This is an argument that is raised a lot in chess circles. While there's some truth behind it, it tends to be applicable much more in an environment where both players are trying really hard to play "in book".
Before you get too deep into openings, you should have a solid understanding of the strengths of individual pieces. This leads to a better understanding of why you'd want to put your pieces in certain places. It kind of explains the broad strokes of openings, without the little traps here and there. This is known as the Russian school of teaching.
Basically, learning from this direction, you can spend much less time studying openings. You might want to know about few common traps in common situations that you tend to use, but that's not the focus. And you'd be surprised at how well this works - barring a tiny number of games where you're caught out, your better understanding of the overall game will win out.
Essentially, overspecialising in opening repertoire at the novice level is a kind of arms race which only really works against other similar players. It's not a good long-run strategy.
Before you get too deep into openings, you should have a solid understanding of the strengths of individual pieces. This leads to a better understanding of why you'd want to put your pieces in certain places. It kind of explains the broad strokes of openings, without the little traps here and there. This is known as the Russian school of teaching.
Basically, learning from this direction, you can spend much less time studying openings. You might want to know about few common traps in common situations that you tend to use, but that's not the focus. And you'd be surprised at how well this works - barring a tiny number of games where you're caught out, your better understanding of the overall game will win out.
Essentially, overspecialising in opening repertoire at the novice level is a kind of arms race which only really works against other similar players. It's not a good long-run strategy.