Openings against e4 that are Open (except e5)

Holy Crusader5.   I looked at the way you played the Sicilian, and it looks like you understand enough ideas.  Certainly your opponent didn't.  But your game play was less about the opening than about the mistakes you both made.  Therefore, play the sicilian and enjoy.  It can be played on many levels.  It gives you those double attacks you enjoy and your opponent misses. Also study tactics on here.

Yeah, I currently like the accelerated dragon but I think I need to work on understanding long-term ideas rather than just looking for short-term gains.

Learn to stay even in material.

Again, there are not varying degrees.  You understand it or you don't.

Let's say you only play the White side of the French.  As Black, you play, say, the Alekhine.  You need to know and understand one of White's 5 main options (2.d3, 3.exd5, 3.e5, 3.Nd2, or 3.Nc3).  Let's say you opt to think like Nimzovich and his blockade theory and you play the Advance Variation.  It takes you 9 months to get s true firm grasp on it.  You do not understand the French Defense.  You are not at some varying degree of understanding the French Defense, you do not understand the French.  You understand the advance variation of the French Defense.  That would be sufficient for an e4 player that has no interest in playing the French as Black.

There inlies a major difference between playing White and Black.  Black you need to fully understand at least 1 defense to each of 1.e4 and 1.d4.  For White, there is no defense that you need to fully know.  You need to fully understand one variation (or series of variations that are multiple options for Black, like against the French, if you play the Tarrasch, you need to know the Open Tarrasch, Closed Tarrasch, Guimard Variation, and Rubinstein Variation.  There is no reason for you to know the Winawer.)

It is possible to fully understand a variation without fully understanding the entire opening.  Especially the lines you play as White.

Here is why I say varying degrees does not apply here.  Let's take Blackjack.  If you fully understand Blackjack, the house advantage is about 2 percent.  If you can card count, you can get it up to about a half percent in your favor.

But let's take your theory of the "varying degrees of understanding".  You have 3 Blackjack players that play for 4 hours per day for 30 days straight.  Player 1 does not count cards, but understands all viable strategies, like doubling 9, 10, or 11 against a bad dealer card, never splitting 10s and stay on 20, knowing breaking hand strategy, like except for 12 against a 2, stand on a breaking hand (hard 12 thru hard 16) against a breaking card (2 thru 6), etc.  Player 2 knows the rules, but hits on 15 all the time, even against say, a 4, splits 10s, doubles on all 9, 10, and 11 hands (such as 72 against a King), takes insurance when he or she has 85 against an A, etc.  Player 3 has never played Blackjack in her life, and just learned the basic rules from the dealer in 20 seconds.  There is no varying degree.  Only player one fully understands Blackjack.  Despite player 2 maybe knowing the rules better, she does not fully understand the game, and with the moves she typically makes, she will lose about 70 percent of her hands.  A 70/30 split, or 40 percent advantage in favor of the house.  She is no better than player 3.

5. NXB5.

Thriller-fan.  I understand your chess analogy.  When   it  comes to opening variations, you understand or you don't.  To say you have a degree of understanding is to argue a semantical point.  Playing an opening variation has less to do with knowledge of it than to having playing skills.  You may understand the opening variation as well as a GM(possible), but his playing skills will still be better than yours, ie he could be lost but sac a  piece creating complications.  Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

I am glad that someone actually understands what I am saying, unlike kindaspongey who sounds like a lawyer, trying to twist the facts into the mold of his own faulty interpretation!

And yes, having the same knowledge of a specific opening as a Grandmaster does not mean you will have the same result in your game as the GM because barring something stupid like taking the pawn in the Milner-Barry gambit without playing ...Bd7 first, the opening does not decide the game.

In this case, how would one describe the grasp after 5 months? The same grasp as a beginner? True firm grasp? What?

Why write "fully understand" if there are not varying degrees of understanding of a defense?

In that case, would one say that the opening-understanding is that of a beginner?

Are you willing to try to identify a specific sentence by me that you see as advocating that a theory is applicable to Blackjack? Getting back to chess, after a year of French-Defense-fixing, were your French defense results exactly the same as they had been in the pre-fixing "doing it wrong" days?

Would it make sense to say that beginner-understanding is the only alternative to understanding an opening variation as well as a GM?

Do you think that you can identify a specific sentence by me that you see as trying to twist the facts?

If one does not have GM-understanding of a specific opening, does that mean that, while using the opening, one's results will be the same as one who uses the opening with no understanding?

Because as White you do not need to "fully understand" an entire opening.  You need to understand one variation.  You could understand just the Advance French, Exchange Alekhine, Fantasy Caro-Kann, etc.

As Black, you need a full understanding of the defense of your choice.  You cannot half-a$$ it.  Knowing just the advance and exchange French is insufficient.  You need to know what to do against 3.Nc3, the Tarrasch, the KIA, the Two Knights, and odd ball lines like 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 exd4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g4.  An Alekhine player, in addition to the exchange, needs to know the four pawns attack, main line with 4.Nf3, 2.Nc3 lines, etc.

Look, I cannot tell you where things were at any given moment Attorney Kindaspongey.  The 2 years is approximate.  Not exactly 730 days with a daily log.  If you know the advance and exchange but not the Tarrasch or 3.Nc3, then at that point I was then where I am today against the advance and exchange and I would be where I was before against the Tarrasch and 3.Nc3, and to tell you the truth, I'd have probably done it in reverse order as the knight moves and e5 are far more critical than the exchange, but again, I did not keep a daily log as I never thought I would be answering cross-examination questions.

Were you recognizing that it would be possible for Black to have something between GM-understanding and beginner-understanding? Like you after a year of French-fixing?

Is beginner-understanding the only possibility that does not meet one's needs?

Are you referring to something that would be between GM-understanding and beginner-understanding?