After 1. e4: Sicilian (c5), French (e6), Caro-Kann (c6), Scandinavian (d5).
After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6: Scotch (d4), Ruy Lopez (Bb5), Italian (Bc4).
After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 (Queens Gambit): Slav (c6), Queens Gambit Declined (e6), Queens Gambit Accepted (dxc4).
1. d4 Nf6 is the Indian.
Hello everyone, my name is Dennis and I have some questions about "named openings", as I call them at the moment.
I'm learning to become a better chess-player by using the Study Plans, and I am in the beginner section about the openings. In the articles provided in the Study Plans are several named openings I've never seen or even heard of before... which makes me feel kinda like a noob. And maybe it's just silly, but I don't like that feeling, especially when reading the before-mentioned articles.
So my question is this: Can someone tell me about the most commonly known "named chess openings"? Just a few basic ones that are not too hard to grasp. If anyone could help me with this, I would really appreciate it!
Before you read any further, there is a book that will save you alot of time and aggravation with the openings. The book is, "Pawn Power in Chess", by Hans Kmoch. In the book, between pages 114-160 Mr. Kmoch tells the reader that, "...Almost all openings result in 6 characteristic pawn structures. He writes further, to detail for the reader, how each of those 6 pawn structures should be handled by both White and Black. He sheds light on plans of attack and defense for both sides given the pawn structure for all 6.
The most important concept he makes crystal clear is that the pawn structure is the hills, mountains and valleys of the battlefield on the chess board. And, that any plan of attack must conform to the pawn structure. In other words, a plan of attack that calls for the chess army to go thru a mountain in the pawn structure is doomed to failure.
He also wrties about the following overarching principle:
Winning chess is the strategiacally/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass. One of the main factors that makes this so is the fact that the pawns are the only ones that cannot move backwards.
With time, lots of study, and playing lots of games you will come to a clearer understanding of this principle.
I'm with acivilizedGentleman, that's a slightly advanced book which to get anything out of you need to not be falling victim to hanging pieces or simple combinations.
Don't study plans yet. Learn the game first, at your level people hang pieces left and right and subject themselves to the most obvious tactics. It's pointless to know that in a closed structure in certain positions in the english white can play kh2-ng1-ne2-nc3-nd5 if you're hanging your queen while you're doing it
What you are talking about is that, Dennis, has to build a memory bank of tactical visualization patterns in his brain. He can do that by doing tactical diagrams every day in order to become fit and stay that way like an athlete. And, practicing the basic checkmate endgames (K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+2Bs v K, and K+B+N v K) until he can do them in his sleep, which will tke him about 3 months. He will have built a mating net visualization pattern in his brain. Both the tactical visualization patterns and mating net visualizations patterns will cause the following: When he is playing a game or analyzing a tactical diagram, the mating net or tactic will jump up off the chess board and smack him in the forehead in a flash. I know because it happens to me all the time.
But knowing that the pawn structure dictates his plan of attack in an opening is invaluable information. He wants to look at openings now. He should look at them from the most advantageous perspective possible. I know he would like to ge the right perspective from the beginning. It will make it alot easier as he goes along to become a 'professional gunslinger' (a very strong player.)
studying openings held me at 1400 rating for two years. I became obsessed with traps and long pointless theory lines.
I'll say it again; learn the game, not the theory. Don't bother with theory untill you're actually a hald decent player (I'd say 1600+)
I think basically we agree, Dennis should concentrate most of his efforts on tactics and basic endgame checkmates to cut out blunders in his game. All I am saying is that it is good that in the back of his mind he knows the concept that pawn structure is the landscape of the battle field on the chess board. You are right about the theory. Becoming obssessed with all the opening traps and long pointless theory lines at this stage in Dennis's development as a chess player would not be good. You are right.
studying openings held me at 1400 rating for two years. I became obsessed with traps and long pointless theory lines.
I'll say it again; learn the game, not the theory. Don't bother with theory untill you're actually a hald decent player (I'd say 1600+)
2 years!!! IMPRESSED!
Good perspective Paul. I have Seirawan's Openings book, and liked it, but the main thing I took away from it was the idea that Nf3/g3/Bb2/O-O was the cure for all the world's ills. I now think that's not actually the case, but maybe that's because I read it before I knew anything at all.
I have to confess, though, that even after a year and a half, and a thousand games on CC (mostly correspondence), I'm still fuzzy on what the Nimzo_indian is - something to do with a fianchetto, I think :-) I'm only barely good enough to man-handle two openings now (one white, one black), and even those I screw up half the time!
As far as improving your game goes - tactics practice does help a lot, and so does learning the basic principles.
Good perspective Paul. I have Seirawan's Openings book, and liked it, but the main thing I took away from it was the idea that Nf3/g3/Bb2/O-O was the cure for all the world's ills. I now think that's not actually the case, but maybe that's because I read it before I knew anything at all.
I have to confess, though, that even after a year and a half, and a thousand games on CC (mostly correspondence), I'm still fuzzy on what the Nimzo_indian is - something to do with a fianchetto, I think :-) I'm only barely good enough to man-handle two openings now (one white, one black), and even those I screw up half the time!
As far as improving your game goes - tactics practice does help a lot, and so does learning the basic principles.
There are 2 Theories of Chess:
Classical Chess Theory: Control the center by occupying the center with your pawns and pieces.
Hypermodern Chess Theory: Control the center with the power of your pawns and pieces. With this method your opponent does not have any targets in the center to attack.
