studying openings, but need some advice

For the rest of summer i have decided to study my openings, since i think it is the most important part of the game, because it decides how you will play throughout the match. i do have an interesting book that has pages and pages of openings, however i don't really know where to start! so should i study every opening and see what each and every one of them do, or should i just study on the openings i specifically use? i use queen's gambit, king's gambit, and other king pawn openings. any openings you suggest i should take a look at? i know there are so many opening methods, but when studying openings, i just don't know what opening to use or what to look at to make my game better. suggestions?

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

LOL. I feel like responding, but really, kindaspongey, what motivated you to resurrect this thread that is 10 years old? For all we know, the OP is dead or gave up chess by now.

As for the assumption that the opening is the most important part of the game, not everyone agrees...

----------

(p. 9)
   I always had quite a strong memory for chess. Ever since I learned the game I
could recall all of my games--and the games of others--easily. So openings were
my topic of study and I could memorize opening theory with no problem. I actually
made some improvement in playing strength with this rather artificial method of
study. At some point though, this all changed and I became addicted to studying the
endgame. I filled notebook after notebook with endgame analysis. This is what led
to my biggest improvement. It also felt as if my better understanding helped me to
assimilate more knowledge.

   Now--eight years, approximately 400 rating points and two GM norms later--I
am passing on some of the endgames I studied to you. These represent literally my
first steps up the chess ladder. I hope you will find the material interesting and that it
will help you in some way.

      Why the Endgame?

   Why did I choose the endgame for the subject of this book? Why will it improve
the reader's chess?

   The simple answer is that I am convinced a careful study of the endgame sparked
the biggest leap forward in my own game. Can it really be that the endgame is more
important than other phases of the game?
(p. 10)
   I would say that it is more a question of balance than of one phase being more
worthy of our study than another. Let us sketch the portrait of a modern player
to illustrate the typical imbalance:

   > With the wealth of opening literature, and the ease of access to the latest
grandmaster games on computer databases, it is no great task to build up a high-level
opening repertoire. Time consuming, perhaps, but the path to take is not a difficult
one.

   Indeed, I have listened to grandmasters lament the unfairness of this. Gone are
the days when the 'weaker' player can be  routinely dispatched in the opening.

   > Combined with the knowledge of standard schemes in the middlegame
--linked to their opening repertoire (which is relatively easy to attain, by playing
through master games in the relevant openings)--we have painted the picture of
quite a formidable foe.

   All this is perfectly reasonable, and I encourage the reader to spend time doing
exactly these things.

   We have, however, a clear motivation here for focusing (at least some) of our
chess energy on the endgame:

   > Our opponents will typically have a clear weakness in this area.

   > We want to fortify our game with a strong endgame foundation; otherwise
we will be throwing away many good positions (and points!).

   Of course, we must expect a certain amount of crossover between the phases of
the game. Knowledge of endgames is useful when studying the openings; often mod-
dern opening theory is so deep that it transposes directly into endgames.

   All of this is not new advice; in fact, most players know this already. Whey then is
the endgame such a neglected phase of the game?

   There is no question it is more difficult to study than, say, the opening. Most
endgame works, typically featuring general rules and many theoretical positions, are
rather too dull to study. By the time we get the theoretical position we memorized,
many years may have passed and we have forgotten the details. Computers often of-
fer little help. I found this every evident when analyzing the opposite-colored bishop
endgame Aronia-Bacrot in 'Endgame Exploration 2'.
(p. 11)
   We are all guilty of mimicking the world's strongest players to some degree, and
it is true that they work considerably on openings. The reason is that they are already
proficient in theoretical and technical endgames. Occasionally this is not the case
and, as we do a few times throughout this book, we can enjoy the feeling that we
know something an elite player did not!

Hawkins, Jonathan. 2012. Amateur to IM: Proven Ideas and Training Methods. New Highlands, MA: Mongoose Press.

Sorry. I made a mistake somehow.

Not necessarily. It's a good topic, but let's see how many people are still interested in it, first.

Your overall technique is the most important part of your game. One weak move can destroy any and all the work you put into your opening preparation. You can play like a 2600+ rated GM for the first 10-30 moves, but when you reach the end of your opening preparation, then what? You are now dependent on your non-GM skill for the rest of the game.

If you do like to study openings, at least study a game as a whole so you would at least get an idea of how to conduct the rest of the game.

Oh, 10 years later. I wonder how he as fared?

I dont think the kings indian attack is at all suitable for a low ranked player. Too subtle

This thread is from 2007...

Openings are probably the least important part of the game if you're under 2000 though. Possibly 2200 even, and maybe 2400 according to some.

Kings Indian Attack is fine for a lower-rated player. Every opening has its subtleties if you look for them.