Where can i learn the queens gambit with all of its lines?

Kasparov's Queen's gambit DVD is an excellent survey.

@kindaspongey said in #10:

"... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. ... 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)

And what, then, would Gary Kasparov say?

I@heallan said in #12:

[Repeat of FM Hansen quote.] And what, then, would Gary Kasparov say?
Has Kasparov put himself forward as an authority on what is most helpful for openings for new players? Does it make sense for us to think of him as an authority on what is most helpful for openings for new players? Does it make sense for us to pay much attention to what someone would imagine that Kasparov "would" say?

@kindaspongey said in #13:

I
Has Kasparov put himself forward as an authority on what is most helpful for openings for new players? Does it make sense for us to think of him as an authority on what is most helpful for openings for new players? Does it make sense for us to pay much attention to what someone would imagine that Kasparov "would" say?

The man beat deep-blue twice; he knows a thing or two about chess.

@heallan said in #14:

[Gary Kasparov] beat deep-blue twice; he knows a thing or two about chess.
Does beating deep-blue twice make one an authority on what is most helpful for openings for new players? Does another person become such an authority by imagining what Kasparov "would" say?

@kindaspongey said in #15:

Does beating deep-blue twice make one an authority on what is most helpful for openings for new players? Does another person become such an authority by imagining what Kasparov "would" say?

Yes, yes it does.

"... the situations in which trainers work vary enormously. ... Some trainers work with large groups of students and others individually; with average low-category players or with bright and highly talented potential stars. ...

That is why I am skeptical about any attempt to introduce a rigid methodology, rigid rules telling us what to do and how and in what order to do this or that. What should one begin with? Openings or endgames? Should he play open or closed openings, should he concentrate on main lines or 'subsidiary' variations? What is more important: a tactical mastery or a positional one?

Opinions of respected specialists, grandmasters and world champions differ greatly. Some claim that chess is 95% tactics, while others hold that the basis of chess is positional play. We should not take such statements seriously; they are worthless and only disorient people because each one reflects only a single facet of the problem. In fact, when we think over a dilemma, be it the one I have just mentioned or another one - for example, should we work to develop strong qualities of a player or to liquidate his weaknesses? - any unambiguous answer like 'we do either this or that' will be a wrong one. The truth lies in skillful combination of the opposite approaches, in search for an optimal proportion between them. And this proportion is individual for every particular case. ..." - IM Dvoretsky (~2003)

lichess studies should have you covered

Netflix....