Very good opening discussion. U mentioned pawn structures and I'd like to add this:

I never was very knowledgeable about the opening phase other than the general principals of chess. Meaning I didn't spend the effort to learn specific openings (the lines of theory) that others in my rating range did. They all knew the openings way better than I did. I'd just try to get out of the opening without losing or some major blunder. But if I were starting all over again I'd do this:  Learn the pawn structures thoroughly first, inside and out, before studying that opening. That way ur gonna already have a strategical feel as a solid foundation before u even start on that opening. 

Nice post!

As someone that always hated...yea thats a strong word for something chess related, but its true.  Studying openings, and all that memorization bores me to tears.  But when i came across the idea of learning and gaining some understanding of the piece placement and pawn structure of the openings i liked playing because of the middlegames i was getting.   It helped ease the pain.

I cant imagine being a modern GM and all that engine crap and opening study.  Losing a game on move 24 because you played a move that was .03 and not .04.

simple: you didn't study enough

DUH...

Why your openings fail?

Because you are a bad player, and your improvement has nothing to do with openings.

This is the one and only good explanation.

What database would you recommend? To study master games. 

I use chessbase.  But there are plenty of free online services you can use.

Thank you @IMBacon! I’ve also just ordered Chernev’s book Logical Chess: Move by Move due to another recommendation. (I need to feel the book and turn the pages, old school) I need to invest a bit more time in really studying. Your suggestions (in other threads) are helpful IF I’ll take the time to actually do it. Thanks!

Are you familiar with any of the books by Herman Grooten? Specifically, the "Understanding before moving" series. I've read most of the first one, then found out it's been revised. I did like the approach (just what you described here), but I feel the layout isn't what he intended (as mentioned early in the book). Otherwise, I liked it a lot.

Glad to help and good luck.

I have heard of them, and hear some positive things about them.  But that's about it.

To me, openings are just a way to get to the middlegame structures I like. People come up to me and tell me, I shouldn’t be playing such unsound openings (birds, alekhine, etc). But with less theory you basically go to the middlegame quickly and play chess. It’s another reason why I don’t like openings like sicilian - I can definitely play it, but I am not comfortable with the middlegame, so I’d just hang a piece and lose. If I was told to play a mainline opening like the ruy Lopez i would seek to deviate as soon as possible (exchange Lopez for me) and just play.

And since my preference is closed positions which usually give more space to my opponent, I deal with this all the time, so all I do is challenge them to some blitz, which usually solves the problem.

Then they will say that I can’t do the same in longer time controls.

So, blitz is the answer?

You had up to that point...then...🤯

I mean, if I’m playing otb and analyzing my game during the breaks between rounds and someone walks up to me to talk about my opening play, it’s highly unlikely I’m going to give them a 30 minute game. if I had time I would.. 

I don’t really care either way, it gives me something to do.

Oh, I see..a specific scenario and it happens between OTB games.

Makes sense, I guess if your time analyzing wasn't wasted.

By analyzing I usually mean “staring at the board regretting past choices I have made and not actually doing anything constructive”.

I am known to be a hard worker (sarcasm). 

Usually more fun when there’s someone there to complain to. I mean, talk to.

OP—great post

Bacon & Thriller—always find your posts to be of interest and usually take away a few good points.  Cheers