Why do you tell them not to study openings?

Why do intermediate and advanced chess players tell lower rated players not to study openings?  In my opinion, and from my own experience, the study of openings, their basics. and the tactical traps hiding in some openings should start as soon as the beginner has learned the basic principles in chess.  How else are they going to advance to the next level if they keep messing up right from the first seven moves or so in all their games?  How are they going to make it to the tactics if they don't even know where the pieces should go at the beginning of the game?

Thank you very much      

No, basic strategy won't save you against an opening trap, or even just falling into an inferior position right from the start of the game.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-start-out-in-chess

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

"... 'Journey to the Chess Kingdom' ... is primarily intended for children ... Chapter five deals with opening principles, while chapter six provides an overview of the most popular chess openings. Importantly, the emphasis is on giving insights and explaining ideas and principles as opposed to advocating mindless memorization of long lines. ..." - WGM Natalia Pogonina (2014)

https://www.chess.com/blog/Natalia_Pogonina/book-review-quotjourney-to-the-chess-kingdomquot

"... 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)

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

"... 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)

"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)

"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

Because intermediate and advanced chess players are right, and you are wrong.

There is no point learning openings before you achieve a tactical skill, as well as basic positionally understanding. All you will achieve is destroying better, or winning positions.

Hi pfren, if you don't mind me asking, at what point should a player begin learning openings? Would you say at a certain rating level, and if so, what ballpark would that be in? Thanks.

Why does someone needs the rapport of chess community to study openings? Just go ahead. There is Chessbase Opening Chess Encyclopedias, Power Books, etc. In print, Encyclopedia of Chess Openings from A00-E99.

Why wait till move 80 before playing good moves?

"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

Is it easier to win in the middlegame if one manages to avoid a difficult position in the opening?

Well known question...Why beginners shouldn't study openings? Because they don't know nothing about anything. And that control the center crap along with other BS. They shouldn't even glance at anything else expect the tactics studies. They should lose first 100 games trying to play a4 and Ra3, Qh4 so they realize sooner or later that this method of play sucks. Only one with decent tactical awareness should start now to look at some other chess segments like openings. One has to be patient to improve. Learn on his own mistakes first and only then seek for help.

Isn't it often suggested to look at sample games? What is wrong with looking at sample games for some specific opening?

Is this a question about where to start or about what to include in one's studies?

"... 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

i heard from coaches that i should spend maybe 10% of my study on openings so i dont think you should ignore openings but i think alot of people spend like 90% on openings not learning the actual game

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not in the position to speak too much. But I mean openings can be a learned fairly quick. If you play them enough you will have some idea how the middlegame will be. Endgames is different, I find it so hard and complicated. And so much to learn. There are endless positions which is so easy to win or draw, if you know the teqnique. That being said, if you can have a good idea how the endgame will be and how to win it. Well, you have gained so much more rating than learning a new opening or two. 

Try some of the endgame puzzles, even those at beginner level might be hard for many, many players. 

Actually nothing, but uncommented sample games won't help.