Horatio wrote on 10/26/18 at 15:55:33:
I think this is the issue with the mid-range players. But why?
From my experience, it goes more or less like this:
0-1500: Beginners, who play 1.d4 d5 and 1.e4 e5, because they're told to / those are the most normal looking moves
Then around 1500, people want to stop being beginners, so they put some work in. They learn some tactics, they do some endgames, ..
.. aaaaaaand they of course want to learn some openings, as they almost always believe that's the real crux of their game. Now there's a branching spot between 2 different types of players:
1) At the amateur level, there is a very prominent opinion that 1. ..e5 is playing for a draw ("The GMs make all these draws!"), and wow a 1600 might sometimes play against a 1300, who then of course is unbeatable with 1. ..e5, so instead they have to pick up the Sicilian, because that's the "play for a win asymmetrical yada yada" option.
2) They google "aggressive opening for black, with low theory that gets my opponent out of book, so I can play attacking chess and avoid theory monsters", followed by buying the first book that promises 'inspiring play in the Qd6 Scandinavian' or 'allowing you to put your personality on the board with 1. ..b6' or 'go 1. ..d6 against everything! Wow you only have to learn one first move!' or any number of these things.
Almost none of the beginner-turned-intermediate players goes "So far I've played 1. ..e5, let me learn a bit about that". Almost everyone goes "1. ..e5 is the move for beginners who don't know better, and for superGMs that learn 10 books worth of theory in the Ruy Lopez; let me instead play [the solid caro kann, because the chesscom personality test said I'm a solid player]"
This means in the rating range of 1500-2000, everyone plays either the Sicilian (as the #1 asymmetrical opening, to get away from the boring 1. ..e5), or their own slightly offbeat system that they found in some pamphlet / internet article / anywhere, which promised all of aggressive play, low theory, high practical value, and of course that learning plans is everything you need.. be that the Scandi, some g6 Stuff, 1. ..b6, or something entirely else.
2000+: Now, why does it change at this level? Two possibilities, which it's probably a mix of:
1) 2000s are better, so they understand more things, amongst which is that playing 1. ..e5 is not the worst idea
2) The people around ~1800 level, who figure out that 1. ..e5 is a good move and learn it, quickly raise their rating to above 2000; while the people trying to win with 1. ..b6 are more likely to get stuck at that level
Personally I am part of the latter group - when I was 1300/1400, I read some advice to play "1. ..g6 against everything", and went ahead with that cause wow cool, then at 1600(?) I tried to switch to the Kan & Benko from Pirc+KID, and with Lokander's Open Games with Black I went back to 1. ..e5.
My rise from 1300-1700 with the g6+Kan/Benko complexes took me 12? years despite being a youngster; now in the past 2-3 years I've climbed to 2000 with 1. ..e5.
Regarding the Ruy Lopez itself, there it's strangely a bit different with people being very content of playing their junior opening all their life, but in the end "reputation" is still the main factor;
Even if we ignore the people who switch to c4/d4/Others, we end up with smth like 60% Italian, 20% Scotch, 10% Derivatives (Scotch 4N etc), 5% Kings Gambit, and then equal parts Ruy & "Bollocks" (Reverse Philidor, etc); again people think the Ruy is just something for SuperGMs who know endless amounts of theory, and that it's entirely unplayable if you haven't learned every single moveorder nuance by heart.
Of course a big role here will also play that almost noone goes 1. ..e5, so almost noone really bothers working on their 1.e4 e5 repertoire - you get much better payoff by looking up some Sicilian variations, or even if you study the Alekhine.
E: The same or at least similar also applies to the QGD: Start out playing it, then want to 'emancipate' yourself from it so you either switch to the Slav (if "solid"), the King's Indian (if "attacking"), or the Dutch/various (if "want to avoid theory and surprise my opponent with a system that I know the plans of, while they will have never seen it and will just stumble around!")