< Age 10, Defense Against e4: e5, Scandi, or French?

Teaching little kids, but mostly my son, which beginning opening repertoire for the 1000 rated player?  I don't want to spend much time on opening lines, but they already know the principles of development, center control, king safety, and want to get a little deeper.

Kids like playing 1.e4.  So that's good.  Open, attacking, tactical chess.  Will probably create another post about whether kids should learn Open Sicilian or Anti-Sicilian, but that's not really the subject of this post.

But what's the easiest, yet obtain sound, playable middlegames for these youngsters that will serve them well their entire lives for a defense against 1. e4?   

A.)  e5 seems logical.  That's how chess theory history and development started.  But they have to learn KG, Scotch, Giuco Piano, Ruy Lopez.

B.)  Scandinavian.  1. ... d5.  Much less theory, and obtain playable middlegames.  Just doesn't follow the traditional track of chess pedagogy.

C.)  French.  Fairly straightforward ideas.  But cramped, maneuvering chess.  Seems anti-thetical to a White repertoire of 1. e4.  But maybe less theory to learn than all the possibilities of  1. e5?

Note:  I see plenty kids playing the Sicilian.  Not crazy about novices getting into the Sicilian because I'd much rather have them spend time on tactics and endgames than learning openings.  So I'm not putting the Sicilian on the short list unless someone can present solid arguments otherwise.

So what do you folks recommend for the young scholastics?

I would recommend e5 as it is a lot simpler and it involves middle games which can be both tactical and positional.

I would recommend e5 as it is a lot simpler and it involves middle games which can be both tactical and positional.

I would recommend e5 as it is a lot simpler and it involves middle games which can be both tactical and positional.

You don't think the d5 Scandinavian is simpler?

1.e4 e5 is the most natural and learning open games is a long term investment.

I would recommend learning the open games with 1.e4 e5. The Scandinavian is not the best opening for teaching classical opening principles. "Safe and easy" without a principled approach to the opening becomes a crutch in the long term. I have worked with younger students where we had to work through bad habits that developed from "easy" systems recommended by another coach. Maybe the Scandinavian could be useful to teach as a surprise weapon for stronger students who have a good foundation in opening principles, but I don't care much for it as a main defense for a beginning player. 

The lessons from the open games will be valuable for learning other openings in the future. It is so important to have a sense for the initiative in these openings and this experience will serve a player well in the long run. I am a little uneasy about a student starting with the French, since this often leads to closed positions where inexperienced younger players can tend to play too passively with a space disadvantage. For an inexperienced player, the illusion of safety in closed positions can lead to some bad habits if there is not a proper foundation. The French is a counterattacking opening and it takes significant skill to play it properly.

Thanks NM MetalRatel, AggressiveBee, and Harsh1739.  It's just that teaching/learning lines against KG, Scotch, Giuco (Fried Liver, Anti-Fried LIver), and Ruy Lopez (Exchange and other lines) seemed particularly daunting.

But I think you're all right.  For the young scholastics, learning e5 is probably best.  One last question, would you teach them the Petroff, or would you stick to 2. ... Nc6?

I prefer to teach 2.Nf3 Nc6. There is more variety, it introduces players to a lot of chess culture, and I think it is more interesting to teach. I have more experience with that myself, although I have known some strong players who swear by the Petroff.

You don't have to enter the sharp variations of the Two Knights. One possible approach for an introduction is to have a consistent set of systems based on the bishop's development to c5:

2.f4 Bc5

Scotch 4...Bc5

Italian 3.Bc4 Bc5

Classical Berlin 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5

(This may allow you to consolidate the exchange structures into a more straightforward development for beginners. By the way, this is a pet line of Ben Finegold.)

Obviously e5

Possibly helpful:

First Steps: 1 e4 e5

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf

The Petroff: Move by Move
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7530.pdf

First Steps: The Scandinavian

https://www.everymanchess.com/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/148/

First Steps: The French

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7611.pdf

https://new.uschess.org/news/how-to-really-learn-an-opening-review-first-steps-the-french/

Yeah, I didn't think so either.  But one fellow did recommend it.  So I put it on the potential choice list.

agree with the general e5 because it teaches so many open structures. you can learn to play these positions without teaching theory, and when it comes time to learn preparation your student will already intuitively how to play the arising positions as well as learning basic traps in common structures. 

but why not c5? it's perfectly sound, again deep theory is not necessary at this level, it teaches tactical awareness and a great variety of positions in middlegame and endgame. 

but most of all - why stay on one opening? i think this such bad often-given advice. sure, play the e5 or the scandi until you know the structures, then play something else. the more structures you know, the more transposition comes naturally and pattern recognition is developed to a much greater extent imo. 

My late father taught me 1. e4 e5 based games at eight. In fact if I tried anything else like 1. ... c5 ( just like Fischer ) he put the pawn back. The biggest confusion I had was the Two Knights, which I hate to this day as I learned knight's before bishops and do not move a piece twice in the opening.
I like #9 post

My First Opening Repertoire for Black by Moret might interest you.  It uses the Scandinavian Portuguese Variation against 1.e4.  (Albin Counter-Gambit and Stonewall Dutch are the other main defenses in that book)

https://www.amazon.com/First-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-Ready/dp/9056917463/ref=sr_1_2/144-9285840-6943228?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523472929&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3AVincent+Moret

Hmmm.  You got a point.  Hitler didn't think much of the French defense.  And it seems like many Muslims don't think much of the French defense today either.  

I liked his book for White, but I think his recommendations for Black could get a beginning player (or anyone for that matter) in a lot of trouble. IM Christof Sielecki (Chessexplained) did a review of this book on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgqUmSVbdFk (go to the 50 minute mark).

The problem with anything that isn't 1...e5 is that you almost certainly violate at least one general opening principle.  With the Qxd5 Scandinavian, you are moving your Queen early; with the Nxd5 variation, you are moving pieces twice in the opening.  Granted, neither is losing or anything, but if your goal is to instill all the basic principles of chess, you don't want to play exceptions on move 2.

@MetalRatel shows a good system, where you follow the same general set-up as Black and get similar play.  The one think I'll add, though, is Classical Italian with c3 and d4 from White can be very tricky.  In the mainline, if Black doesn't find ...d5 (and if you've never seen it before, why would you consider this at 1000 level?), he gets a worse game.  Also, the Moller and similar gambits are apparently nothing at master level, but I can see it absolutely wrecking beginner competition.

We don't want people to memorize theory at beginner level, but they need to know how to play these types of positions.  This is the main challenge of learning 1...e5 imo.

When I was a beginner every kid would play the Italian from both sides.