Basic
Opening Principles and strategy
Beginners SHOULD learn openings
Sort:
FutureGM_Casper wrote:
FutureGM_Casper wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
FutureGM_Casper wrote:
I kinda agree with you.
I think beginner can learn openings which are straight forward (not sth like Ruy Lopez or Indian Game or Sicilian)
QG, Danish Gambit, 4knight game, Scotch Game should be very good option for them.
Cuz 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.
Idk 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 only learned to avoid the Scholar's checkmate and the Fools' mate.
I do not exactly study other openings at all, even if the openings which I play happen to be the same as book play.
well, then you're a genius. But for me openings isn't something that I study to remember move by move, is to understand the idea of those positions and to apply the ideas into different positions that I may get from another opening.
I think beginners should study openings but not crazily look into the deep theory. studying simple openings like QG will give them very simple strategy to start the game. Is actually similar to what you said (learn to avoid scholar's mate), its just to avoid losing or nonsense move on the first few moves, then according to their opponent's response the development of their pieces can be forcing and sensible.
Ok, maybe you are right. When I meant study openings, I meant studying deep theory. I do not study openings deeply, but I look at them to a limited depth.
If it's the most basic of openings, then most players should have learnt it.
Feb 10, 2021
0
#64
Uhohspaghettio1 hat geschrieben:
Get the hell out of my pms kindaspongey, write here if you want and let everyone see.
He is pm’ing you too?
I've been a chess trainer for many, many years and I completely disagree with OP. You can play chess openings on principle alone. Why? Because opening moves have a strategic idea behind them. White wants to get a pawn center with both e4 and d4, black wants to prevent it or disrupt it. That explains the beginning moves of almost any opening out there. For example: why does black play 3. ... Bb4 in the Nimzo? Well, white was kinda threatening to play e4 and we better prevent that.
I've taught my pupils (from a young age, so <1500 for years) to play the Sicilian Dragon. I never taught them theory. I made them think about where they would like to put their pieces so that they could think up moves on their own during a game. Then I let them play it. Whenever they reached the point where they faced stronger opposition that started a kingside attack, I'd teach them two defensive ideas to prevent them from immediately being checkmated. With white they play 1. d4 and I've shown them how to get the pawn back in a Queens' gambit accepted. That's all I've done on the opening. I've spent much more time on the middle game and typical strategical ideas. And that works fine.
I understand that there are a lot of people who just don't want to believe that opening play isn't that important. Then again, if you look at openings, you'll notice that there are plenty of lines that theory would consider better for one side. But slightly better for white doesn't mean all that much, especially at the <2000 level. This is also my experience. I broke through the 2000 barrier and immediately reached 2200 when I started playing 1. d4, 2. g3 and double financhetto my way to the middlegame. No opening work, not particularly advantageous for white, crazy winpercentage. And why do you think grandmasters play offbeat lines against weaker opposition, while knowing that those lines against perfect play don't yield much advantage?
The one point that I would agree with is how difficult and demotivating highly tactical tricks in the opening can be. My firm belief is, however, that players that really want to improve and try to understand the game better, should start out by playing 1. d4. There are 3 reasons for it. The first is that there are less pesky tactical lines that you would need to 'know'. The 2nd is that the strategical advantages are easier to spot in structures that flow from 1. d4. A King's Indian structure or a minority attack is so much easier to understand than why in the world my blocked Ruy Lopez position just went from slightly better to equal. The 3rd is that I actually believe that improving players first need to focus on learning and understanding the static characteristics of a position (strong squares, weak pawns, open files etc.) before they take a look at dynamic play (initiative, lead in development). For the initiative for example you need to know how to make threats. Those can't always be tactical in nature. You need to understand and see strong strategical threats. Playing 1. e4 leads to dynamic positions just that little bit more often than 1. d4 does, so I don't think 1. e4 is the easiest way to improve at chess.
RAU4ever wrote:
I've been a chess trainer for many, many years and I completely disagree with OP. You can play chess openings on principle alone. Why? Because opening moves have a strategic idea behind them. White wants to get a pawn center with both e4 and d4, black wants to prevent it or disrupt it. That explains the beginning moves of almost any opening out there. For example: why does black play 3. ... Bb4 in the Nimzo? Well, white was kinda threatening to play e4 and we better prevent that.
I've taught my pupils (from a young age, so <1500 for years) to play the Sicilian Dragon. I never taught them theory. I made them think about where they would like to put their pieces so that they could think up moves on their own during a game. Then I let them play it. Whenever they reached the point where they faced stronger opposition that started a kingside attack, I'd teach them two defensive ideas to prevent them from immediately being checkmated. With white they play 1. d4 and I've shown them how to get the pawn back in a Queens' gambit accepted. That's all I've done on the opening. I've spent much more time on the middle game and typical strategical ideas. And that works fine.
I understand that there are a lot of people who just don't want to believe that opening play isn't that important. Then again, if you look at openings, you'll notice that there are plenty of lines that theory would consider better for one side. But slightly better for white doesn't mean all that much, especially at the <2000 level. This is also my experience. I broke through the 2000 barrier and immediately reached 2200 when I started playing 1. d4, 2. g3 and double financhetto my way to the middlegame. No opening work, not particularly advantageous for white, crazy winpercentage. And why do you think grandmasters play offbeat lines against weaker opposition, while knowing that those lines against perfect play don't yield much advantage?
The one point that I would agree with is how difficult and demotivating highly tactical tricks in the opening can be. My firm belief is, however, that players that really want to improve and try to understand the game better, should start out by playing 1. d4. There are 3 reasons for it. The first is that there are less pesky tactical lines that you would need to 'know'. The 2nd is that the strategical advantages are easier to spot in structures that flow from 1. d4. A King's Indian structure or a minority attack is so much easier to understand than why in the world my blocked Ruy Lopez position just went from slightly better to equal. The 3rd is that I actually believe that improving players first need to focus on learning and understanding the static characteristics of a position (strong squares, weak pawns, open files etc.) before they take a look at dynamic play (initiative, lead in development). For the initiative for example you need to know how to make threats. Those can't always be tactical in nature. You need to understand and see strong strategical threats. Playing 1. e4 leads to dynamic positions just that little bit more often than 1. d4 does, so I don't think 1. e4 is the easiest way to improve at chess.
Interesting perspective. I've read a bit on coaches (specifically Russians) teaching endgames first since they come up frequently and foster understanding of piece coordination etc. Any thoughts?
RAU4ever escribió:
I've been a chess trainer for many, many years and I completely disagree with OP. You can play chess openings on principle alone. Why? Because opening moves have a strategic idea behind them. White wants to get a pawn center with both e4 and d4, black wants to prevent it or disrupt it. That explains the beginning moves of almost any opening out there. For example: why does black play 3. ... Bb4 in the Nimzo? Well, white was kinda threatening to play e4 and we better prevent that.
I've taught my pupils (from a young age, so <1500 for years) to play the Sicilian Dragon. I never taught them theory. I made them think about where they would like to put their pieces so that they could think up moves on their own during a game. Then I let them play it. Whenever they reached the point where they faced stronger opposition that started a kingside attack, I'd teach them two defensive ideas to prevent them from immediately being checkmated. With white they play 1. d4 and I've shown them how to get the pawn back in a Queens' gambit accepted. That's all I've done on the opening. I've spent much more time on the middle game and typical strategical ideas. And that works fine.
I understand that there are a lot of people who just don't want to believe that opening play isn't that important. Then again, if you look at openings, you'll notice that there are plenty of lines that theory would consider better for one side. But slightly better for white doesn't mean all that much, especially at the <2000 level. This is also my experience. I broke through the 2000 barrier and immediately reached 2200 when I started playing 1. d4, 2. g3 and double financhetto my way to the middlegame. No opening work, not particularly advantageous for white, crazy winpercentage. And why do you think grandmasters play offbeat lines against weaker opposition, while knowing that those lines against perfect play don't yield much advantage?
The one point that I would agree with is how difficult and demotivating highly tactical tricks in the opening can be. My firm belief is, however, that players that really want to improve and try to understand the game better, should start out by playing 1. d4. There are 3 reasons for it. The first is that there are less pesky tactical lines that you would need to 'know'. The 2nd is that the strategical advantages are easier to spot in structures that flow from 1. d4. A King's Indian structure or a minority attack is so much easier to understand than why in the world my blocked Ruy Lopez position just went from slightly better to equal. The 3rd is that I actually believe that improving players first need to focus on learning and understanding the static characteristics of a position (strong squares, weak pawns, open files etc.) before they take a look at dynamic play (initiative, lead in development). For the initiative for example you need to know how to make threats. Those can't always be tactical in nature. You need to understand and see strong strategical threats. Playing 1. e4 leads to dynamic positions just that little bit more often than 1. d4 does, so I don't think 1. e4 is the easiest way to improve at chess.