The Nimzo Indian is a Hypermodern opening.
I am definetly not a Pro in Openings, and I don't Play as White, but I have heared that the London-System has very few Theory.
It is rarely played at (Grand)Master Level though.
http://www.thechesswebsite.com/chess-openings/london-system.php
And overall this is a Great Chess Learning Website.
If you look on the USCF website, there are some Opening Playing Cards that can teach you these things.
Wow, lots of comments already! 
I gotta admit, it was kinda hard to follow everyone's advice, I was thinking like "Hmm, this seems like good advice, but that does too... what do I do?" After thinking about that question for a few minutes, I came up with this answer: I should follow both pieces of advice. 1. That learning the names of openings is a good thing so I'll feel like a part of the chess community of this site and also because some openings can decide the rest of the game, and 2. Learning about the mid-game and end-games is more effective because knowing the ropes about how to mate an opponent properly can net me some wins, also learning tactics because like somebody said, "Chess is 99% tactics!" So, thank you everyone for your tips! I'll try to keep it all in mind, it is probably a good idea to check back here regularly so the tips stay fresh in my mind! 
I would agree 100% with paulgottlieb. If you enjoy studying openings, by all means study them. You should spend about 1/3 of your time on openings. What you shouldn't be doing is memorizing openings or making moves you don't understand.
http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Opening-Essentials-Openings-Complete/dp/9056912038
everything ya want to know 4 volumes
i play c4 f4 e34 d4 and for black some times g4
What one "should" do is entirely dependent upon what goals one is seeking to achieve.
If your goal is to maximize every second of your study time in order to acheive the best rating possible in the least amount of time possible, then by all means, avoid studying the opening any more than is necessary.
But if you want to enjoy the game, and you enjoy opening theory, then study it all you want.
disagree. You should study openings only enough to get through to the middle game safe and sound. Once you pass say 1500, then you can study openings. At the OP's rating, tactics and endgame study are way more important. For example, if you're going to play c5 against e4, know enough to know the basics of what to do against an anti-Sicilan. And if there happens to be someting you don't know, you must know the principals of what an opening is supposed to do - development, control the center, castling, etc.
GM Drazen Marovic would certainly disagree with you. He wrote:
"The opening is just a part of the game; it should not and cannot be seperated from what comes after. I believe opening study must be based on a selection of games relevant to the understanding of a system or a variation. Analysing the games, we learn not only the the recommended lines but also the strategic airms they introduce."
disagree. You should study openings only enough to get through to the middle game safe and sound. Once you pass say 1500, then you can study openings. At the OP's rating, tactics and endgame study are way more important. For example, if you're going to play c5 against e4, know enough to know the basics of what to do against an anti-Sicilan. And if there happens to be someting you don't know, you must know the principals of what an opening is supposed to do - development, control the center, castling, etc.
GM Drazen Marovic would certainly disagree with you. He wrote:
"The opening is just a part of the game; it should not and cannot be seperated from what comes after. I believe opening study must be based on a selection of games relevant to the understanding of a system or a variation. Analysing the games, we learn not only the the recommended lines but also the strategic airms they introduce."
Not only that, but openings like the Ruy Lopez can last up to thirty moves or more. Once you have studied a certain amount of openings you can reach the middlegames you desire.
It doesn't change, regardless, the fact that the middlegame and endgame make up the rest of chess.
Most players put too much effort into opening analysis and disregard the ending.
Most of your fruitful labor is going into the endgame. That's the point of the middlegame.
It's to transition into a won position in the ending.
Has anyone read the article here by one of the Chess.com, FM's experience at the Chicago open? I wish he had more notes in the games but was a very interesting article. WHat also was interesting to me was how honest he was stating when he was out of book. Here is a guy that just made his 2nd IM norm and said things like: He took me out of what I knew with 6.Nxe5 ,.. I figured he would play something else this time and he did, I ended up taking a lot of time in the opening. It got very complicated when he sacrificed two Pawns,... unfortunately he made an inaccurate move early in the game 9.c4 which forced him to find the strong move 11.Nc3 to avoid being worse. He played 11.d5 instead and I got a better position with a material imbalance.,...Out of the opening I had studied this before and followed my plan, but after 12.b4 b6 I wasn’t sure at all what to do. ,... After I played 12…Nd7 he was suspicious about the fact that he had reached this position earlier and I had played pretty fast. He thought for a while and played 13.Nd1. I hadn’t looked at 13.Nd1 and was a little unsure about what to do,.... I was out of what I knew on move 8…Qf6.
isnt it interesting that an Almost IM was out of what he knew, out of book, etc by move 9-12 in many games yet managed to draw or win them? I think that alone states something very interesting. He understands his systems and can find good moves! knowing 30 moves is only for some elite players. Most of us can do very well with 9 moves and a good understanding of plans.
Hello everyone, my name is Dennis and I have some questions about "named openings", as I call them at the moment.
I'm learning to become a better chess-player by using the Study Plans, and I am in the beginner section about the openings. In the articles provided in the Study Plans are several named openings I've never seen or even heard of before... which makes me feel kinda like a noob. And maybe it's just silly, but I don't like that feeling, especially when reading the before-mentioned articles.
So my question is this: Can someone tell me about the most commonly known "named chess openings"? Just a few basic ones that are not too hard to grasp. If anyone could help me with this, I would really appreciate it!