How Do YOU Study Openings?

I'm starting to become devoted to developing not only my repitoire but making sure I am well prepared for transposition. I think watching videos and studying the white side of whatever black repitoire you are making is very very crucial

What is Ray Gordon Gambit???

I would suggest spending more time on strategy or endgames. Openings are not usually a problem until you hit 1800-1900 in classic. You just need to have a solid opening as white and black. I usually play the London system as white and king's indian as black.

With forceps

i dont study openings, just middle game, but i know opening general priniples, so i can hold the game until the middle game comes.... also, i have a lot of experience from more than 6000 blitz games here, so i susually know how majority openings works

The only thing that's ever been effective for me is to watch videos where very strong players explain in depth the purposes of different moves and what the plan you should follow is or to look at books where this same explanation is provided WELL. 

There are so many trash opening books out there that just kind of give a bunch of moves and give variations without much explanation at all. It's sad that class players without a coach have no way to know what books will actually be of any use to them (or any chess resource really). 

I play a lot of blitz games and ask my coach about something if I don't know it

I'll tell you how I am studying now. I started about twenty games and every time I play white, I open with the same opening. (E4 + Knights + Bishop c4) I mostly concentrate on the defence, the f2 square in particular. the first few games I lost. Then I started to cover the weak spots and could concentrate on a more agressive plot. This seems to be working well, for now I won 4 games in a row and half of the games left I'm in a winning position. Next I will study the D4 openings. This will be harder for me maybe as I am ot realy used to the opening.

And of course I'm following the lessons here. Very helpful. Taught me some things I didn't realize.

I use a chess database. I rarely read books. 

Study openings is not a priority in the amateur level, that's the point. A player can improve more dramatically his chess abilities using his time studying tactics, strategy and a lot of classic games by old great chess players, all of this accompained from a good chess book, than studying specific opening lines ("Because you can figure out over the board better than someone who spends say a hundred hours of study time on a position?"). I have some plans to start to study openings in the next year, I am 99% sure I will use the four volume serie "Mastering the chess openings", by John Watson, studying opening fase as a whole. "Chess opening essentials" it's a option too, or maybe this "Curso de aperturas", also in 4 volumes (http://blogs.deia.com/ajedreztxiki/2012/11/12/curso-de-aperturas-de-daniel-elguezabal/), the idea is to spend less time studying a general opening course, than "100 hours on a (same) position". But in the high level maybe spend such time in a same position is necessary...

Yes, I agree, it's important to know the opening fase as whole than be a specialist on a only system as black...

Chess books are no good for me. they give me a headache and I think with all the variations the amount of possibilities in the first 10  ten to 15 moves are staggering. Undoable. I think what works best is just think. think what your oppenent can do and react to that, while making your own plan as you go along. Calculate and after each move of your opponent think again and take the whole board into consideration. The pieces, defence and possible combinations of the opponent and the same for your own formation. watch out for ways to break the opponents formation whilee taking care of your own. I think that is the only good way to really learn. Not memorising 12 openings with 20 variations each. Because after the opening it's all up to you. There is no way to study all the possible positions in the middle game. So if you have to think and be smart in the middle and end game, why not start doing it in the opening too? I don't have a high rating, but for me the best way is to just look at every situation anew. And of course some basic principles apply, like control of the center, developing light pieces first, don't  start advancing all your pawns and things like that. So knowing the basic tactic principles should be enough to help you develop your own preferred openings without busting your head over twentysix variations and then getting smashed by the twentyseventh.

Did the grandmasters start by studying openings? Ik don't think so. They just knew how to think about the game real well and I'm sure the study of openings only came later in their lives, when there was much more at stake

"... 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)
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... To begin with, only study the main lines ... you can easily fill in the unusual lines later. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... 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)
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"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)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-an-opening-to-memorize-or-understand
https://www.chess.com/article/view/3-ways-to-learn-new-openings
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings

I study complete games. It is important to get the general flow of the entire game and what kind of endgame the opening may lead to. Many people stop at the point of the opening book where their side stands better and think the game will win itself. Big, but common, mistake.

That's probably true, but that wasn't the question asked. The question the OP asked specifically was "How Do YOU Study Openings?," Not "what is the best way for sub 2000s to improve?" Maybe he doesn't care as much about rating points as he loves studying openings. It makes no sense to answer a question with an answer to a question that wasn't asked.