I think most of those claims that players should learn 1.e4 e5 early on come from the type of Russian trainer that only sees pupils when they're already rather strong.
Good point. I suspect the notion that beginners should play e4/e5 is more a convenience for teaching chess.
Teachers need to standardize their lessons. Teaching beginners e4/e5 is a good, sensible place to start and makes teaching groups, especially children, easier. If a teacher hopes to groom future grandmasters, they may as well teach them e4/e5 earlier than later.
However, if you are self-taught, you are faced with the task of filtering down the vast sea of chess knowledge to a manageable size suitable for your learning style and goals. That may not look like the classical curriculum, but it may be better for you.
Beginners should learn e4/e5 openings first
You can think you can play the French, or pretty much any opening before learning the basics. In reality, your creation will have just one similarity to a proper French defence: the first move.
agreed. I often played French though I didn't know the name of it when I play chess in 1st year. Never crossed my mind was 1. ... c5 before I read about it.
1. e4 seemed like a natural move in 1st year. But gradually I explored other openings.
If 1. d4 or c4 brings more win, why not play it?
Of course you can play French but I'm not sure if it's the fastest way to improve.
Shakaali: However, that's not my claim. I'm questioning whether playing the French (for instance) as a beginner is noticeably worse than playing e4/e5. Has there been any study on this? Probably not. Clearly there are players who sidestepped e4/e5 and still made it to 2000+.
There's still some logical order in chess knowledge even if it's not as strict as in math. For example, one should probably learn some basic pawn endings before more complex endings. In the same way, open positions logically come before closed ones.
I'll take your point about pawn endings vs complex endings. But I can't see how that applies to French vs e4/e5. It seems to me the French is overall simpler than the e4/e5 complex, and therefore one might argue that a beginner is better off getting oriented in chess with a simpler opening that provides a solid defense, before taking on all the hair-raising complications of e4/e5.
I'd be worried about their tactics especially if they "look for a White opening like the French..."
Teachers need to standardize their lessons. Teaching beginners e4/e5 is a good, sensible place to start and makes teaching groups, especially children, easier. If a teacher hopes to groom future grandmasters, they may as well teach them e4/e5 earlier than later.
However, if you are self-taught, you are faced with the task of filtering down the vast sea of chess knowledge to a manageable size suitable for your learning style and goals. That may not look like the classical curriculum, but it may be better for you.
Well I also think that 1.e4 e5 is simpler than the other defences. Black cedes nothing, holds his ground in the center and has good development.
The other defences are more ambitious in the sense that they give some early advantage to white (more space and/or better development usually) in the hopes of gaining something long term in advance (a better endgame, chances of a counter attack).
It's hard to understand those defences really well without understanding what it is you're giving to white.
I'd be worried about their tactics especially if they "look for a White opening like the French..."
No one said anything about a White opening like the French.
If the big deal is to get beginners bloodied with tactics, why does no one recommend that White beginners play the King's Gambit exclusively until they have matured enough for the Ruy or GP?
Besides, if one cares about tactics -- and I do -- today's tactical training IMO is much more time-effective than playing several hundred games, whatever the opening.
I see the logic behind e4/e5.
That said, I'm enjoying the counter-argument.
I do have a belief that e4/e5 is the most "efficient" way to develop. Efficiency is the key word there. Of course, you can make it to 2000 or 2200 by another means -- it is a personal choice to make. But I still see the benefits of e4/e5 as "healthy" foundational development. I want to get as good a foundation as possible, through direct means -- with as little effort as I need to put forth. e4/e5 makes a lot of sense to me personally. It mostly directly tests my fundamental concepts, and shows me my weaknesses.
Well I also think that 1.e4 e5 is simpler than the other defences. Black cedes nothing, holds his ground in the center and has good development.
kikvors: That might make an opening better or more straightforward, but it don't see how it makes an opeming simpler.
As I said, playing the French is far simpler than replying 1...e5. Just look at an opening reference sometime and compare the French section with all the King Pawn openings.
That may not be the metric of simplicity you are addressing, but it's a reality that a beginner must face when he starts to play chess.
Well, conceptually simpler. More straightforward may be the thing I mean. I don't mean that the actual lines are simple, they never are.
I don't agree that the number of pages in a reference book matters to beginners. Why would it? You need to understand what's going on during a game, and particularly after the point where you're out of theory and have to think of your own moves. If there's less theory, then you're on your own earlier.
e4 e5 including the petroff or no?
I am planning to give up 2...Nc6 in favour of 2...Nf6 because of all the theory I need to learn from Italian, Ruy Lopez, 3 knights, Scotch etc.
I'm actually planning to give up the Sicilian, also for the Petroff. I've recently seen some lines in it and it seems way easier than what I usually suffer through.
What is missing from this thread is anyone rated over 2000 who believes that avoiding 1.e4 e5 has any value in a beginning player's development. I think comparing ratings of those on the two sides in this argument might have some value.
Certainly 1. e4 e5 is easier for instructors. But for students? Mostly maybe. I played 1. e4 e5 when chess was first introduce. Soon I saw that white had the first move, and Black lacked behind, so I decided not to play it and looked for something else.
"There's still some logical order in chess knowledge even if it's not as strict as in math. For example, one should probably learn some basic pawn endings before more complex endings. In the same way, open positions logically come before closed ones."
I'll take your point about pawn endings vs complex endings. But I can't see how that applies to French vs e4/e5. It seems to me the French is overall simpler than the e4/e5 complex, and therefore one might argue that a beginner is better off getting oriented in chess with a simpler opening that provides a solid defense, before taking on all the hair-raising complications of e4/e5.
I was trying to make a thinly weiled reference to the French in the bolded bit - after all the French is perhaps the most closed defence against 1. e4 one can choose whereas 1. e4 e5 probably has the highest probability of leading to open positions.
Of course you can play French but I'm not sure if it's the fastest way to improve.
Shakaali: However, that's not my claim. I'm questioning whether playing the French (for instance) as a beginner is noticeably worse than playing e4/e5. Has there been any study on this? Probably not. Clearly there are players who sidestepped e4/e5 and still made it to 2000+.
Of course, I'm one such player
. But for what it's worth, I now think playing 1. e4 e5 makes lot of sense during the early years of one's chess career.
Playing French doesn't make somebody worse, and playing e4/e5 doesn't make anybody better. It's not a question of openings that make one better or worse. Fischer and other GM's have used these openings time and time again.
Openings are just players preferences. If a player says he plays worse when playing French, then there are so many openings to choose. He is just not a suitable player to play French.
If a player says he is better at e4/e5, then play it.
There is no limitation that anybody should not play French.
The French Defense lifted me from USCF C Class to B, and then to A. Its strategic nuances would be inconceivable to me had I not played 1...e5 first.
I think most of those claims that players should learn 1.e4 e5 early on come from the type of Russian trainer that only sees pupils when they're already rather strong.
Good point. I suspect the notion that beginners should play e4/e5 is more a convenience for teaching chess.
Teachers need to standardize their lessons. Teaching beginners e4/e5 is a good, sensible place to start and makes teaching groups, especially children, easier. If a teacher hopes to groom future grandmasters, they may as well teach them e4/e5 earlier than later.
(...)
Well, it's much easier to teach the French defence than 1...e5...
You can think you can play the French, or pretty much any opening before learning the basics. In reality, your creation will have just one similarity to a proper French defence: the first move.
IM pfren: The more I read your comments the less impressed I am.
There are many people in the world with advanced credentials who say shallow and silly things. Perhaps you are one.
The above comment is nothing more than a sneer. If you have claims to make and arguments to support them, pray share those.