Easiest opening to learn for beginners ..

Helzeth,

Nobody wants to move on autopilot. Nobody mentioned anything remotely like this. It's not about learning openings in the sense of memorizing variations, but about a good way for a beginner or improving player to start the game. During the discussion, the question came up if the Colle might be such a way. I generalized this question, asking why it is considered harmful by some masters to use a system (KIA or Colle or whatever) as a way to reach a playable middle game without learning variations.

Btw: Using my own creativity is fine. Reinventing the wheel is not. You have to find a balance.

It's as if people think that if beginners arent using some sort of system they wont reach a middlegame at all.

When a student thinks on a position he uses his own intuition, preferences and abilltiies to judge what he is suppoesd to do and then plays it. Take a middlegame when he decides to trade his bishop in exchange for giving the opponent double pawns. That's an example on a CHOICE you can do in the middlegame, where a trainer could tell him if it was a good idea or not at the time, explain when it is and why. These lessons tend to stick to the player, I remember the first time my coach displayed the tactical trick of capturing on b2 with a knight on c4 when playing as black on the recieving end of the english attack. (imagine queen and rook on c7 and c8). I can now find it instantly with no problems and that was years back.

Why not apply the same thing for the opening? Why try to skip the process of growth by having the players take on a ''system'' that they KNOW is safe without really knowing why?

Whatever, if a coach wants to do that it's his choice to stunt the growth of his student.

I agree with Pfren, The problem to LEARN you need to start with simple strategical ideas and then build outward. The old saying that every problem looks like a nail when the only tool you have is a hammer applies here, and is very effective. 
I also agree, that in theory , the opening-middlegame-endgame connection but I also strongly feel that there is far too much weight given to endgames early on. The Botvinnik school ONLY accepted students after they have proven themselves tactically. I will have to ask Serper what the qualification process was when I get a chance. But It seemed to me that you had a test and a minimum rating level. The education of endgames first is pushed by players who really had mastered tactics and main middlegame plans so endgames were constantly on the table. For the vast majority of Class players the importance of complex endgames is relatively low. Games are won or lost long before they get to the endgame. Silman's book speaks directly on this subject and supports my longtime belief that endgames are not as critical for growth and study as other areas. 

openings are important to some extent that they are how you set yourself up for the rest of the game. Supporting what Pfren said the openings should be strategically simple or at least the primary plan should be. Why I liked teaching the Italian game, its equal BUT players are MONSTERS when you tell them to centralize and PUSH down the middle and wait for something to happen. It is easy to teach because the theory is well defined. the plans are relatively simple and effective. It teaches quick attacks and the importance of centralization.

Benko is also fairly simple strategically so a nice one to teach

The Tarrasch is easy to learn to learn and you 'trick' people in to learning a key position

Accelerated dragon and Taimanov (safest siclian by chess stars is my preference, I really like the format of the book) where the plan is play ...d5 as soon as you think its possible. 

Give players a hammer and let them go for it, focus on simple ideas and concepts, work on tactical themes and basic plans.  I work on endgames as they start to appear in a players games.  (see silman's endgames book) 

IMO the King's indian should wait until 1800+ and even then its rough and a probably gonna take flak for this one but the Ruy lopez too

Would you give safest sicilian to a weak player?

Whooooooosh

define weak? the format is great for players . They have what is called a quick repertiore and detailed one. THe first one gives the big picture plans and ideas the follow up chapter gives more details and specifics. you can play a good game and understand whats going on with just the first chapters alone and my advice is just read those until your 1800

Oh, it's one of my main books (I do play the taimanov after all!). It's just... Putting the hedgehog in the hands of a 1200 player is insanity. Every sub 1800 player I've been up against that used the hedgehog has fallen for the rc1 nd5 trick with a black knight on c6 and queen on c7.

Also, the line delchev recommends for his quick rep vs english attack is a poor line which commits the king to the kingside too early. The mainline is far superior.

Its all learning. exposure to positions is fine. 1200 players wont play the hedgehog correctly anyway. My goal in teaching is encouraging exposure to LOTS of positions from different angles. By the time the Marozy bind becomes  playable they can move on or learn the hedgehog

I know this is a bit off-topic, but... would you please share a line, or show a diagram? Just wanting to learn, here... 

its hmm not just a line. Its a book. that  I can highly recommend. safest siclian by chess stars. Even if you dont play it the book is great because he describes plans and ideas and moves without overwhelming you. Makes you feel like a master once you read even the quick repertiore chapters. I feel like I  am getting a private lesson from a GM.

Oh, I just meant the hedgehog trap (unless an entire book was dedicated to such traps?).

Sure. I'm sure there are some flaws with the move order, I'm only throwing the move order in to get to the position. It's a theme well worth remembering, I've beaten a 2000er with it.

ugh, so tired. The knight is fine on d7* of course >_>

(I made a diagram last page)

Your method is correct.

That's what I did.

But that's assuming they will only pick one or two openings and stick to them, thereby learning nothing about the game as a whole. In my experience they experiment with different things, thus slowly gaining a more general understanding. I would argue that to understand the QGD is no closer to understanding chess than understanding the Dutch is to understanding chess.

If you realy think that a beginner should start from Dutch then stop teaching and go back to school(If you really care for your students).

Michael-G,

You really create the impression that you consider anyone who does not share your point of view an idiot. This way you are not going to convince a lot of people.

Sred 

You are very confused.I don't care in convincing anyone, I never did.

  There are openings that are more important than other openings.Not because they are better but because they lead to very important positions.It is very important for a beginner to learn how to play with, let's say,  isolated pawn(and against it).If he starts from Dutch , after 3 years he won't know that.Every teacher that doesn't know that, can't teach , simple as that.He is not an idiot , he simply can't teach. 

      In articles repeatedly published in Shakhmaty v USSR , 64 and Shakhmaty Bulletin , Botvinnik , Suetin and Boleslavsky consider 1.e4 e5(for open positions) , 1.d4 d5(Botvinnik considers the positions from 1.d4 d5 semi -open although many books refer to them as closed) and 1.e4 e6(for closed positions and pawn structure understanding) as the main openings that will help any beginner to understand chess.More specifically Ruy Lopez , Queen's Gambit and French defense are considered the cornerstones of any beginner's chess education because they help him learn and understand most of the vital aspects of chess.Dutch belongs to the category of openings that no one should play until his basic chess training is complete and his level of understanding is on a satisfactory level. 

     Sorry for being rude but again I will trust Botvinnik and I will say to anyone that doesn't agree with him to go back to school.

    I will repeat that I don't care to convince anyone.It will be for your own good if you are convinced but you seem to care more for the protocol.I don't , I never did.

    There are some truths that no one say.We let beginners think that they can do anything they want.That they can study openings , that they can start from Dutch or Sicilian Najdorf.Nothing is less true than that.

    I will repeat that beginners are like kids.You don't let kids eat what they want.You learn them to eat correctly and when they grow up they can choose their food.No beginner has the ability of choosing anything , he has to be under continuous guidance.

    In the meantime you keep up with the protocol.By the way , I am wearing a tie , I hope I am correctly dressed.If not please forgive me.Next time I will rent a tuxedo.

Ok Micheal G, I actualy hate symetrical positions as Black, because white can force a break to his own advantage, I will admit that e5 is in my rep as Black, but I do play the Dutch because it's fun, and I don't have to play the stonewall, I mainly play Classical, sometimes Lenningrad, its a much more tactical opening (atleast according to its reputation) than the QG.