Always get bad positions in the opening

So I'm rated a little over 900 (rapid, which is what I mostly play) and started playing a few months back. I know that generally, openings aren't considered useful to learn at my level, but I just keep getting bad positions right from the beginning. As white I always let black equalize or even get an advantage from around move three. I do a lot of puzzles so I'm okay in the middle game, and end games go fine - it's always that opening phase... I know the absolute basic principles of taking control of the center and only moving the pieces one time. This, though, doesn't stop me from blundering pawns or letting my opponent take a lot of place.

I'll show a representative game and I'd love some tips and tricks of how not to mess it all up in the opening. 

Thanks!

Well here you play Caro Kann and of course you must know a little detail if you want to play this regularly. For example, 4.Bxd3 is absolutely essential or you are getting a bad position...you don't need to be an opening theory junkie to realise this - as the analysis shows after your move 4.e6 white can go 5.Bxf5 forcing exf5. Why would you want to allow this horrible doubling of your f pawns to happen? Your move 5.Be4 is the same...you could still have gone Bxd3 and it's fine, but you allow Bxe4 dxe4 and again you are letting white ruin your pawn structure and leaving yourself with weaknesses. 7.Qd5...as the analysis shows you can capture on d4 instead, the pawn is not defended. Move 8 or 9 you can play Bb4 developing a piece, getting a step closer to castling, but you play the further weakening f6 and the sad retreat Qd8.

Protect your pawn structure - once it's ruined you are left with permanent weaknesses which are very hard to defend.

Develop pieces as quickly as possible.

Do a little research on the best and standard way to play the openings you want to use. 

Well I am referring here specifically to 8.Bb4+ and 9.Bb4 - where the position demands it. If you don't know specific opening lines it is a generally useful way to think about how to play. It is not 'the silliest advice ever given to beginners'...

Yes of course, you and I both understand this...but based on the game he shared the OP needs to learn to walk before he can run. In this game he allowed his pawn structure to be wrecked and did not develop efficiently, which I why I advise him to bear these 2 things in mind. He is a long way from playing some gxf6 Sveshnikov's or whatever. 

Well OK. The OP can read all the advice from both you and me and see that mine is universal and not applicable always and yours is specific and requires increased understanding. 

hmm

I'm not sure what this anecdote demonstrates? I simply say that the OP as a 900 rated player who has only been playing a few months should first understand the basic principles before then understanding when it is better to not follow such a universal guide. You need to know the 'rules' before you can understand when it is better to break them. The game he shared shows he is not there yet. I don't really see what your advice is...seems you just say 'get good so you understand when activity is more important than structure, or tactical possibilities justify allowing weaknesses'. 

keffereboy -- it's admirable what you have learned thus far regarding opening lines.  As you must have certainly noticed by now, and as evidenced in your game, a great number of players don't play the opening lines for more than 2-3 moves.  And then what?

So, my suggestion is this: combine your learning of specific openings along with learning general opening theory.  (I've found John Emms' "Discovering Chess Openings" to be an enjoyable read, and I've already learned a lot from it).  After reading the book, anybody would have been able to tell you that your 5...g4 was unsound (weakens king-side pawn structure big time), and that there were a few times when you could have developed your knights, but didn't.  E.g., after you exchanged bishops that left his e pawn isolated would have been a great time to play Nc3, or even better, c4 and then Nc3.  (Even more so because your kingside defense is a wreck and your going to have to castle queen-side).

(Edit: if you had played Nc3 instead of Bd3 -- I'm not necessarily saying you should have, but you could have-- then after he moves his bishop out, g4 looks a lot less worse, because you're taking a weak pawn position for his bishop retreat)

So, yes, it's good to know some openings -- even better to know opening theory so you can wing it when your opponent plays a surprise, or even just merely "off-line".  (And, imho, what do I know: better to know both).

(edit: another one:  Had you ever played against Caro-Kann before?  I never have.  So what would I have done in the second move knowing absolutely zero about C-K?  2. d4.  Now, if you didn't know anything about C-K either, and played d4 because it "felt right", then you already have an intuitive grasp of some of opening theory already -- e.g., control the center early.  That's why would you also play 2. d4 against the French, too (1 ... e6), and against Pirc defense, too)

I get your idea of not tunneling on general ideas that can sometimes be bad, but how is that advice applicable in practice?

Okay, I see what you're saying about not doubling pawns and keeping the structure intact. This is something I haven't really cosidered very important for some reason, despite hearing and reading about it. I will implement this and think one extra time about how my pawn structure will be affected by my moves. Interestingly, I just realized that pawns are important to keep, while as earlier I thought of them as rather worthless and therefore didn't mind if one or two were taken for free. I guess my next pawn-related realization is that the structure of them, too, is important. Gaining respect for those one point-valued little guys by the day :-) Thanks for the elaborate answer!   

Amazing answer - very concrete and practically applicable. Interesting thoughts about 1.d4. You're saying that 1.d4 gives a more closed position, but aren't closed positions harder for beginners to play? I'll for sure try some 1.d4 out and see if it's helping me! The chess engine on chess.com gives a max depth of 18 for platinum users. Is this deep enough to give a good answer as to what move is really best? I've visited lichess with their cloud based analysis which often goes as deep as 54 when I've tried learning the best responses to my opponents moves in the opening, thinking that deeper=better...

May I recommend John Emms' Discovering Chess Openings -- it's full of stuff like that.  It's very accessible, and -- best part for me -- it's not a repertoire book, but a short book on various principles.  It has six chapters -- each one with around three exercizes at the end.  And, btw, one of the chapters is called "Pawn Play"

I'm an intermediate player and learning the lines I'm likely to face in my preferred black openings through castling helped me get a lot of comfortable positions, which improved things for me a lot. I don't mean anything complex, just the first 5-8 moves. On the analysis page for the other main chess site, when you put in an opening you can look at how amateur players typically react to different moves, so that's how I figured out the particular things to be prepared for.