Beginners Should Learn Opening Theory!

18 moves ouch, is that what they call a quite open?  From the last two responses then my hope with chess then is that thier is an "Art" to going Off Book..  I do want to pick up a database and some current move by move type talk about some particular openings.  I like what you said royalbishop on piece cooridiation of tasking.  Recoginizing when your pieces have better value.  I read somewhere a couch would have his students count each square his pieces could effect.  I sorta try and do that sort of thing to evaluate my pieces positions..  

Have to say as of recently we had a talk about the Daeth Opening. And it was said by an NM that a good player can almost win with any opening due to playing skills.

I have to say if you get a chance to apply your opening theory it will lead you to a good middle game. And i found once i there i put it to my opponent and never let up. Only time i have a problem with this in when me and my opponent are both playing sound opening theory. And the middle game starts off even on both sides.

I have to say i give all the credit to  my quick wins to opening theory. Over 50% my opponent resigns is when i caught them violating opening theory.

Hey... work smarter not harder. It seems like every game or sport there's that overcompensation factor that misguides intermediate players. "Don't learn this because it will stunt your progress"

I regret waiting so long to learn openings because learning them is not only strengthening my midgames, learning why the good lines are considered 'good' and the other moves are not has helped improve my strategy, tactics, my overall understanding of the game even outside the opening lines I've committed to memory. If I had started earlier I probably would have improved faster than I did at the time.

...

I still have a long way to go. There are blindspots, there are gaps in my knowledge, and I have a lot of general tightening to do here and there. But it's given me goals. It's given me something tangible to work on that visibly translates into results while I work on it.

The best coaching advice I've seen regarding openings is to teach tactics through the openings. If a player learns to start analysing tactical ideas from move one, they will play the openings at a higher level than someone who just tries to reach "book" positions. 

Yes, learn to play a certain opening thoroughly. But don't worry so much about whether "theory" gives white a slight plus or considers the position equal. Work out what's going on and be able to come up with plans that meet the needs of the position. Test your ideas in blitz games and serious games. Check out what others have played in similar positions and be willing to re-evaluate your own conclusions. But don't worry too much about the "theory". 

If you come up with your own evaluations of a position based on your own thorough analysis, you will be able to play that position with more confidence and more effectively, regardless of your rating. 

For example, try playing the Petroff's as white for a win. Don't worry that GMs consider it drawish, work out some lines that work for you. Stay away from hackneyed gambits such as the Cochrane, just play sound developing moves and look for forcing moves. You will soon see that the Petroff's offers White some excellent winning chances against players whose ratings are below 2400.

I teach in this way (tactics from move one) and it definitely helps my students progress quickly. I think it's the best way to understand why moves should be played at beginner levels.

It depends.

What is the goal of the beginner? To become a top gm or just to enjoy the game? I think you should shy away from opening theory in the former, creates too much dogma and learning to play really solid chess will find these students of the game playing theory before they ever learn it. For example, put carlsen in an opening he doesnt know the theory and you probably wouldnt be able to tell the difference, he would find it otb.

Many middlegame and endgame concepts apply well to the opening whereas you cant really apply opening concepts to the middlegame and endgame, this is why many top teachers preach learning the endgame well because it teaches you to play good chess which can be used in any phase of the game without the opening theory clogging your brain.

Opening theory is merely advice for the first few moves,  approximately 10-15 of a game of Chess by top Grandmasters who have tried all positions and consequences of each move. You can be sure they have not missed any. If you do not know them then you will suffer the consequences of your mistakes in those first few moves.

The middle game assuming you have followed their advice and have made it that far without serious loses, is now in your hands, you are now on your own.

Chess.coms Tactic Trainer is a very good learning tool for not only the middle game but for endgame checkmate patterns also.

I'll go with the training suggestions of this article here

The advice about openings and beginners gets lost in translation frequently.  Many of us made the mistake as beginners of picking up an opening encyclopedia and memorizing a bunch of opening lines.  That's not the way to go.  Yes you should study opening theory.  You should find out why the moves are made and how master players continued the games once they left book.  You should be familiar with the tactics and strategy that arises from your opening.

The percentage of time you should spend doing that is still low.  Maybe 5-10% of your time as a "beginner".

The don't study openings wisdom I would say is generally correct, but the message needs to be revised.  

The other problem that beginners have is they want the label more than the understanding of how to play it.

I see so many beginners that want to label what was played, but couldn't give two hoots about actually understanding it.

"1.d4 d5 2.c4 - Oh, I'm playing a Queen's Gambit - e6 3.Nc3 Be7 - Ok, now what?  Haven't got a damn clue, so I guess I'll play 4.h3!"

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 - Oh, I'm playing a Queen's Gambit! (editor's note:  Uhm, no you aren't you donkey, 1.d4 and 2.c4 isn't automatically a Queen's gambit) - g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 - Ok, now what?  Haven't got a damn clue, so I guess I'll play 4.h3!"

"1.d4 f5 2.c4 - Oh, I'm playing a Queen's Gambit! (editor's note:  Hey there you donkey!  This is a Dutch, not a Queen's Gambit!) - Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 - Ok, now what?  Haven't got a damn clue, so I guess I'll play 4.h3!"

And there's the life of a sheer beginner!

I've seen even relatively strong players blame their losses on the opening when they lose due to poor tactics and endgame skill. 

I really do understand why chess teachers tell students to stop studying opening books. But it's easy to go too far. The opening is really important. Novices shouldn't really specific openings, but they should study the principles of opening play. 

Beginners and opening theory.  I hear it all the time at tournaments.  

"I know the <insert opening here> 20 moves deep.  They have no idea why the moves are made, and have no clue as to why a chess engine says the position is +.3, but they recite it endlessly.  

Right Diakonia! 

Being able to recite opening lines is not learning the opening. Being able to recite great poems doesn't make you a poet. 

Like i tell my students.  I can give you a book on how to perform brain surgery, and you can read the entire book.  But it doesnt mean you know what youre doing.

Capa had that great quote about books.  Something along the lines of people using them as if they instill sight.  

If that is all youre looking for, then follow the opening principles:

Control the center

Develop toward the center

Castle

Connect your rooks

Without sufficient tactical skills, you'll probably end up learning a dozen of occurrences of knight forks as 'opening lines'.

Was anyone able to locate this?

What is opening theory exactly?