Beginners SHOULD learn openings - Chess Forums - Page 6

BaptistMan

Feb 19, 2021

0

#101

I try to learn openings

CM RAU4ever

Feb 20, 2021

0

#102

ConfusedGhoul wrote:

I agree with this, you can't just beat the Sicilian "with the opening principles" am I right? Opening principles take 5 minutes to learn and in open situations even a baby could apply them, if you want to learn openings as a lower rated player there is no reason you shouldn't!

You can't just beat any openings with opening principles. That's why the game usually also features a middlegame and potentially an endgame.

When people say 'don't study openings' it does not mean that you shouldn't study the middlegames. So, don't learn the first 20 moves of a line in the Dragon, but do study positions with opposite castling. Don't study 20 lines in the Shvesnikov, but do study positions with a backwards pawn and/or with strong squares.

Ethan_Brollier

Oct 28, 2022

0

#103

FutureGM_Casper wrote:

I kinda agree with you.

I think beginners can learn openings which are straight forward (not something like the Ruy Lopez, Indian Game, or Sicilian)

Queen's Gambit, Danish Gambit, 4 Knights Game, Scotch Game and Gambit should be very good option for them.

Beginners are very creative and often play nonsense moves. Having straightforward opening ideas allows them to not play bad moves in the first 3-5 moves at the same time obeying opening principles.

I don't know why people like to say "beginners should not learn openings until 1500" I doubt that those people themselves learn openings before 1500. Seriously? How much time beginner has to spend remembering 1.5 moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4? 3 seconds?

No players in chess.com doesn't learn any opening and still be able to reach 1500

I agree with every word you said except QG being a good option because the Tarrasch, Slav, Semislav, QGD, QGA, and Albin are all options, and the complexity ends up rivaling that of the Sicilian, French, Spanish, and Indian. Also, I'd add Smith-Morra Gambit to the "good" pile if the Sicilian does get played against you.

Ethan_Brollier

Oct 28, 2022

0

#104

Antonin1957 wrote:

I disagree. It is far more important for beginners to learn the basic principles of chess. As described by Yasser Seirawan, they are: force, time, space and pawn structure. Without becoming familiar with those principles, openings will not make sense. Openings are useful or not only within the context of those basic principles, not as weapons in their own right.

IMO force, time, and space being principles of chess makes no sense in the Alekhine's as it literally gives all three to your opponent and you still end up with only a slightly worse position (just like every black opening).

Ethan_Brollier

Oct 28, 2022

0

#105

PrimalDual wrote:

There seems to be a common thread of advice throughout the chess world that beginners shouldn't learn openings until 1500 or so, and spend more time on analytical ability. I think this is terrible advice and I want to address it so some of the higher level players stop giving this advice and beginners aren't left defenseless.

Beginners don't have a great deal of analytical ability. This makes them very susceptible to opening traps. The opening requires some of the most analytical ability because the usually taught tactics aren't really there, there are virtually no puzzles that help one think about good moves in this situation, and there are way more combinations of subtle moves that might have to be considered. (That's why opening theory exists in the first place) People with weak analytical ability shouldn't be forced to wing it on the most analytical part of the game. In my opinion this is not well remedied by studying opening principles, as one size fit all rules are difficult to flexibly use and still result in losing good position in the first 10 moves against traps. Without analytical ability to use said principles they're useless. On the flip side, the beginner who does learn opening traps and plays against others who don't will get a free pass on a bunch of games.

TL,DR beginners should learn the first five moves of a bunch of openings, and ignore all the higher rating players who tell them to avoid openings.

I have a very similar thought process, except instead of the first five moves of a bunch of openings, I advise players to play exclusively hypermoderns and moderns (flank/transitionals) as black and to play aggressive traditionals in addition to the moderns and hypermoderns as white. All you have to do is to avoid the hypertraditionals as either color (Indian, Spanish, Sicilian, Queen's Gambit, and French), but make sure you know a simple line or two for each of them (Trompowsky/Torre for Indian, Bird's/Jaenisch for Spanish, Smith-Morra/Delayed Alapin for Sicilian, QGA/Albin for Queen's Gambit, Pray/Resign for the French (realistically the Steiner, KIA, and Chigorin variations work pretty well to take Frenchmen out of their opening prep and if you're crazy enough to take them on, the Mainline Alekhine-Chatard Albin-Chatard Gambit)) in case you find yourself in a game in one of these.

Krames

Oct 29, 2022

0

#106

Tactic books and puzzles obviously make sense for beginners…. But if you want to learn how to play chess, I have zero problem with some of learning coming from ‘learning’ an opening. You’ll have to look into which move is next and why, that can’t be a bad thing in terms of learning. And yes, of course end game practice too. There’s a ton to learn, I don’t see anything wrong w an opening book or two to help guide the learning.

magipi

Oct 29, 2022

0

#107

Another dumb topic resurrected by Ethan_Brollier for no reason.

tygxc

Oct 30, 2022

0

#108

"Beginners SHOULD learn openings" ++ To stay beginners forever.
If they want to progress, then they should learn endgames.

Ethan_Brollier

Oct 30, 2022

0

#109

magipi wrote:

Another dumb topic resurrected by Ethan_Brollier for no reason.

I love these kinds of topics though, and I want to hear people's thoughts about them.

DejaDeJugarBlitz

Nov 1, 2022

0

#110

Learning a few opening moves is not the same as studying openings thoroughly. Obviously everyone needs to learn a few opening lines to get familiar with the game, but beginners get nothing from studying openings seriously and deeply, they would just see a bunch of variations without understanding anything.

The thing of learning a few movements of each opening, that is what they should do; theoretical lines up to 7 or 12 moves, it would be easy and can help, but before going deeper than that you have to learn other things, concepts, tactics and endings. In the meantime trying to figure out what comes after the few moves you know will help you know what you will need to learn about openings for when you study them in the future.

EtherealChesse

Feb 1, 2024

0

#111

i know about 110 variation from all of the opening i know yet only about 6-12 variation of its really applicable and i focused on it

eheadsfan

Feb 1, 2024

0

#112

I think Smith Morra Gambit is fine for beginners. It teaches them rapid development https://youtu.be/lF1AclkCrk4?si=9_ADi9fVkujh0Wiu

Gossbust

Mar 31, 2025

0

#113

For me, visualizing openings in tree form was a game changer. It made memorizing easier and helped me quickly spot patterns. I actually liked it so much that I started making my own visual posters (mychessposters.com), and it has improved my repertoire significantly. Highly recommend trying a visual approach!

badger_song

Apr 19, 2025

0

#114

Beginners/low rated players will benefit from learning an opening and defense(s) 4 to 5 moves deep. There's no need to learn more until one gets crushed; at that point, one can look up the proper move for future reference. Improvising an opening/defense is just an invitation to unnecessary frustration.