Where should i be learning Opening Theory?

Might make sense for Capablanca but a lot my games if I'm losing in the early or middle game i bring it back fairly consistently in the end game and if I'm winning a lot of opponents just resign when they're in a losing position which i try not to do because there's always a chance they will make a mistake or you can regain the advantage by making better moves, not always obviously but its about learning not winning.

The early game is the most annoying for me and its the only guaranteed phase of the game. Im rated 2015 or something for puzzles while being 800ish elo for rapid i dunno if that's the common gap between the two or not but i find the tactics of the middle game and to some degree end game to be easier than the openings when i go against something new in the opening or decide to try something out and use the description of the first few moves chess.com gives i don't have a great understanding of what the ideas or strategy's going forward from those positions are or even how to punish mistakes in the opening or why certain moves I'm making are mistakes. the computer might flag things as not good moves, or inaccuracies or the eval bar might drop slightly. I can generally tell why the best move is the best most of the time, unless its some obscure pawn move or some or something, but sometimes I can't evaluate the position and understand why developing a knight would be better first over the bishop... unless its to do with getting a quicker castle.

People learn more when the process is “active.” That is, the person is thinking, relating the material to what they already know, thinking of alternatives, etc. Yes, you can learn actively online, but it is easier to fall into the trap of playing passively online than OTB.

i am glad to read that you are looking at a book on basic chess thinking. There are many great books that explain a master’s thought process during a game. Adults can learn more from a few of these books than they would if they spent that time playing blitz or rapid against other beginners.

Ben Finegold has his opinion... other GMs such as Danya and Kramnik have the opposite opinion. Kramnik has gone so far as to claim that every beginner should learn e4/e5 since it will teach them many different pawn structures, and this is the traditional way the Russian school taught students... It's one of the funny things about deferring to top-rated players or experts in a field is they often don't agree with eachother, then you realize it's just alot of people with opinions and not much more. But I wish I could ask Ben - does he know anyone who got good at chess without learning the opening? Who here has actually done that? And when did you learn the opening, or do you still not know it? How good are you at it...? How long did it take you to get really good at it? Something tells me Ben learned the openings when he was developing as a player, just a sneaking suspicion.

The fact I think alot of these people overlook is that you do learn things like tactics, and positional concepts and principles while you learn an opening. I actually think playing different openings is one of the most accessible ways of learning these things.

Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond…

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond