Why study openings?

Perhaps, currently an opening might be equal, but someone might discover a novelty that keeps the pressure on black. An opening that is equal in the eyes of an engine does not translate to actually equalizing on the board, I think the both of you are approaching this with opposite perspectives.

My statement is totally true. Might come as a shock to you on a forum dedicated to openings but … yes it is true.

Can show me an opening with a win rate at 50% . While you are at it… show me an opening line that Black can’t not equalize .. with the aid of stockfish, I’ll show the equalization, or a transposition that leads to equality. Either way that debunks your premise!

Also I can assure you Alekhine, Euwe, "Grenfeld", and Capablanca did not regularly play 1. d4 2. Nf3 3. e3, only maybe occasionally as a surprise.

John Cox’s (an established Chess author and titled player 2400+ FIDE) from his work titled “Dealing with d4 deviations” “In the 1930s the top guys didn’t know whether these openings or the Queen’s Gambit were better. These were the 2700s of their day; they understood chess a lot better than I do (I.e. a modern 2400 FIDE rated player)

Let’s roll with some stats on openings that have 1. d4 2. Nf3 3. e3 with the first couple of moves

From Chessgames.com

Queen's Gambit Declined Slav (D12)

1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c6 3 e3 Nf6 4 c4 Bf5 It’s popularity.. the 1920s and 30s and 2000s

In the 1920s and 1930s. There you find Alekhine, Colle, Grunfeld, Bogoljubov etc etc essaying it multiple times.

Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D45)
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 e3 Nf6 4 c4 c6 5 Nc3 it’s popularity, peaked in the 1940s and in the 2000s.

Pre WWII they didn’t play 1. d4 2. Nf3 3. e3 with the sole intent of playing a color’s reversed Meran i.e. the Colle ( Koltanowski or the Zuckertort )

How about something a little more modern say the KID ??

Some popular lines back then...

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e3 d6 6. Be2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. Qc2 Re8 9. b3

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e3 d6 6. Be2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. b4 Re8 9. Bb2

These are old lines and old ideas from a bygone era...

Yes... they leads to equality for Black.. That said... no lines have been discovered that give Black an advantage. White just moved on to bigger and better ideas.

I should just be quiet ... OTB I've scored very well with these or a variation of them.

The point in all this... is that one doesn't have to play the latest and greatest GM main lines ... by doing some homework, pulling from master games from a different era, one can come up with what appears to be new ideas over the board... (maybe with the help of a chess engine improve on the idea)

1. A good opening outcome increases your likelihood of solving hard problems later in the game. A tough position feels less lost if you've started well, so you will be more likely willing to work through your problems.

2. Opening study can potentially increase your chances of creating a winning position in the opening stage, or even the middlegame or endgame stages. Alekhine's philosophy was to create problems on almost every turn, which he often initiated from the opening in order to carry it into the middlegame.

3. Sometimes, players suffer losing (or miserable, at the very least) positions as early as in the opening stage. Opening study is one of the ways to help minimize the chances of this happening.

What do you mean why do you study openings

It improves your chess knowledge and gets you a Amazing starting position

Nice

This very old topic was revived in the most hilarious fashion I've ever seen. The topic was dead for 17 years, then a spammer commented "Dddddddddxxxsrgdsfgdsaqegbswdgyrw"

To which the first answer was:

"Like it or not ... he highlighted a truth."

Wow. Just wow.

LOL... I really didn't see that that's awesome !!

after studying opening, study how to attack . . . that's what we call the middle game . . . and consider also how to defend . . . then study endgame . . . .

What I stated is that your statement that "99% of the time black equalizes if he knows what he's doing" is completely false and it is. I should have said complete bs.

Carlsen knows and any top 10 player know what they're doing, I think that's safe to say, yet often they don't equalize as black at any point of the game.

While the early part of the 1900s was where the queen's gambit started to take off, the top players weren't playing the Colle often, especially Euwe who was after Capablanca and Alekhine. Capablanca was extremely famous for his queen's gambits, Alekhine played it almost exclusively in his world championship with Capablanca, while Grunfeld named the hypermodern defence so while I'm not familiar with his games it would be hard to imagine he was still playing the Colle when he had advanced to the hypermodern theory - which came after the queen's gambit.

I said nothing about the point you were trying to make, I said that your statement that 99% of the time if black knows what they're doing they equalize, which is totally untrue. You can know what you're doing and make mistakes under the pressure and under the disadvantage, that's the whole point of the game. There are also times when people say white just slowly starts to gain more of an advantage and outplay black and we can't really figure out why. Yes I do agree that the game should be a draw in theory of course. So just have some more precision in what you're saying please.

I've been interested in chess for over a quarter of a century, and realistically you're not going to tell me anything I don't already know about the fundamental aspects of the game.