Beginner Chess Openings?

 goldendog - Four Knights! I forgot all about that one. Thanks! It will be fun to teach that to the school kids tomorrow, as they get confused as to how the knight moves. This variation also teaches one how to develop a bishop and castle. A fine battle can then start.

What if Black decides to capture e4 on move two? I pasted in a variation that may counter the center counter and stop Black's common early queen move. White is down a pawn, but perhaps can capture Black's troublesome pawn in the pasted variation? This would be a nice novelty to try.

Ah...it's not in any book moves after so many years of theory, so White would probably lose in the exchange. After my first attempt at an exchange it appears that White is behind one tempo and can't capture that pawn. Hmm...

Still can't catch Black's pawn. Any ideas? Time for bed!

Why would you play 1.e4 and then fianchetto your KB on g2? Part of the point of e4 is that it opens a nice diagonal for the KB. Putting it on g2 requires another pawn move for the same Bishop, puts it on a diagonal that is (for the moment, anyway) inferior and relegates it to defense.

Also, Black is very likely to take the hanging e4 pawn immediately, so your variation would rarely come up.

You shouldn't be afraid of your opponent bringing out his Queen early. If he does, he (not you) is violating opening principles. Of course, you have to keep an eye on that Queen, but that's a good idea anyway. You can develop normally and may sometimes have the opportunity to make a threat at the same time, gaining a tempo.

That is called the Tennison Gambit; it's played like the Budapest Defense, more or less and I think it's a blast. The problem is that a move like 3...f5 can intimidate a beginner.

I don't know, I use the sicilian defense a whole lot. The reason I have more losses than wins with it is because I use it against players rated 1500 and up. My best win, (1688) I used the sicilian.

I agree with IM Jeremy Silman. Beginners should be encouraged to play gambit systems. This should not come as surprise, because most (if not all) of the top GMs in the world played a lot of gambits early in their careers. Why? Playing gambits reinforces principles of development and initiative. Playing gambits trains the tactical eye showing how pieces work together. Will you lose a lot of games playing gambits? Yes. But at the beginning stage is not so much about winning or losing, but learning how to PLAY chess.

I would recommend any beginner to study the Urosov Gambit and the Traxler Countergambit. Those two systems will almost force you to think less about material and more about development.

Yeah, I already recommended it on page 2 as a good opening for beginners.

 1. I was frustrated in that outside of the Tennison Gambit (which I would not enjoy playing), 2. exd5 is the only good move for White after 1. e4 d5. In Chess Openings for Black, Explained (copyright 2009), 2. exd5 is THE best response. "Black somewhat surprisingly has two good moves: to recapture with the queen 2. ...Qxd5, or to play 2. ...Nf6.

Now, here is the second thing  I find most frustrating about The Center Counter. "Even the best tries for White after 1. e4 d5...on the GM level...end in plus over equal (the smallest advantage White can have) because White has the bishop pair. "  This means memorization of lines after 1. ...d5 as opposed to following opening principles as a beginner without the need to memorize endless book moves. Is this the only opening system where White is attacked after the first move by Black? I hope so.

Hmm...perhaps I need to learn how to respond to 1. d4 c5? Is that even an opening line?

"2. Also, Black is very likely to take the hanging e4 pawn immediately, so your variation would rarely come up."  I agree.

Hmm...perhaps I need to learn how to respond to 1. d4 c5? Is that even an opening line?

I found many games in the database with 1. d4 c5: The Benoni Gambit Accepted. Here is a recent one by the most famous chess player.

Here's a Center Counter line I just read in Chess Openings for Black, Explained that covers 2. ...Nf6. Something different from the usual 2. ...Qxd5. It would be a nice surprise at a chess club gathering.

Some other possibilities in the Nf6 Scandinavian.

Hope this helps at least a little.

 That game is by Belarussian GM Sergey Kasparov, not by Garry :-)

Center Counter for White has very natural, intuitive development. No need to memorize lines. (Even if you do memorize, it doesn't have many lines.) If you are a beginner (see topic title), most of your opponents won't be booked up, and even if they are, Center Counter is not really dangerous for White. It can be dangerous for Black if he doesn't make a retreat square for his Queen at c7.

According to Game Explorer, no Master or GM in its database has ever played 2.g3. I plugged it into my chess engine (Fruit 2.3.1). 2.exd5 is +.42. 2.g3 is -.70. So you lose a whole point, which I interpret as meaning that you threw away that e pawn with almost no compensation.

I disagree with the people who say that beginners should play gambits. Beginners drop material left and right, so they should focus on not dropping material. Once losing material becomes much rarer, then they can go on to gambits if they like.

Guys, this is one way to do it but don't claim it as best. I wasn't like this at all and I was just fine. Play what you like, it's really studying games and tactics outside of openings that is required. I mean more tactical games may be better, but they don't have to be gambits.

The first chess book I read was a on openings by Fred Reinfeld. I won it in a school chess tournament. He made certain openings seem very bad and he didn't recommend them -- most gambits, and other stuff.

The opening he strongly recommended was the Italian Game. I played this a lot early on, and later studied the Evans Gambit.

I only wish that I hadn't been so discouraged from trying other openings like the King's Gambit and Danish Gambit. Reinfeld made them seem so awful, but if I had started playing more gambits and fun stuff at an early age, I really believe I'd be a stronger tactical player now.

Play all the moves that looks atractive to you, and ask yourself "why can't I just do this?" if you win, you win, if you lose, try to learn why.

Not all gambits will be good for beginners, (Like Me.) From whot I have heard, gambits like the latvian gambit simply don't give enough counterattack for the pawn. Gambits such as the king's gambit and Evan's gambit, you need to know how to solidify you're development fast, or you'll simply be a pawn down. An exception is the queen's gambit, which is the only one I'm comfortable with. If black captures, then it is very hard for him to retain the pawn, and there are many traps available. Perhaps the most solid gambit ever.

i thicnk the best will be ruy lopez white and black both and alsow queens gambit

actually that comment was about the Ruby Lopez, as misspelled earlier in this thread. Ruby Lopez does sound... cheap.

I don't think anyone has a problem with Ruy Lopez.