Opening theory.

Can any opening beat any opening? Where can I find a comprehensive & complete breakdown of how they were developed and the theoretical application for the openings we have. Are some openings created to be played with or against others?

Wow! To thoroughly answer all three of your questions, it would be volumes of books that would fill an entire library. But just for the sake of having a surface answer and hopefully getting an interesting discussion started I will give a general, superficial answer to each one.

A) No. Some openings are incompatible with certain defenses in a theoretical examination. But it is not necessarily the opening that beats another opening. It is a combination of multiple aspects throughout the opening, the middle game, and the end game that do not necessarily have anything to do with the opening chosen that create a win, or a loss, or a draw.

B) this is the hardest question to answer in its entirety. You are basically asking for a complete history of the evolution chess in every variation. And external factors that created and shaped the game as we know it. Like the introduction of pieces and rules that have to be present to shape the theory involved in it. Example: there wasn't much need for a knowledge of Queen endgames before the Queens existed. The introduction of the enpassant rules in the late 1800s adds a whole new dimension to what we call "pawn play ". Do you know how many books have been written on the Kings Indian Defense alone just as an example?

And that's with out any discussion of any other openings or the aspects mentioned in answer A that shaped theoretical evolution. Like tactical play, positional play, king safety, endgames in all of their various positions, tempo and timing considerations, material inequality and material imbalances and etc., etc. Just to cover something that I missed in the list.

C) of course. The defenses against 1.e4 are designed to be played against 1.e4. The defenses against 1.d4 are designed to be played against 1.d4. Etc. Even though in some cases the exact same position on the board can be arrived at from different openings and move orders.

There is no such thing as an opening beating an opening. Every game is a single opening, including if transpositions occur.

For example, let's say White starts with 1.d4. Black replies 1...d5. White now plays 2.e4, what appears to be the start of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

Now if Black plays 2...dxe4 and White replies 3.f3, that is exactly the opening we have.

But let's say Black rejects the offer with the move 2...e6.

No longer is it a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, accepted or declined. It is a French Defense, by transposition.

This is not a case of "White is playing the Blackmar-Diemer and Black is playing the French". This is now a French Defense. White is playing the White side of the French Defense, even though he played d4 before e4, and Black is playing the Black side of the French Defense.

It does not matter what order the moves are played in or the intention behind it. White played d4 and e4, Black played d5 and e6.

A common misnomer is after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 is amateurs will say White is playing the Queen's Gambit and Black answers with the Nimzo-Indian.

White never played a Queen's Gambit. What gambit did he offer? He didn't. Black did not play 1...d5 and so no gambit was offered. Both sides are playing the Leningrad Variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.

So there is no one opening that beats another opening. Every game is a single opening, defined by both players' moves.

It sounds like OP is asking if Chess has a Rock, Paper, & Scissor type of mechanic where some openings are used to counter others.

I have never thought about it in the above terms, but I would say Yes!

Their are some openings which are supposed to counter other specific openings.

1 example I was thinking about it the above one!

White is playing a Kings Indian Attack position.

A very common counter Black likes to do is by putting all pawns on same color to Blunt White Bishop.

The Blunting Bishop idea is actually very common.

Sometimes, people say don’t move F pawn because it weakens the King.

However, The same idea of lining up pawns against Bishop has been done. Moving F pawn is actually considered acceptable in the above line.

It is considered a normal way to play that position.

The more I think about it.

The more I think of lines people use to counter other lines. It’s kind of strange, but it happens.

Well, black blunts white's bishop, and white will end up countering this by playing c4 to put more pressure on the bishop. Neither of these are technically "counters". White plays Bg2 for a long diagonal, and will play moves to help that. Black will either try to soften that bishop, or simply move the relevant pieces off the diagonal.

A "counter" would be something that instantly wins the game or gets an otherwise lasting advantage, so one could say the Damiano Defense is "Countered" by Nxe5. But instantly losing out of the opening just means you played bad chess, or the whole opening is bogus (1.f3 2.g4!!). Sure, they exist, but in that case you would be looking at a refutation of a bad opening rather than a certain opening countering another. So I don't think opening counters exist. Differences in responses to certain openings are rather a difference in approach than an objective difference in effectiveness.

I don’t think a Counter needs to instantly win.

I guess it depends on your definition of the word Counter. Everyone might have different definition of what they believe a Counter is.

To me the word “Counter” means to act in opposition or offset what the opponent is doing!

IF White plays g3 + Bg2, White is trying to put his Bishop on long diagonal controlling Light Squares.

IF Black plays d5 + c6, Black is trying to place his pawns on same color to offset what white is doing.

In my mind, I would consider Black’s actions to be a Counter.