What opening is best?

I play Queen's Pawn Opening as White and Scandinavian Defense as Black most of the times.. 

Queen's Pawn opening...  Do you play the Colle, the London System, the Stonewall Attack, or the Queen's Gambit?

No one has tried it?   I'm sure that many beginners have.   One of the main rules of chess is "don't move the same piece (or pawn) twice in the opening".  1. d4 Nf6 2. d5 moves the same pawn twice and therefore does not control as much territory as 1. d4 Nf6  2. c4 or 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3, for example.   Also, 1. d4 Nf6  2. d5 c6 (or e6) is fine for black (who already has a slight advantage after move 2, according to Stockfish). 

Everyone has their own preferences.   I'm a counter-attacking player, so I like 1. d4 openings with white and the Sicilian, the French and Queen's Indian Defense with black.   I usually play system openings, instead of sticking to one particular opening.   For example, I will open with 1. d4 and go into a London System vs d5, to avoid the Queen's Gambit and Tarrasch.   However, I will play 1. d4 Nf6  2. c4 against hyper-modern players.   I prefer to steer games into my own repertoire.   With black, if white plays 1. e4, I usually reply with 1. c5 (Sicilian), but sometimes I'll transition into a French or a Reverse Benoni, depending on how white proceeds.   Against 1. d4, I'll reply Nf6 and usually go into a Queen's Indian or Semi-Slav.   

Do you have a quote of a specific sentence by me holding a book in high acclaim?

Daybreak57 wrote:  … only confuse beginners? ...

I try to provide beginners with access to samples so that they can judge, in advance, whether or not a book is likely to make them feel confused.

Daybreak57 wrote:  … What if, in teaching opening principles, they failed to teach the student how to come up with raw ideas in a given position? ...

There seems to be widespread agreement that it is beneficial for beginners to look at illustrative games. Don't many beginner books have them?

Daybreak57 wrote:  … I know someone who studies openings like you preach that people should do, but I think he actually got worse. ...

Is there some specific sentence by me that, in your opinion, has led someone astray?

Daybreak57 wrote:  … He never achieves the game that he studied about.  ...

I have tried to warn people. Here is something that I have written:  "Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid."

Daybreak57 wrote:  … All I see him play is bad openings.  That's coming from a guy who studied opening books. ...

Hard to say what is going wrong with no direct communication with the person, but I never wrote that an opening book would guarantee that one would not play bad openings. For one thing, there is the danger that the intended audience of the book is well above that of the reader. Another potential problem is that a reader can fail to resist the temptation to try to turn a book into a mass memorization project. There is also the question of whether or not the person, after playing a game, looks up the line in order to identify opening mistakes and make it less likely that the person will continually fall into a line that results in a difficult position.

Daybreak57 wrote:  … No opening book can teach the student openings. ...

Is that a realistic expectation? Is teaching a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree? Have you considered that, for many opening books, the intended purpose is to improve the reader's understanding of the opening?

Daybreak57 wrote:  … Why, mainly because, most of the openings he is learning in the book, he will never use, …

What do you mean by "use"? Again, there seems to be widespread agreement that it is beneficial for beginners to look at illustrative games.

Daybreak67 wrote:  … and if he is not memorizing his openings, then he isn't going to remember the right line when the game comes. ...

Sounds as though someone succumbed to the temptation to try to turn a book into a mass memorization project. Again: "Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid." I often mention a GM John Nunn quote, indicating that a reader should mainly seek "a good overview of the opening" and an explanation of "general plans and ideas." Sound like the sort of thing that can help one to face a position without a memorized move to play?

Daybreak57 wrote: ... You said yourself that you said your opening books where not meant to be made into a giant memorization choir, so, how do you expect them to play their openings, if they don't memorize them? ...

With mistakes.

Daybreak57 wrote:  … That is the fifty dollar question.  Sure they could probably remember general ideas, but when they are actually playing the opening, if they didn't memorize it, they will forget an idea or move order and mess the whole thing up.  I've seen beginners do this all the time. ...

Part of the idea is to learn from the mistakes from game to game.

Daybreak57 wrote:  ... Personally, I think it's better to study master games from trusted sources, not from opening manuals, that cater to know certain openings. …

Have you seen some titled player declare that GM John Emms (for example) is not to be trusted?

Daybreak57 wrote:  … What if the opening being played isn't anything he studied?  That's the problem too. ...

Again: "Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid."

Daybreak57 wrote:  … Are you a master Kingspongey? ...

No. My USCF rating is about 1500.

Daybreak57 wrote:  … Because I know a master, and he tells me, not to study openings as a beginner.  Just focus on tactics endgames, and studying master games, and also take time out to study middle game concepts. ...

Again, many 21st century opening books are largely collections of games, explained for the near-beginner.

Daybreak57 wrote:  … He likes Pawn structure chess, which he said is the best middle gamebook ever written. ...

Notice that you do not describe the master as saying "best for you". To me, that sounds like a sign of possible danger. Many have written something along these lines: "... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf

Daybreak57 wrote:  .. You not being a master Kingspondgy, wouldn't you think he knows something about chess that you actually don't???  Is this possible?  I'm not trying to be mean.  Just saying, that masters disagree with your choice of opening book material. ...

So far, I have only seen you refer to one master with no place to see the actual words. I have no doubt that masters know much that I don't, but it is perhaps worthwhile to ponder whether master titles are generally awarded for over-the-board success or for success helping beginners. If a master knows what helped to achieve the title, does that necessarily mean that the master necessarily knows what will help a specific beginner?

Daybreak57 wrote:  … It seems to me that that list is a big list of a lot of unnecessary reading. …

Can you identify a specific sentence by me, claiming that the list identifies necessary reading? The books are possibilities.

Daybreak57 wrote: ... We all can agree to disagree, but I'm telling you most of the chess world says to stay away from the opening study as a beginner.  Don't you think there is some truth to that? ...

Not sure how one knows what "most of the chess world says". Here is an example of the sort of thing that I have seen: "... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca

Daybreak57 wrote:  ... I'm not saying don't ever study openings.  I'm just saying, don't buy 10 books on just openings.  That's what I am saying.

Can you identify a specific sentence by me telling anyone to buy 10 books on just openings? Here is something that I did write: "There are many important subjects that one should not neglect because of too much time on opening study."

Exactly said @Daybreak57. It is usually Queen's Gambit.

King's Gambit

E4 - E5

)))