Maybe they want to improve?

But great chess players have firm knowledge of tactics and endgame. They now focus on squeezing out any tiny advantage they can by stuying deep lines. These advantages maybe worth a third of a pawn mean nothing to amatuers.

The only useful part of openings for us is that it allows us to go into similar structures each game in which we can develop pattern recognition and understanding of strategical themes.

The problem is most players change openings weekly and therefore dont built up this knowledge, making their 'opening preparation' useless.

One needs to know something about openings and to understand some basic principles about what has to do in a chess opening, or can easily fail in its attempt to win by the very beginning of the game.

I cannot resist another post on this topic. See:

How to Play Against Old Guys, Pt. 1

 Silman – regarding a senior (Jude Acers)

A Comments provider (Ronin-Samurai, 2013) posted that Jude was still playing chess against all comers for a small fee, in the open air in New Orleans.

After losing 4 games against him, I went back the next day after reviewing a few of his career losses.  I tried to open with the nizmo-larsen attack, which he admitted to me he did not know all that well. He (Jude) played against the opening well until I made a mistake regarding what happens when you aren't careful about the lines opened by playing e3. Prior to the mistake, he announced to me that I could draw the game and that he couldn't beat me from the resulting position.  This is a perfect type of opening to play against a tactical gambit wizard.  (However,) I have never had someone so easily take an advantage off of 1. d4 d5, and this includes computers because they don't play as aggressively as he does.

He did, however, provide some valuable advice.  He extolled the virtues of a "simple plan."  He explained to me that he was simply playing sound logical moves and waiting for me to make a mistake (which I did every game).  He demonstrated the value of waiting moves and also showed me an example of how to simplify the endgame with exchanges, even perhaps technically losing material in exchange for the ability to march pawns unstoppably.

So much for unbeatable openings; mistakes do happen.

Also, I like Jude's safe and certain path to glory in the endgame, even if TT penalises you for missing a tactical solution! See material in exchange for the ability to march pawns unstoppably. See:

Tactics Trainer encourages blitz, not growth

I apologise for seeming to hog the comments, but Chess.com has the following article from 2011, with which, all should be familiar:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-principles-of-the-opening

Most openings are either going to fight for the center and gain space.  Nothing new in chess.

I feel the same way. I like playing the same opening to see where I could of done better, or where I could of capitalized on.

Count me out. No openings obsession from me.

Hear, hear! 

+1

As well as first knowing the general principle underlying opening theory or strategy (see my earlier comments), it does help to have an opening repertoire. I do NOT mean knowing every opening, but an opening repoirtoire with which a player of White or Black is comfortable.

It is like a concert pianist - he/she may be able to play many pieces, but has a repoirtoire in which they excel and from which they will choose a selection for a concert tour.

A useful start is:

How To Develop An Opening Repertoire

by GM Gregory Kaidanov

Are you a tactical player? A positional player? Are you lazy, or are you a hard worker? Whatever "category" you fall into, Grandmaster Gregory Kaidanov has the answer for you! Learn what his recommendations are both from an "x's and o's" standpoint of what openings you should choose, as well as the psychological and practical aspects that go into choosing an opening repertoire. Enjoy!

http://www.chess.com/video/player/how-to-develop-an-opening-repetoire

yea ik it's pretty boring

Doduobird123,

I meant the b1 Knight - apologies for the confusion

My post remains valid that there are basic principles for the Opening in a chess game, and we would be wise to heed those principles, rather than search for "the perfect chess opening".

This may apply more for black than white, as white has the first move initiative, and black must decide how to respond. But after black's response, then the onus is back on white.

So it may be wise to go into the Opening, with a good understanding of basic opening principles (covering the first 10 moves, by when the King is safely castled and Rooks connected), and 2 or 3 well-rehearsed opening strategies. 

Kasparov in a game moved his N 7 times, but this was for a specifical plan, howewer general principles are 99% of the time correct,

How did you come up with that number?

Hmmm, so Teichmann was wrong about chess being 99% tactics?   

I knew I should have bought that book by Silman.

Because openings matter, despite what the naysayers insist. To neglect opening understanding is to neglect a key part of the game.

Knowledge in other facets of the game make no difference if every game you're losing by the first ten moves.

They ask for opening help because they know that they need it.

Pearls of wisdom or pearls before swine? Take your pick...

By the time a player becomes a Grandmaster, almost all of his training time is dedicated to work on this first phase. The opening is the only phase that holds out the potential for true creativity and doing something entirely new.  -               GARRY KASPAROV

Ninety percent of the book variations have no great value, because either they contain mistakes or they are based on fallacious assumptions; just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings. J R CAPABLANCA

Capablanca was speaking in a time when openings were inaccurate.

Now that computers have come around and openings have been hammered and fine-tuned, going out of book can sometimes be an instant loss.

Agreed - for either player if the "bookworm"  hasn't really learned his/her opening lessons properly - although this doesn't always result in an instant loss (or any loss at all sometimes) it can result in a bad game by not understanding how to deal with moves outside of the "book" - as I can attest to from sad personal experiences on occasion

This assumes that the player with the advantage knows how to properly use it...