What is the most effective study plan for openings?

Hey y'all, here's a bit of context for you:

For the past 4-5 years of my chess career, I've been casually playing systems, but rarely have I delved into serious opening theory. I'm around 1800 on chesscom, and roughly 1900-2000 here on lichess (maybe a little less as of recently- hehe). I feel like there is still some work to be had for tactics and endgame understanding; but on top of that, I think my opening knowledge must greatly improve if I wish to get to that sweetsweet 2000 elo.

My first two years, I played the queens pawn as white; and the kings Indian/ Scandinavian as black.

Since then, I've played a great deal more king's pawn as white, however I've stayed consistent with my repertoire as black.
Here's the kicker though:

Stats show that my win rate with (white) D4 and the London system/reti is better than my current repertoire of E4 Italian/Spanish game. (~49%-52% win rate playing D4, vs. 44%-49% win rate playing E4)
My games as black have consistently betters results (~51%-53% win rate) but could definitely be built upon.

Keep in mind, these stats reflect my performance with openings that I have a baseline understanding of- I've never bought a course or done opening theory.
It's my understanding that e4 openings are sharper that d4 openings, and I might just be blundering too many times, but I enjoy both.
With regards to black, despite my success (and enjoyment) as black with the Scandi and Kings Indian, it's my understanding that those openings are fundamentally better at low level chess, than high level chess. Many players recommend more respectable openings like the Sicilian, or the queen's gambit declined.

MY QUESTION: Is it recommended that I:
-return to my earlier opening repertoire with a fresh understanding and dive into the theory,
-stay with my current opening- but actually study it and improve, OR
-is it better to find a completely new opening and start from scratch?

I feel like if I understood how my openings transposed from the opening to the middlegame, I'd have better odds of seeing tactics and strategies- at least better than I am right now- but I don't know the time risk I'd be taking if I went all in with one opening, and it ended up failing with it in the long run.

i dunno

Any advice would be helpful honestly. If you want examples of my style of play (*cough* me blundering *cough*), I'd be happy to link them.

TLDR: should I go all in on openings with current high yield, but long-term loss of reliability- or do I continue and explore a more respected set of opening that im currently struggling with, but should offer better play as I get better?

Hello, I would recommend you the sicilian with black or the caro kann for a more positional game. If you play for example the sicilian, you would lose a few points right now because you don't know the plans etc. But long term you'll learn a lot from the sharp, tactical positions and you'll have an opening you can play against ANY rating.

If you play the Kings Indian an as black why not the Catalan as white?

Opening principles to know which you should know by now, but if not..

1. Control the center with a pawn or a piece.
2. Develop controlling central squares with each move.
3. Castle before pawn breaks and opening the position (there are exceptions)

Middle game principles can be..

1. Break open the center with d4 if you are in a Rut Lopez game. If 1. d4 d5 then you have the option of making a “pawn break” which is prepared for with c4 or e4.

If you learn an opening then you must know the middle game plans of yourself and your opponent. It can be tough to learn so multiple exposures might be needed.

If you don’t understand an opening well or it doesn’t fit how you like to play then look at a different one.

Looks like you need to spend 100hrs on complex positions in Italian and Lopez to be more familiar of positions. Live 3 months on analysis board playing Stockfishenator.

KID isn't the highest winning opening at GM. Maybe slowly learn Grunfeld and surprise those expecting KID with 3.....d5... then add Nimzo/QID and you are set for life. You can even start with Accelerated Queen's Indian and some of those positions have Grunfeld lines but you are already fianchettoed at b7 but not on king side.

E4 the Scandi definitely looses it's strength above 2200. Time to join the Najdorf cult. It's popular for a reason. Or play Kalashnikov which IMO is an upgraded Berlin or Petrov.

Whichever then slowly add Alekhine and Sicilian Nimzowitsch as surprise weapons along with your Scandi. I believe you can play d5 with Scandi lines in them.

Or start 1...Nc3 (Nimzowitsch) 2... d5 and BAM! Maybe give the line a look. You can play this against 1.e4 1.d4 and 1.c4. Though English Rat 1...d6 2...e5 has higher win rate against d4.

The Modern is also good against d4 and can transpose to KID after 1..g6 2...Bg7 3.. c5 catching them off guard hitting center sooner. I imagine this line would be great sub 1400. I will probably try it later this year.

Although I'm still an amateur, blindly memorizing hundreds of moves "will be playing chess in the same way that a parrot
pronounces words - without understanding their sense" - Emanuel Lasker. Instead, you should focus on the concepts (e.g. in the Queen's Gambit - if they play a6 they're preparing b5, so we can play a4 as a prophylactic move to prevent this), and also I find learning middlegame plans for you specific openings great because then you'll have easier middlegames and more clarity on how to navigate them.
I'm only 1500 Lichess so sorry if I'm wrong and higher rated players please correct me if I am.

@Monnt Thanks for the input, as far as openings go, I think I have a great grasp at the concepts these openings provide- but I'm lacking depth in middlegame transposition, specifically where certain variations give different strengths and drawbacks. I'm playing to the strengths that I'm familiar with, but I give my opponent too much counterplay from the start. if I could hone in on shutting them down I'd have better odds of reaching winning endgame.

@JeremyDunn said in #6:
> @Monnt Thanks for the input, as far as openings go, I think I have a great grasp at the concepts these openings provide- but I'm lacking depth in middlegame transposition, specifically where certain variations give different strengths and drawbacks. I'm playing to the strengths that I'm familiar with, but I give my opponent too much counterplay from the start. if I could hone in on shutting them down I'd have better odds of reaching winning endgame.
Your welcome, perhaps analysing GM games in the specific openings you play could improve your middlegame performance.

@drSabrotna I really like this man, thanks for the word

Play First Study Later

This means, don’t do overstudying in advance. Just give it a whirl or two and look up later.

Latvian Gambit. While drunk.