This is a super interesting and informative point of view, as a low rated player. I'm a 1.d4 player myself as white (playing mainly QGA, QGD and the Catalan), just because it limits a lot the number of structures/variations I may see in a game, and I also enjoy closed positions on the opening. As black, coincidentally, I also play the Sicilian Dragon against 1.e4. Having said that, I find that many lines of the Sicilian Dragon, for example, directly go against the opening principles. For example, if your opponent goes for the Yugoslav Attack, things can get very tactical very fast and you have to memorize lines to sucessfully defend it, and if you want to avoid it, you certainly have to avoid castling, which is one of the main purposes that classical opening theory teaches you ("develop your pieces and castle as soon as possible").
That said, again, as a low rated player, I like very much your take on 1.d4 and I found that to be true to me, in the sense that it gets you used to a lot of more strategical ideas, and also narrows the number of possible responses by a lot, letting you proceed to the middlegame, whilst 1.e4 openings usually involves a lot of theory and memorization.
Feb 10, 2021
0
#69
@rau4ever I laughed a little too much when you mentioned the closed ruy Lopez structure- as someone who’s never played the ruy (at least seriously) I have zilch understanding of its structures, and only know the name because I stumbled upon it in one of m chess books, and I only came out more confused than before. So the confusion you expressed in that sentence was funny to me
Feb 10, 2021
0
#70
The caution "Beginners shouldn't learn openings" means inexperienced players shouldn't spend much time studying opening theory. Many tyros think they must know EXACTLY how to get good positions out of the opening, but spending most of your time memorizing openings doesn't pay. First, beginners won't recognize what is or isn't a better position, and will have no idea why a position is better even if the opening book says it is. Also, their low-rated opponents are unlikely to know or play the book moves. so the beginner will spend a lot of time on something that won't be of much practical use and will teach him next to nothing.
It is worth noting that Siegebert Tarrasch, the strongest player of his time and a respected teacher (university professor) starts his beginner's manual (The Game of Chess) with simple endings, moves to more complicated positions, and only explains openings once the student has learned the basics. Capalanca also advised the beginner to study endings first, because "If you cannot properly handle a few pieces on a nearly-empty board, how can you expect to manage all 32 pieces on a full board?"
Of course, most newcomers will wish to play regular games immediately. Probably the best idea is to spend more time learning the basics and playing games for enjoyment, realizing that blunders will proliferate and results are unimportant. Remember that your opponents also know very little so you won't learn much from playing them.
I believe that it is best to start with one defense to 1.e4 and one to 1.d4 and stick with them for a while until you understand what is going on. Just learn the main variations a few moves deep and don't worry that you sometimes get losing positions early in the game--this will teach you a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of the openings you are using. 1.d4 is probably best as white as there are fewer immediately tactically sharp responses, but 1.e4 will show more clearly the importance of basic opening principles such as rapid and coordinated development, king safety, etc. Once you are comfortable with the openings you
Most of all, beginners must realize that if they wish to become proficient enough at chess obtain the satisfaction of playing a good game they must spend a bit of time learning and practicing. Many times while analyzing games with strong players, they have said things like "I thought I would get an advantage with this maneuver but it seems I would have would have wound up in trouble. Why is chess so difficult?" It is this difficulty that makes chess interesting, and playing well (even if only occaissionally) so rewarding.
This Openings Called "Oh No My Queen"
No point in learning openings just to avoid traps. You play a bad opening, fall into a trap, and then you know it and won't make that mistake again. (And if you're really smart, you'll recognize the same tactical theme when it comes up in other contexts.) If you'd studied it in a book, you might not remember it, but once you've lost a point as a result, it's a big help to the memory.
Beginners shouldn't study openings, just opening principles, which are to develop the minor pieces and try to control the center. When a new player comes into the club and wants to learn, I explain the opening in those terms.
