Beginners should learn e4/e5 openings first

Well, it's much easier to teach the French defence than 1...e5...

A GM's view on any opening may well be : how can I reach a favorable endgame after this or that move .

So far I'm mostly seeing onus shifting.

I'm not claiming that the French or other non-e5 openings are better for beginners. I'm saying I doubt that 1...e5 is a crucial developmental stage for beginners. The onus is on those who wish to make that claim to support it and they aren't.

Aside from handwaving about how open positions logically coming before closed,  the need for tactical experience, and the notion that e4/e5 are somehow more fundamental, I'm not hearing anything persuasive.

Back in the Steinitz era everyone knew that you occupied the center directly and if you didn't, you had violated a fundamental truth about chess.

A few decades later Nimzovich, Reti and other mavericks overturned that conventional wisdom for good. They didn't prove that occupying the center was the wrong approach; they showed it wasn't the only approach.

That's what I'm saying. If a beginner wants to focus on e4/e5, more power to him. If he wants to play the French or whatever and ignore the e4/e5 complexities, he can. Maybe he needs to revisit that choice later at 1800, 2000, or 2200, but as a beginner, if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to.

I'm saying that e4/e5 is just not that important for beginners. If a beginner wants to focus on something crucial, he should study tactics, so a fork, pin, discovered check, zwishenzug or backrow mate doesn't eat his lunch in game after game.

I see.... had a lot to say!

Beginners should learn the basic ideas and strategical side on chess. Not rely on openings.

I thought you left for GM training nyLsel & became to busy playing them.

#48. Sicilian is dangerous for black.

That's why many GM's play it.The more dangerous it is the better.

I miss this site so much and decided to check in here often to post in the forums.  

Great!

Does anybody still play the Ruy Lopez? I hear so much about other openings but not heard nothing about the RL in months.

Many chess players nowadays prefer to play tactical positions which Ruy Lopez is not known for. Ruy Lopez requires good strategical plans for either side.

Is it better to start with e5 compared to for example e6. 

The question is what the original poster wants to achieve. Does he want to improve his maximum chess ability or does he just wants to play nice games. 

In the last case it does not matter what opening you play. French is fine but so is for example Caro Cann or even Owens defence. 

If you want to maximize your understanding of chess and thus your potential you should play e5 as almost all high rated people here noted. 

1) In e5 systems the center is the easiest to understand

2) In e5 systems development of the pieces is most easy to understand

In general moves in e5 systems are easier to explain and rationalize in e5 systems. 

Even the grandfather of all modern openings and frequent player for the french Nimzoitsch explains development and the center based on e4/e5 systems. Only when he comes to the chapters about for example over protection he switches to the french. Btw .. the best way to understand overprotection a very important concept in the french is to understand e5 systems. 

One can pose a honest question in hopes that others will collaborate in developing the argument. Or, one can pose a question as a platform for attacking those who affirm the claim.

Max Euwe asserted that the individual growth of every chess player follows the historical development of chess theory. Of course there are strong players who did not follow that course, but in every case, if Euwe's contention is correct, those players should fail to reach their full potential.

In this thread there have been case studies offered where players who started with a course of study that neglected the classics found that they had remedial work to accomplish.

The French Defense is an interesting way to avoid open games, except that White might always play the Exchange variation. Now, you have an open game. Moreover, the logic of the French Defense is rooted in practical understanding that 1.e4 is an attack on f7. Black informs White on move one that he or she needs a new strategy.

A player who begins with the French Defense is less likely to comprehend it than a player who begins with open games.

The main reason down deep in a player heart why they avoid e4/e5 is they are disappointed with e4/e5. So, I will avoid e4/e5 in everyway I can. I believe e4/e5 leads to disaster either as B or W. So I think chess is not to be played by e4/e5.

You can argue in everyway you can but that doesn't change my belief. Well, one can be very good with e4/e5 either as B/W. But I have another way to play chess. I will not play your game. You play my game.

Why do you believe e4/e5 leads to disaster?

No. You started this thread with what I assume to be retorical questions. The burden of production and the burden of persuasion remains with you. Prove that playing 1. e4 e5 is not crucial for improvement; you are advancing this point as a thesis, the burden is not on others to disprove it.

There are so many reasons. As White, can you play Italian, Scotch, Ruy, 4 knights, gambits, etc? And a bunch of openings that Black doesn't reply e5. If you can, you deserve high rating.

As Black, What if white play KG? Are you prepared with your refutation?

When you get to 1600, there are many good players at that level. Can you survive all of them?

e4/e5 is an opening played by almost all players. Each of them has their own version, or call it variation. If you play 1000 of these players, there is a very good chance that you play at least 200 versions or variations. They are prepared variations, so you have to be very good at those 200 versions to escape.

That's not an argument -- all openings have lots of variations. You don't explain why the variations after 1.e4 e5 are more disastrous than those of any other openings.

And what 1600 players do is in my view quite irrelevant to the discussion, because 1600 players are either beginners or players who didn't learn chess properly. If you did learn chess properly and are not a beginner, then you'll be way better than 1600.

Are there top players who never played 1.e4 e5?

It doesn't have anything to do with theory. Open games usually give more chances for tactics and simple deveopment. 

I mean if people enjoy pirc and French and all that they should play it. It seems to me that the knowledge required to play such things is hard to come by and unnecessary to win club games.

Not 100% .... i know some people with Unorthodox thinking

and they want to jump in the deep side of the pool and good at it.