Beginner? Don't use this opening - It's too theoretical! Better yet, don't learn any openings!

How would you get a better understanding of practically applying knowledge if you don’t play it?

Endgames are useless if you get checkmated.

When you improve all parts of the game to a certain degree, it should be good to start getting over opening theory, but the thing is idk what pool of players we are exactly talking about

"Beginners" is a vague word

Let’s define beginners as sub 1300 because that’s usually when they ask these questions.

1300 should be fine ig

As long as you know opening principals, a good amount of startegic concepts, and most importantly your endgames

But rushing into opening theory, or playing openings which are too complicated and theoretical that require either an understand of the positions or painfully by-hearting them like you study History at school is just wrong

And bad is subjective, decent is subjective, and good is subjective

Like I swear your post is the meaningless post I have ever read lmao

For example, 800 rated player: I just learned this line by heart, it took me 4 hours:

Teacher: Good and what are your plans,

800 rp: euuuuh, win the central pawns? (for example, lacks understanding of  isolated pawn concept on d4, and thinks their opponent is supposed to drop a pawn

Game:

Later in the game:

Black is absoultely crushed

beginner can mean 400 online, also can mean 1200 FIDE (because these are considered beginners too by some people)

Bad can be compared to a 1200 or an IM, who's bad compared to a GM

Plays a little in Russia, means knowledge of 10 moves of theory in the Najdorf

Don't wanna know what decent would mean there

decent in the US, beat his dad with the bongcloud in a 30 sec game where he premoved the whole game and flagged him down a queen

Well no one can objectively say I'm good because I am much worse than some 9-year-old titled prodigy

But no one can say I'm objectively bad because my percentile is 95%

Theory is when you (but usually top players) study a line in an opening and recommend the best move(s). USually in the opening, but there is endgame theory as well, such as thee Philidor, Lucena, Vancura positions, etc.

How am I supposed to know what you're talking about, when you are defining a beginner by simply bad, an intermediate by simply decent, and an advanced player by simply good

With Snudoo not participating I lost all interest in this thread

Your opinion about the example I gave and what I said earlier?

When I'm teaching someone new to chess, typically after learning how to make the moves, I start them on the end game. How to win with a rook and King, they learn opposition and how pieces need to work together then other possible end game possibilities. At the start, I think that will help them; they will learn openings as they play them and when they gather enough knowledge to grasp the finer points.

But Snudoo said a beginner is 1300 and less

But a beginner, in one word, means someone who is BEGINNING, thus a one month learner should be it. In a month I could barely get to 800-900.

After two years, I reached my all time peak of 1950 but it took me two years, which is not a beginning at all

You don't "understand" a position before you play it. It logically goes the other way around.

I'm not against these kinds of teaching. What I'm against is the reasoning, i.e. "too much theory", "you don't need openings", etc.

I mean, openings literally define the type of middlegame positions and the types of tactics that arise. So if you aren't well versed in either of those, or you play a middlegamee you don't understand, then you're just screwed. Which is why I don't like the "only need opening principles" argument. Not all equal positions are created equal.

Look, if I study the advance french as 1500, who knows IQP positions, my opponent played the Monte-Carlo variation of the exchange, anyone would choke, except for my case because I know how to play against IQP because I know a good amount of middlegame concepts.

Also if you explained IQP to a 800, would they understand? No! If they get it on a board, and the engine says "good move" "good move" "inaccuracy" +5.00, will they understand what they did wrong? NO! Instead, if they get there and they say, Oh, the engine wants Nf6, I should have developed a piece. Not, ohh engine wants c6 to blockade the isolated pawn, so that it's an immobile weakness, they won't get that

SNU look at my example, with the game and the 800 rated guy talking to the teacher