There are two approaches to the center, "classical" which occupies the center with pawns, and "hypermodern", which attacks across it with pieces. After explaining this, I move on to the basic checkmates (K+Q v. K, K+R v. K, and the back rank mates), which are more important to know anyway.
Until a player develops a tactical style, it's impossible for that player to select an opening which suits their purposes. Your opening should play to your strengths, but in order to figure out what opening does that, you first must understand what your own strengths are.
If a beginner devotes himself to a particular opening too soon, it will usually become an impediment to further improvement at some point in time. This was certainly the case for me, and I've seen it with countless other players, as well. Opening traps are tactical, and so they're an important part of learning tactics, and of learning to apply multiple tactics in combination.
ShamusMcFlannigan wrote:
Interesting perspective. I've read a bit on coaches (specifically Russians) teaching endgames first since they come up frequently and foster understanding of piece coordination etc. Any thoughts?
Well, I do find it an interesting notion, but it really does depend on what you see as endgame training. I think it was Dvoretsky that makes the point somewhere in his books that you can divide endgame training into technical endgame study and practical endgame study. The technical endgame studying involves stuff like learning how you can win K+p vs K endgames or how to checkmate with knight and bishop. The practical endgame studying would involve stuff like looking over endgames played by Capablanca.
I don't think technical endgame study is so beneficial to start out with. It's great that you know how to promote a pawn in K + p vs K or how to draw R vs R +1 pawn, but if you reach the endgame a piece or 2 or more pawns down, you don't really have any practical use for it (yet). But I can definitely get behind starting with practical endgame study. Let's say someone starts by studying a book on Capablanca's endgames. You would learn so many useful things! That you need to play with all of your pieces for example. Or how you can make plans in chess. That is something that is applicable to all fases of the game and is immediately practically relevant.
The one thing I would be unsure of, however, is the learning curve that this would involve. I think the learning curve would be steeper if you started learning about these practical endgames than typical middlegame strategy. In Reasses Your Chess, Sillman shows plenty of examples where a certain idea is clearly visible. Things like: "oh, my bishop is bad cause it looks at my own pawns, better exchange it off." I think that would be easier to study for yourself than trying to crawl into the mind of a world champion that is trying to beat quite strong opposition in an endgame. Especially if you study in a good way and ask yourself questions like "why not move X, Y or Z?" Most books won't have answers for all of those alternatives, making a chess coach almost necessary in my opinion. If you have someone available, great! If not, maybe not try and start with practical endgames.
@Ramiro000: my thinking with teaching the Dragon was actually that I also wanted my pupils to learn about attack and defense, but you don't really see that many Yugoslavs at the lower levels. Even then, sure there are tactical lines, but there are also lines where you just need to be aware of one or two defensive ideas to not immediately get checkmated and then it's not that tactical. Besides, I didn't mean to say that I believe improving players should avoid tactics per se, those are an important part of any game, I just don't see any value in having them learn all those opening traps people try and play for.
@B1ZMARK: Yeah, same here. But I also heard a strong GM, I believe it was Seirawan, say once that he (also) never fully understood those e4-e5 structures either, so we're not alone. 
Feb 10, 2021
0
#75
RAU4ever wrote:
I've been a chess trainer for many, many years and I completely disagree with OP. You can play chess openings on principle alone. Why? Because opening moves have a strategic idea behind them. White wants to get a pawn center with both e4 and d4, black wants to prevent it or disrupt it. That explains the beginning moves of almost any opening out there. For example: why does black play 3. ... Bb4 in the Nimzo? Well, white was kinda threatening to play e4 and we better prevent that.
I've taught my pupils (from a young age, so <1500 for years) to play the Sicilian Dragon. I never taught them theory. I made them think about where they would like to put their pieces so that they could think up moves on their own during a game. Then I let them play it. Whenever they reached the point where they faced stronger opposition that started a kingside attack, I'd teach them two defensive ideas to prevent them from immediately being checkmated. With white they play 1. d4 and I've shown them how to get the pawn back in a Queens' gambit accepted. That's all I've done on the opening. I've spent much more time on the middle game and typical strategical ideas. And that works fine.
