Just because a guy won't get compensation for a pawn in an opening is no reason for a beginner not to play it. Not like beginners will win a lot of games anyway.
At least Latvian Gambit, Albin Counter Gambit, King's Gambit, etc. lead to exciting play. Beginners can learn how to maintain an attack, and how to fight being a pawn down. These are learning experiences, which is precisely what a beginner needs.
Maybe not THAT true 
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.
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.
Perhaps that's because it's not even a gambit!
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.
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.
Perhaps that's because it's not even a gambit!
What in the world are you talking about?
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.
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.
Perhaps that's because it's not even a gambit!
What in the world are you talking about?
The Queen's Gambit is not a real gambit. White can easily re-gain the pawn.
Are you kidding?? I've won about 55% of my games playing white in the queen's gambit.
Actually, even though I've played only fifteen games playing the queen's gambit, I have won 67%, drawn 20%, and lost 13%. Playing 1.d4, I have won 55%.
They shouldn't try to I agree. What we should do is learn how to play one opening very well. For instance, I'm working on 1. d4 playing white, and the sicilian and KID for black.
as white i like the scotch for 1.e4, as black i like the french
for 1.d4 i like the queens gambit or torre attack as white, or the benoni/benko as black
looking to learn more of the spanish/italian and sicilian lines.
still a long way to go.
Just because a guy won't get compensation for a pawn in an opening is no reason for a beginner not to play it. Not like beginners will win a lot of games anyway.
At least Latvian Gambit, Albin Counter Gambit, King's Gambit, etc. lead to exciting play. Beginners can learn how to maintain an attack, and how to fight being a pawn down. These are learning experiences, which is precisely what a beginner needs.
Again, I have done just fine without playing these. I have learned to attack and fight a pawn down from learning... positional openings lol. Well what I did was work backwards: I started to really get into chess once I understood strategy, because without strategy all I would do in a game is try not to lose pieces and maybe hope for a fork or something, and it was boring. So I would say beginners can study what they want, just make sure you work on your weaknesses too. I got good at planning (I worked on it simply because it was the part I most enjoyed), and my tactics sucked, but once I got much better at them all of a sudden I'm nearing 1700 OTB. And honestly, all I have to do is do ALOT more tactics and maybe some endgames and I can get to 2000. Much easier said than done!
Idealy though you should probably be good at tactics first, and perhaps gambits do help but it's quite possible to go the other way around and not play gambits either.
I played the Lasker Trap in the Albin Counter Gambit. Seven moves in and I had a huge advantage.
But other than memorized traps in openings, theory alone has never won or lost a game of chess. No matter how much opening preparation we do, every time we sit down at the board we'll find ourselves in new positions. It says a lot for the game that I have been playing chess for 30+ years and never played the same game twice.
Recognizing familiar patterns, which can only be learned by experience, probably does more for a beginner than learning openings.
Recognizing familiar patterns, which can only be learned by experience, probably does more for a beginner than learning openings.
Openings are definitley not the most important to learn, but I think learning opening ideas these days are underrated, thought to be ignored completely "until you're 2000". Now it's probably possible to get to 2000 if you're extremely good without openings, but just much harder.
My journey has been much different in that regard. Openings are, by far, the strongest part of my game. That might explain why I tend to play well against higher rated players because if we both play book moves, I can follow along,and I know the ins and outs several moves in. But vs. weaker players I often stumble because they do something bizarre.
Now I am learning more about principles of where to put my pieces and why. Instead of the memorized lines, I can think intuitively where a piece belongs, even if the opening chosen is foreign to me. It's also the reason I experiment more in the opening now, to feel comfortable going into the middlegame no matter what.
I'm a big fan of learning openings, especially the ideas, but I admit that it is not the most important part to improve on. I notice you know alot of different openings as I do, and yet all that knowledge only equates to 1668 correspondence. As millions of people have said before, there isn't much point in going deep into opening lines if you don't understand why the moves are played, if you have trouble understanding them even when the moves are annotated, that's a sign to learn more about planning (and you can never go wrong with more tactics lol). It's refreshing though to hear someone who cares about the openings too, though to me it comes as a big shock because you like Na3 so much which is supposedly to avoid preparation and get out of book! Plus you say how unimportant opening advantages are (maybe if you don't know what to do next, but if you do it makes your plan more important than your opponent's).
I love opening ideas, but I don't like to memorize blindly. It's very un-fun and if you don't understand the line even if your opponent plays into it that deep (which is a big if) you may only get a slight edge or equality and if you don't know what you're doing afterwards it is in fact useless. So I'm not a huge "book" opening player, I just love to study them actively. I only memorize when necessary, like a convenient trap or in sharp situations. Or I may have many moves memorized, but only because I studied the ideas a lot and memorize not only the moves but ideas naturally. I play the normal moves (e4 and d4) because I do well with them and when you're playing well with the most reliable moves (that guarentee you activity with correct play, and I can't say the same for other openings) I see no reason to compromise my position. I want to make a logical move that will definitley improve my position. Na3 probably won't be the best square for the piece and if you give up space you're giving your opponent a lot to work with.
But you probably have a different style. I don't think I would do well with Na3 but you're style may do better with it despite it not being as strong.
I don't play 1. Na3 that much. I have lately only in defense of it.
I like to think if I took my time I'd be a stronger correspondence player but I tend to rush my moves and lose because of a blunder. I only joined this site a short time ago, so I expect to be 1800+ soon.
On another site I am over 2000. OTB I don't play in too many tourneys, so my rating is <1500. If I played more, I'm confident I'd be >1800. I guess everybody says that, right? ;)
OTB 1800 when your cc isn't even 1800? I don't know about that. OTB is drastically different in ratings.
Queen's Gambit is good, see my topic on it for more information.
OTB 1800 when your cc isn't even 1800? I don't know about that. OTB is drastically different in ratings.
I haven't played much here. I played snail mail chess for about 10 years -- improved my strategical play greatly. At Stan's NetChess, I was close to 2200 at one point and currently over 2000. I'll be over 1800 here in no time.
I know guys over 2000 OTB who have lower ratings here than I do. There's a definite correlation, and I'd expect CC ratings to be higher too, but that's not always the case.
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.
Actually, you have a game by a Kasparov that is rather unknown thanks to the fact that he shares the same same surname as the former World Champion Gari.