Why 3...d6 against the Italian? I play the Two Knight's Defense and having played the White side of the 3...d6 line many times I can safely say that even in the hands of experts (I know exactly zero masters who would play it) it gets a thrashing. I've only lost one Two Knight's Defense game as Black and it was because I dropped a piece later in the game after getting a slight advantage out of the opening. I started studying chess seriously after this loss and gained 200 rating points in a year (from 1800 to 2000).

I used to play the King's Gambit Declined with 2...Bc5 (which is great if White doesn't know the correct plan) but nowadays I like to take f4 and play Ne7.

I have zero prep vs Danish and Ponziani. I've also never seen them. So time wasted in prep on these openings = time wasted playing a tournament game against them = 0. I guess vs the Danish I would play an early d5. I would probably play 3...d5 4.Qa4 f6 vs Ponziani seeing it for the first time.

Do you go into the Four Knights? I do, and play 4.Bb5 Nd4 and 4.g3 Nxe4 currently. 4.Bc4 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Nb4!? as well. White has to take b7 in those lines but usually doesn't in my experience.

I played the Budapest for about two years and won almost all of my games as Black. I especially liked when White played the (IMHO terrible) variation 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.f4?!(my mark - I know some people will disagree) where I feel Black has at least chances if not full equality.

I don't think I play any garbage openings, and wouldn't recommend them to anybody else either. Probably the most dubious thing I play is 1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Nc6 7.Qxb7 Bd7 but I've never lost a game in that line including games against masters and analysis with titled players.

I used to play a very narrow repertoire, basically the caro-kann and Slav as black, and 1. e4, where I went for the Ruy Lopez in the open game, and the Bb5 variations in the Sicilian.  Against the French and caro-kann I usually just played the mainlines.  Recently however I just play any opening I feel like and although it may not be a very professional approach I think I've enjoyed chess more.  This is of course more plausible in CC where you can research the opening during the game.

The OP appears to be a breathtakingly large windbag, whose Blitz and Standard ratings on this site are nothing to write home about.  So why are his rants so ridiculously long?

Openings are (largely) a matter of taste.  Please make a note of it.

End of Story, One Hopes.  

Trying to find a perfect move in the opening seems to be very tiring like reading long posts, instead I suggest this:

1. Select a new opening and study it for a week.
2. Try the opening for a week. While playing games, select another alternative opening and study it.
3. Record your success, go to next opening.
4. When serious tournament play is coming, use your best scored opening.

I think this approach must increase opening performance in long period. Also, the player implicitly creates an opening repertoire with this way.

Yes, because a week is enough to learn a new opening.

I'm with you Expertise87.

I'll go and spend 1 week to relearn the Najdorf, an opening I hate from both sides, go and play a bunch of tournament games with it, and let you know how badly I stunk up the joint!

What would you prefer to study openings?

Huh?

Have you ever noticed our (yours and mine) ratings put us in the 90+ percentile on this site.  There's this little thing on here called rating deflation.  You can lookup my rating on USCF, including my 2000+ postal rating dating from the 1980's, before computer cheating.

In any event yes, openings are a matter of taste.  But frankly I'm sick of seeing people with ratings lower than ours even saying: Look at my Philidor Counter Gambit.  Or authors of books prolonging threads to sell their books.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that ponz made his thread to sell his book. Actually, looking at the thread I don't feel like it at all. I think that he just loves his opening and wants more people to continue his legacy. :P

@hoss: this book and this member is probably the reason why jempty created this thread  :D

Funny, I know of a Grandmaster who plays it (Marin), and somewhat personally know a Senior Master (2400+ USCF) who plays it -- if you have megabase look for Ritter.  Cuts down on the book I need to learn.  White often responds stupidly with 4. h3 (allowing 4...f5) or 4. d3 (allowing 4...Na5) or 4. 0-0 (the least bad of the lot, but it allows ...Bg4).  Much better tries for White are 4. c3, 4. Nc3 and 4. d4.  The last two of these can eventually transpose into the Hungarian (3...Be7).  Or against 4. d4 Black can play 4...Bg4 or 4...exd4; it's nice to have options.  And again, after 4...exd4 the position that has been reached is actually a Scotch Gambit declined with 4...d6 (after 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. d4 exd4  4. Bc4) so it gives me one system to learn against both the Italian and the Scotch Gambit.  The Scotch Gambiteers in particular tend to get antsy and play 5. c3?! with some regularity when 5...Ne5 is favorable for Black.  If instead 5. Nxd4 then 5...Ne5?! is still possible, but Marin is playing 5...g6, see: http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=4488690 .  Apparently also Keres played this, and if you check here using Game Explorer, the stats are quite nice for Black in this 5...g6 line.

15 years ago I was a 1400 player. I overwhelmed myself with books on openings and tactics. I ONLY play e4 now. as black I can play the Sicilian, Kings Indian, or Pirc. These pawn structures are similar, which simplify things a little. I no longer play Kings Gambit, Budapest Gambit, QGA, QGD, and a host of other openings. Naturally if you want to get better you must study often and play often. I have played almost a year straight now, daily, and it has improved me greatly. One understanding that hit me was this: You can have the best tactical knowledge, but without getting into a superior position, it means nothing! For years I have studied tactics and often got frustrated at positional players with good understanding of closed systems. Often I would sac a pawn just to break the position up, much to my demise. Good Luck to you all!

And today you are only a 1575 player: http://www.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12743799

This is not meant to dismiss your opinion.  Rather when people look at your profile you can say, 15 years ago I was a 1400 player, then they can look at your online rating and say, wow, he's gone up 800 points -- and that is very mis-leading.

Basically I agree with you, @Jempty, that the massive blather regarding openings on this site is mostly misguided.

I did my best to take them to task in the following Comedic Thread --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/opening-theory-and-vegetarianism-are-both-overated

Which I used to flog my pet idea of using Reversed Openings from the White Side.  

P.S. There are less that 200 players in the Standard Chess pool who are higher than 2150. But all of this is discussed ad nauseum, in the Cheating Forum Group; a separate group on this site.

Cannot discuss same here.

Rating deflation in the USCF is a joint product of the new Glicko system, coupled with the "idiotic" idea that 35,000 kids are allowed to start playing chess at ratings well below 1000.

When these same kids go from 400 ratings to 1600 ratings in just 2 years.  It drags down the ratings of everyone they beat.  I just love losing to 10 year olds.  

Back in the 1980s, an 1850 rating would put you in roughly the 85th percentile of the USCF.  Nowadays, a 1650 rating puts you roughly in the 85 percentile.  That's a fairly big deflation.

But "Engine Use" on this site is a whole nother kettle of fish, and can only be dicussed in a specialized forum.

Personally, I'm here to PRACTICE, at Game in 10/5, Game in 15/5, or slower.

This site has a kind of barbell shaped pool of players -- lots of speed junkies, and lots of CC players.

But given that the site is free, we can hardly complain now can we?  

That was ridiculous. For someone to ask a question....say that all opinions are open....and then say sorry i know more about opening theory than you....

 http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.php

This chart is from 2004, but it distinguishes the "scolastic" members. Assuming non-scolastics is adults, you can see that a 1850 rating is around the 89 percentile, so not much different from what you said.

Good stand up for yourself.  Now do it over the chess tournament you have coming up -- and don't waste too much time on openings in the meantime.  Some time sure, but not too much.

Good luck

Jempty challenge me to an online turn based game please