I understand that there are a lot of people who just don't want to believe that opening play isn't that important. Then again, if you look at openings, you'll notice that there are plenty of lines that theory would consider better for one side. But slightly better for white doesn't mean all that much, especially at the <2000 level. This is also my experience. I broke through the 2000 barrier and immediately reached 2200 when I started playing 1. d4, 2. g3 and double financhetto my way to the middlegame. No opening work, not particularly advantageous for white, crazy winpercentage. And why do you think grandmasters play offbeat lines against weaker opposition, while knowing that those lines against perfect play don't yield much advantage?
The one point that I would agree with is how difficult and demotivating highly tactical tricks in the opening can be. My firm belief is, however, that players that really want to improve and try to understand the game better, should start out by playing 1. d4. There are 3 reasons for it. The first is that there are less pesky tactical lines that you would need to 'know'. The 2nd is that the strategical advantages are easier to spot in structures that flow from 1. d4. A King's Indian structure or a minority attack is so much easier to understand than why in the world my blocked Ruy Lopez position just went from slightly better to equal. The 3rd is that I actually believe that improving players first need to focus on learning and understanding the static characteristics of a position (strong squares, weak pawns, open files etc.) before they take a look at dynamic play (initiative, lead in development). For the initiative for example you need to know how to make threats. Those can't always be tactical in nature. You need to understand and see strong strategical threats. Playing 1. e4 leads to dynamic positions just that little bit more often than 1. d4 does, so I don't think 1. e4 is the easiest way to improve at chess.
Dragon middlegames have a very clear strategic goal, and as you said 1.d4 has fewer tactical tricks you "must know" so I think you're doing a good job with your students, but for people who play other openings such a simple approach wont work. They will have to memorize something more. I guess you say this yourself when you say a Ruy structure can be hard to understand.
As for 1.e4 vs 1.d4, I think you could use your same argument conclude 1.e4 is better... since basic strategic ideas (such as isolated pawns are not ideal and it's good to have mobile pieces) are so easy, it's more valuable to have experience in positions where you're faced with difficult problems such as maintaining the initiative.
I guess it depends on the level of the student, and I don't strongly disagree with anything you said, just chatting about the ideas.
Maybe you are right but I think it is not a good idea to lern openings to early. I teach my girlfriend to play chess and she needs time to learn how to play and it is to difficult to learn this too at the beginning
I think it is to difficult to learn how to play and learn the openings too.
You must decide for yourself whether to spend your time working on your ability to recognize forced sequences that are 2-3 moves in length and result in mate or material gain —or— whether you should memorize opening lines that you don’t understand besides that they are better than the crap you play.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
RAU4ever wrote:
I've been a chess trainer for many, many years and I completely disagree with OP. You can play chess openings on principle alone. Why? Because opening moves have a strategic idea behind them. White wants to get a pawn center with both e4 and d4, black wants to prevent it or disrupt it. That explains the beginning moves of almost any opening out there. For example: why does black play 3. ... Bb4 in the Nimzo? Well, white was kinda threatening to play e4 and we better prevent that.
So if a player just plays by opening principles they'll play the best most theory-ridden openings in chess? I don't think so. Often GMs struggle to understand why one move is better than another, or one move would be played until after years or decades of practice before it's discovered that it doesn't really work too well (eg. the Dragon, fine for under-IM of course).
Beginners should understand they're getting the cheeseburger and fries version explanations of why openings are the way they are - fast and allowing them to make progress, but not close to how rich the openings really are. There are usually 5+ reasonable plausible moves (depending on the position), and instead of wasting time trying to find the exactly meaning behind one (which even GMs mightn't understand) it's better to push on. And sometimes they even go against opening principles, by moving the same piece twice or something simlar. This goes for GMs as well, they're also often memorizing and not understanding exactly why a particular move is played. It is important to just push the next move and move on sometimes, especially if a move's purpose doesn't become clear until 10 moves time.
Sometimes GMs memorize large swathes of openings and then figure out over the board what the hell the point of the position is, Anand (I think) admitted to doing this where his team game him sheets of variations and he just blindly followed them, confident he would end up in a good position.
Another thing is you talk about nimzo and dragon etc. as if people are born knowing this stuff. The average guy who rarely plays chess will have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen players, usually from non-western countries, that can get up to ~1800 and know zero openings at all, except maybe what the ruy lopez is. As often brought up here almost every time you see a Bowdler attack it's one of these guys, but they might win tactically in the end. So I think everyone should know at least the first few moves, for everyone's sanity.
