Why so many players are OBSESSED with openings?

Why so many players are OBSESSED with openings? I see here a lot of posts of <1500 asking for openings.

For one of two reasons:

1) They are idiots and clearly don't understand that there are far more important factors for those that are rated that low.

2) They aren't really 1500.  Online ratings don't mean jack.  Check and see what they are over the board before making that judgement.

It brings players the illusion that they are closer to the level of masters than they actually are as their games may follow the same path for the first 7 or so moves.

Also many who are just discovering openings see them as a silver bullet method, or more simply a way to get 'one up' on their opponent. Many expect that these openings will give them winning advantage if their opponents make the slightest slip ups.

This is why you also see many threads on 'how to refute the double fianchetto' or 'how do I win if my opponent makes odd moves such as h6 a6 e6 d6".

In Italy chess teachers teach to beginners kids openings and don't teach them things like endgames or strategy, almost only openings.

Endgame is the most important part of CHESS.

And eventually they run out of reasonable-ish openings to try, and resort to some seriously dubious stuff. Hence threads on things like the Orangutan and the Danish-Smith-Morra.

And another thing, if you learn a new opening you can play it right away, while if you learn endgames or tactics, strategy, you cannot try it out immediately, so it has this kind of illusion.

All excellent points!

The solution isn't just to learn endgames, but to learn a simple opening that gives the pieces freedom to move, allowing these low rated players to learn essential tactics, enjoy the beauty of the game, and reach playable endgames. 

Some examples of good openings for players to learn include the white side of Scotch, up to about move 6, the Black side of the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch variation, and perhaps the Black side of the Italian game. 

Learn the openings by studying complete games of the masters!

Oh, and do NOT flit from one opening to the next. If you are losing while playing a main line opening, it's due to TACTICS, not the opening.

I think a lot of the misconceptions come from the fact that there are far too many "win with ___ opening" books out there in main-stream book stores, or for that matter videos and other instructional content compared to content that is more suitable for people who have yet not mastered the art of "not hanging pieces" in slow games.

Searching for actually relevant content for lower-intermediate levels amidst this plethora of "opening material" is like searching for healthy food in a vending machine. :)

Then there's the laziness factor.

We're lazy buttheads at heart and it is *so* easy to have somebody spoon-feed us a "he goes here, and then you can go here" instructional content rather than slap us up-side the head and say "okay, here' s the position,  you're all on your own now so figure it out, make mistakes, learn from them and co-erce your sludge-like brain  to actually give a damn, put in the work and deduce things out".

I don't know that I'd advertise this combination of openings.  I think I'd advocate the QGD Orthodox as Black to lower rated players.  Simpler concepts, like taking after White has lost the tempo, not before, and breaking with e5 and/or c5 is a lot simpler to understand than the whole mess with IQPs.

If you are going to start someone on the deep end, and have them deal with IQPs, playing things like the Tarrasch Defense, you might as well have them play 1.d4 then instead of 1.e4, where IQP positions are commonplace for White, and often arise in the Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Gambit, Catalan, etc.

However, I can tell you from experience and from other friends of mine, that most don't hit a comfort zone with IQP positions until they are well into the Expert or Low-Master range.  Therefore, I'd suggest sticking with his idea of the Scotch for White, and playing the orthodox defense as Black in the QGD.

Orthodox or tarrasch are fine. The upside of the tarrasch is it gives some open positions with plenty of piece activity. They may not be comfortable with IQP but they still have to learn it.
Most any QGD variation should be fine for a beginner as none are too complicated, its just a matter of taste.

Maybe the reason is to see what options are available that suit their style and if they like the chess themes around that very opening.

I only know 2 openings: 1. e4 and 1. d4. I think it's more important to learn general concepts and principles that you can apply to any situation rather than learning a specific setup for a specific situation. The odds of the opponent following along long enough for you to reach that optimum position is, in my opinion, highly unlikely. Especially if you're up against a player with greater skill with the general concepts, or a player that's made an equal or greater study of the opening(s) than you.

The best opening is the one you know (well) and your opponent doesn't.

That makes your opening choices (under USCF 1800 ratings) rather simple.

But who listens?  Very few players.

Too many players are focused on their "dashing style," on fawning over their engine evaluations, and engaging in rote memorization of hard-to-pronounce openings.  Duh?

IM @Pfren sums it up nicely in post #5.

I also agree that endgames and middlegames are more important than openings but as an amateur I think it is far easier for one to learn and study openings.  There is a set starting point and arrangement, this familiarity brings a certain sense of comfort to one as they begin to learn.

As one begins to grow in knowledge then I think they start shifting more towards strategy, tactics and positional play and not relying on set opening moves per se. 

Just for the record...i think 1.e4 and 1.d4 are not openings....if i am not wrong,hey are opening moves since after for example 1.e4 goes 1. ...e6 french,1.e4  d4 scandinavian 1.e4 c5 sicilian with many variations for each responce as the game continues....

Also there is the element of the chase for perfection I think - the starting position is the equivalent of the clean sheet of paper.

Rationally I know the one thing I could do to massively improve my game is working through Nunn's Understanding Chess Endgames and Understanding Chess Middlegame books for example. That would be far more important and net me a much bigger increase in rating points than buying (even a good book) on a particular opening system.

But for some reason I never seem to get around to doing it..

Because they feel insecure.

Many lower rated players get beaten in the first stages of the game many times by higher rated players so they feel that the opening is what they need the most. Also, openings determine, to a great extent, the style of play for the game. Many beginners are searching for a style that fits them. Alas I fell into that trap for many years.

I know there are some who are obsessed with memorizing various openings, or who indulge in theological debates on "X versus Y" opening.

Particular openings may favour White who has first move, and Black must then respond. But either player can surprise the other - so much for the memorized openings of mice and men.

I came to chess late in life and worked through Josh Waitshin's Chessmaster. This is a summary of the advice which I assimilated to play a good (or at least reasonable) game of chess, going into the mid-game.

Seek to control the centre of the board (your Pawns, or with a fiancetto of a Bishop), develop your pieces (Knights and Bishops), do not bring the Queen out early (rather place it on the 2nd/7th rank), castle for King safety, and so that your Rooks are finally connected, place a Rook on an open file where one appears or is expected to appear, and maintain King safety (don't push King pawns), etc.

Are those principles so hard to remember or follow in the Opening, especially if you allow some flexibility to respond to your opponent? You do not need to know 1001 openings if you abide by these principles - we are not GMs!