not an outcome.

What an opening course has to show before it earns your money

A sales page can answer most of these in two minutes, and a missing answer is informative. The questions are our judgement, built on the failures Studer and Ikeda describe. The examples are from seller pages read on 8 November 2026.

One course is rarely a whole repertoire

A single opening course usually covers one branch, so the real price is several purchases plus time. Here is a low-cost example, using prices listed on the seller pages on 8 November 2026. It is an illustration, not a recommendation.

At two hours of study a week, watching that once takes about eight weeks (15.85 / 2 = 7.9), with no practice games in that time. Listed hours are not the time it takes to study them. The delivery lists on those ChessBase pages also say "approx. 4-8 hrs", which conflicts with Fuhrmann's listed time and, narrowly, with Libiszewski's. The set still has holes: Fuhrmann's contents start at 3...Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3, so White needs answers to the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann and more, and King's page excludes the Catalan. If you want to compare specific options, see the Italian Game, Queen's Gambit and Pirc and Modern pages.

A decision rule that fits the evidence

This is our judgement, based on the opinions above and common coaching practice. It is not a measured result.

• If you are under about 1000, put time into tactics and your own games first. A beginner repertoire of one line each way is enough, and free study covers it.
• If you are about 1000 to 1500 and keep losing the same way from the same opening, play the line in about twenty games, note where you leave your preparation, and buy a short course only for that line. Use the free lessons and the seller's refund terms before paying.
• If you are about 1500 to 1800 and have a settled repertoire, a complete course for your chosen first move can fill gaps; compare White and Black repertoire courses, or low-theory options if you are short of time.
• If you are above about 1800, Studer's view is that master-level lines are mostly irrelevant below about 1900 and that below 2300 FIDE one opening is enough; the question becomes whether a course adds lines you cannot get from free databases and your own analysis.

Who should skip buying an opening course

Skip it if you cannot name the opening you will play, if you have not played it in at least twenty games, or if you would rather spend the money and time on tactics or endgames. Free options: Lichess studies and free Chessable courses. If you do want a course, the ChessMood review has the plan costs, and ChessMood's free lessons let you test a teaching style before paying. For picking among courses, see how to choose a chess course. Back to all opening pages.

What the sources do not tell you

• Whether an opening course changes results at any rating. No measured outcome exists in what we read.
• Whether Chassy and Gobet's depth figures apply below 1600 or to online games.
• Which rating system the forum thresholds refer to.
• When Studer's article was written; the page shows no date.
• How many readers of those threads bought a course and used it.