I think the point he trying to convey is that chess openings ARE principals.
D4- white gains space, lets his bishop out, etc
Nf6- Black develops while preventing white from playing e4
C4- White gains space and still preps e4 (Nc3 allows an easy d5 by black)
e6- White can't play e4 just yet so black takes the time to let his bishop out etc
Nc3- develops a piece and looks to play e4 once more
Bb4- develops, prevents e4
and it goes on, each move can be explained simply at first and with more depth as the player improves.
I used to play the Nimzo with both colors frequently and it was easy to tell who memorized moves and who understood the position. For example, I have played quite a few games as white that went 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6 I don't think this is as bad as others do, but many players will memorize a series of moves and play it against everything. In this case, they didn't understand (or didn't care) that they were losing control of the center. This is also a big part of why conventional wisdom says to meet d4 with d5 and e4 with e5 in the beginning. It can be easier to understand fighting over pieces than fighting over squares.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
So if a player just plays by opening principles they'll play the best most theory-ridden openings in chess? I don't think so. Often GMs struggle to understand why one move is better than another, or one move would be played until after years or decades of practice before it's discovered that it doesn't really work too well (eg. the Dragon, fine for under-IM of course).
Beginners should understand they're getting the cheeseburger and fries version explanations of why openings are the way they are - fast and allowing them to make progress, but not close to how rich the openings really are. There are usually 5+ reasonable plausible moves (depending on the position), and instead of wasting time trying to find the exactly meaning behind one (which even GMs mightn't understand) it's better to push on. And sometimes they even go against opening principles, by moving the same piece twice or something simlar. This goes for GMs as well, they're also often memorizing and not understanding exactly why a particular move is played. It is important to just push the next move and move on sometimes, especially if a move's purpose doesn't become clear until 10 moves time.
Sometimes GMs memorize large swathes of openings and then figure out over the board what the hell the point of the position is, Anand (I think) admitted to doing this where his team game him sheets of variations and he just blindly followed them, confident he would end up in a good position.
Another thing is you talk about nimzo and dragon etc. as if people are born knowing this stuff. The average guy who rarely plays chess will have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen players, usually from non-western countries, that can get up to ~1800 and know zero openings at all, except maybe what the ruy lopez is. As often brought up here almost every time you see a Bowdler attack it's one of these guys, but they might win tactically in the end. So I think everyone should know at least the first few moves, for everyone's sanity.
There are a fair number of points that I also subscribe to in what you write, but interestingly enough I come to, what appears to be, an opposite conclusion.
I don't say that by playing openings based on strategic understanding you're playing the best openings possible. I'm saying that by playing logical moves you'll reach a playable middlegame even if those logical moves aren't theoretically optimal. 1. e4, c5; 2. Nf3, d6; 3. Bc4 isn't optimal, but there's no way black can immediately win. It's not even like black has an advantage. Now put that up against just learning moves. We've all seen it. You play 8, 12, 16 moves of theory and suddenly the opponent does something that he's not 'supposed' to do. So often we don't find the killer move ourselves and within 2 or 3 moves the evaluation has completely changed. And I'm not talking about <1500 level, I'm talking about my own level. One of my last competitive games, I lost in 8 moves with white. I couldn't remember 'the move' that I had looked at in the morning, didn't know the position, overlooked a tactic and was so shocked I blundered my whole position away on the next move and simply resigned.
In my view learning moves while not understanding the position is the cheeseburger and fries way. It might be fulfilling when a trap works, but it doesn't really help you become stronger. Finding your own path is like eating broccoli. You might not like doing it, cause you will lose before you gain more familiarity with the position, but it will make you stronger. Especially if you forgo the mental exercise of learning moves by heart, but rather focus your studying time on the middle game that can potentially ensue.
The majority of gms and ims do not say beginners shouldn't learn openings at all.
No one said that. Coaches and high rated players warn against memorizing strings of opening lines as opposed to learning principals. Memorization and understanding are not even close to the same thing.
Opening principals and ideas will give you insight into the italian game and allow you to play these moves naturally.
Memorizing moves is a great way to play e4 Nf3 Bc4 against everything even when it doesn't make sense.
Memorizing openings is usually pretty pointless when others don't follow the theory you learned and it keeps beginners from working on the biggest deficiencies in their games (simple endgames and hanging pieces).