beginners shouldn't learn openings??

Just an observation:

Strong players often tell beginners not to learn openings, just stick to 'principles', and spend study time on other stuff.

But what if the principle is too advanced?

My average opponent here is over 1500. For the sake of argument, lets agree that is beginner level, still.

I often, even mostly, play the Vienna Gambit with White.

In over 1100 master games in the explorer, more than 10/11 masters find the correct 3.... d5

In 700+ of my games in the explorer, fewer than 1/6 find the correct 3... d5.

They

• take the pawn, in possibly the only gambit that shouldnt be accepted
• play Nc6, which gives a Halloween Gambit without having to sac a piece
• play something like d6 which while not losing, isn't great.

I'm pretty sure this applies to some other openings too. Wouldnt a basic knowledge be better than winging it?

3... d5 seems a really tough move to find for 1500 level players.....

You need to learn more than just d5...

Well, 1500 isn't exactly beginner level any more. At this stage, it pays to have at least a minimal repertoire.

But if both players were say U1300, then not knowing 3...d5 wouldn't be the end of the world. But of course, it's good to learn some theory after the game. So you can see that 3...d5 is a good move, and play it next time, and learn theory this way 'one move at a time'.

Anyway, nothing wrong with knowing some openings. The bottom line is don't overemphasize the importance of openings to the exclusion of other areas of your play. Just a question of balance, as it's often the case.

Hard to say actually, because some experienced beginners have an natural feel for navigating lines they haven't encountered before and trust that they can get to an reasonable middlegame on just general principles alone. Maybe others find studying theory "boring" and would rather just play.

But i agree with you. With all the access beginners have to databases and engines, they really have no excuse to not studying, familiarizing themselves with a few basic lines (at least past move 3!).

I just ink that it is astonishing that on move 3 a master is 6 times more likely to play a certain move than a 1500-

The master didn't become titled without playing all the crap moves first.

Yes, the real question, is what is a ratio among amateur players, who face the position for the 2nd time (rather than the 1st - the Vienna is not that common) ?

I've played against it twice w/ Black and won. One of my opponents didn't know what to do after 3...d5 but I blundered and had to win on time. The other played Qh5 somehow and that game didn't last long. 

I see 2...Bc5, 2...Nc6 and 2...Bb4 lot more than 2...Nf6 though. The maybe one or two times I played against 2...Nf6 and 3...d5 (blitz) my opponents knew a lot more about the position than I did. This is probably just one of those exceptions but it can be avoided on move 2 anyway.

3 ... Bd4 is not possible?

Well, the point behind this advice is that:

- You can find good moves based on the principles. Take the Ruy lopez for instance. Every move can be explained by the principles.

- Studying opening takes time, and doesn't bring you good result. Instead, you should concentrate on strategy, tactics, endgames.

- You can play out the position until move 10-20, if you don't know what your middlegame plan is, you will lose.

Of course, as your level of play increases you can study concrete moves, but at the beginner level it is unnecesary.

And there are no too advanced principles, and 1500 isn't a beginner level.

A beginner that knows many openings but little beyond that will remain a beginner. I think that is what the better players mean when they tell us to study endgames first. One has to know how to get to the endgame position. Middlegame. To get to a good position in the middlegame, use a sound opening. So, it seems to start with the endgame.

Plus, what titled players play means little to us unless we are studying it constantly. Making a move just because that's what they do is useless if we don't understand why it's a good move.

Beginners should learn everything. But we only suggest to learn end game before opening.

It's not our decision for anyone to learn chess. Learn whatever you want. It's your time and money. Why complain to us?

Always check your games with an engine.Take into account missed tactical shots.You will be amassing alot of opening knowledge without even noticing it.

I'd say "don't study openings" is a bit extreme, you need to know somethings.  Be familiar with traps, learn the refutation to the Englund gambit (both 2...f6 and ...Qe7 lines. 1.d4,e5 2.dxe5,f6 3.Nf3,Nc6 4.e4,fxe5 the game will take on a kingpawn game mood, but black can't castle kingside with Bc4 and an attempt with 5.Bc4,Nf6 6.0-0,d5 7.exd5,Nxd5 8.Na5,Bd3 9.c4,c6 10.Nc3,Bb4 11.Ne4 will fail)

At least, learn the 4.a3! Fajarowicz Budapest as white, avoid Ke8?? in the fried liver (The Backyard Professor played it), follow sound, principled, classical chess, but learn how to deal with strange stuff and punish bad stuff a long the way. 

This is exactly the way I learned it. Go over your games , preferrably the ones you have lost, and find out your mistakes. Make them stick !

I only play a limited set of openings and my only goal is to get a comfortable position for the middlegame. I like to keep up with theory on these few openings.

When facing something unexpected like the Englund-gambit , after the game I will gather information on how to play (refute) against it.

My advice for starters is to find out which openings suit you , make you feel comfortable to play. Then read some books (or watch YouTube) to improve on them.

Both the Englund and Budapest can simply be met by e3. 

Why would you want to? Playing e3 against the Englund just looks like letting black off the hook for a terrible move.

Not really the subject of this thread , but I thought the Englund has been proven to be better (if not winning) for White. The Budapest though has so far not been refuted and is actually played by some GMs .

Yasser Seirawan on YouTube says it's quite playable for Black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SvgVk_6FNY

But how many beginners can prove it's bad off the top of their head? And I've never even heard of Fajarowicz or 4.a3. Sure you could memorise it but months down the line you may not remember any of it. At least with e3 you get a normal position and don't need to know any tricks.

It is winning for white, but figuring it out over the board isn't easy for a beginner.