I think openings are pretty much useless

Middle game tactics and endgame is much more important. Even with the best of openings whatever advantage you get gets nullified at some point later in the game. At the beginner level the eval bar swings like crazy in the endgames. Your opponent pushes one pawn, you didn't move your king in the right direction, now it's too late and he will be promoting to a queen. If you can control this you will win more often than playing the perfect opening but messing up later.

I have not seen a beginner game where the eval bar at some point did NOT reset to 0 after the opening

You're not alone in this thought. Titled players, especially Hikaru, sometimes like to play bad openings on purpose (Hikaru and Magnus once played a game on here where they both opened with 1. f3 f6) and they still usually lead to tough games, as usual.

Openings are defiantly the subject of fickle trends.

The idea behind an opening is to get you to a playable middlegame!

I think one needs to have a repertoire But I think a lot of people attempt to learn openings the wrong way.

IMO a lot of people treat openings like a Tennis serve.. Attempting mash the serve past the opponent. Chess players attempt the same overall tactic, they try to convert the win from an advantage based on the opening.

They attempt to memorize vast amount of theory which rarely is used. I found that I couldn't do that...

Then I got the idea... Why not take a pawn formation and study it. Learn what type of endgames to aim for, what types to avoid. Learn where I can play a pawn up to attack, study the pawn formation looking where my opponent is likely to attack my king. Based on the pawn formation .... Study combinations with the minor the pieces on how to attack my opponent's weak spots . * example f7 or h7. ) Study where and when to open a file for the heavy pieces... Now I work on putting them all together , even faking threats, while setting up real ones somewhere else.. It's getting interesting and fun. At no time have I really resorted to memorizing tactical lines..

I've found.... if my opponent plays an equalizing line, (and there is still plenty of play left in the position) I still have control over the position, I have multiple ideas I know to employ resulting in a practical advantage. IMO... A deep understanding of a position nullifies any engine prep by my opponent 10 min before the game...

So perusing theoretical advantages based on openings for me is a moot. I look for practical advantages...

In case you are wondering the pawn formation I chose was the triangle pawn formation. As White I play the Colle Koltanowski or the Stonewall Attack (both rely on the triangle pawn formation i.e. pawns at c3, d4 and e3 As Black I play the Center Counter Defense (the Scandinavian to people in Europe) and the Orthodox Variation in the QGD (and .... of course I transpose into other opening where prudent... but many times I don't. Example ... 1.d4 c5 a Benoni, probably a Sicilian player too boot. I play 2.e3! only thing Black can do is play cxd4...because to play a pawn to d5 either playes into the Colle or let's me pull a reverse QGA or a reverse Semi Slav....with a move in hand. So on 2...cxd4 3. exd4 Blam! instant Carsbad pawn formation! (part of the Triangle pawn theory... ) Most Benoni player don't play the Carsbad pawn formation well and will struggle with the nuances. Practical advantage to me.

I believe the process can be done with any pawn formation Example : if you play 1.e4 One could do it with pawns at e4, d3 and c3 The Scotch opening comes to mind, the Sicilian Alapin etc...

It's not looking for opening advantages... it's looking at mastery of the middlegame positions resulting from the pawn formation you have chosen.

I'm reminded of Artur Yusupov during the 1980s was the world's No#3 right behind Kasparov and Karpov. Yusupov played a lot of classical openings and D-pawn openings like the Colle Zuckertort and the Torre Attack. He just knew how to play them, played them against the World elite... In a candidates match against Karpov... he hit a brick wall with the main line of the QID... then switched to the Torre Attack and out played Karpov for a win and a draw (Karpov pulled that draw out of his wazzo and got very lucky) The Torre Attack..... a D-pawn special... an opening Karpov probably faced a thousands times. yet, Yusupov could really play those middlegames.... Probably because he also played Old School openings like the Lasker Defense in the QGD when everyone was playing the KID or the QID... He proved that the old openings where still extremely viable...

Openings are not as important as we think they are...However our mastery of the middlegame and endgame!

i agree fully

Just a comment: if you basically try to get each of your pieces out and active, and aim to attack the middle squares, or occupy them and defend your occupation, and you do this without instantly losing pieces either by hanging them or by letting them get forked, pinned-and-zapped-by-a-pawn or anything daft like that, the chances are that you will have played a "proper" opening that you could, if you wanted, have learned by rote.