Best defenses the Reti

You should be more concerned about following opening principles, not hanging material, and not missing simple tactics, before trying to be "aggressive" 

Why do beginners think being "aggressive" is more important than the basics???

Did dantewitt say something about "aggressive" being "more important than the basics"???

It is kinda hard to find introductory Reti material. Perhaps one would feel more comfortable after playing over a few of the games in Starting Out: The Reti by Neil McDonald.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627101228/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen131.pdf

Of course, it might be helpful to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

In addition, why do they think that different variations are for different level players?  It's not like some line against the Reti is for "beginners" and some other line is for "advanced" players.  What is sound is sound and what is crap is crap!

Also, this whole thing about trying to compartmentalize variations between "aggressive" and "defensive" is utter horsesh*t as well.  Chess is a game of Attack and Defense.  When you are Black, and you are moving second, your first job is to equalize the position.  Defend!  Sometimes the best defense is counter-attack.  Sometimes it's sitting put and putting up resistance.  There is none of this "this line is aggressive" baloney.  The position depends on both players, not one!  You can even avoid the Reti all together if you wanted to!

For instance, after 1.Nf3, if you play 1...d5, then you have a Reti after 2.c4 (provided White doesn't follow up immediately with an early d4), but what about 1.Nf3 Nf6?  Now if 2.c4, you could play 2...c5 and you are in an English, or 2...g6 and if White plays an early d4 you are in a King's Indian Defense and if not, it will almost always transpose to an English, either Symmetrical if Black plays an eventual c5 or 1...e5 lines if he plays e5 later on, like 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.Nc3 d6 6.d3 (6.d4 is a Fianchetto King's Indian) e5 and you are in a line that can just as easily come from 1.c4 e5.

So stop trying to go through reams and reams of line, trying to compartmentalize them between aggressive and defensive or intended for beginners versus advanced players, and worry more about Opening concepts and actually understanding what you are doing with those opening moves and why they are played.

Perhaps because they have seen things like the common advice that beginners start with 1 e4 as White?

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

Did dantewitt mention "trying to go through reams and reams of line"?

Because aggressive tactical openings give them a chance to practice tactics and mating ideas.

Play e5. If your opponent does not play e4, play d5. And then c5. 

I have seen some beginners get their horse caught among pawns in the Reti opening. Yeah, and this particular opening that I gave above is only for beginners. 

It's not 'aggressive' per say. But, it gives you some space advantage and cramps your opponent.

More poor advice. 

The Reti is awesome because of its flexibility and its ability to transpose into pretty much anything since Nf3 is characteristic in a lot of openings.  After 1.Nf3, Black also has a lot of options.  Some of the more popular moves are : 

1... Nf6, 1...d5, 1...c5, 1...f5, and 1...g6. So take your pick of what you want to play. On chess.com, I think that most players prefer to go for some kind of Slav setup  after 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6. 

White sometimes plays 2.g3 instead of c4 which usually goes into some kind of Catalan or KIA.

I suggest playing 1...d5 because I feel that is the move that would have the highest likelihood of going into a Queen's Gambit Declined, or a Slav, which are great additions to any repertoire because they teach controlling the center, basic tactics and traps, and are both pretty solid. Just be prepared for any transposition in the Reti because it is only the first move.  

If beginners just play 'solid' openings (particularly closed positions), they have no idea what to do other than move the pawns and pieces randomly. And they never get a chance to practice tactics and mating ideas. 

Opening moves are not "random" moves.  Their is an idea behind them.  Just like playing "tactical" openings is poor advice, since any opening can be "tactical"  As far as all this "open" and "closed" positions stuff that us constantly paraded around here? More poor advice.  Just because a beginner/lo rated player is told to play "open positions" doesn't mean a whole lot, if they don't understand why they are to play open positions.  It all gets back to my first 2 sentences.

1. Opening Moves serve a purpose.

2. Their is an idea behind opening moves.

If you don't understand points 1-2, then playing open positions wont help.  And blindly playing 1.e4 because it leads to open positions is poor advice, if the person doesn't understand "why"

Take a look at pretty much any position on tactics trainer.  You will notice similarities, and common themes for the winning side:

Space advantage.

Material advantage.

Piece Activity.

Weaknesses in the opponents position.

What did Fisher (I believe) say:  "Tactics flow from a superior position."

How do you get a superior position?

Piece activity.

Space.

Smart pawn use.

Create/force weaknesses.

"... A rule can be defined as a statement that is meant to be applied at all times, while a principle is more general and only applies some of the time. ... The following is a list of opening principles. … Lower rated players should play sharp, tactical openings to improve their tactics. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052207/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman53.pdf

Did someone assert that opening moves are random moves? See what there is above.

It's a myth that people 'understand' openings. No one 'understands' openings or positions (or similar positions). People(from beginners to professionals) memorize openings or positions. When you think you understand an opening or position, it is just that you have seen that opening or position so many times, you can remember it's various continuations without effort and it feels like you 'understand' it. Beginners don't have that kind of exposure to openings or positions and they don't want to memorize openings or positions specially if the variations are long and do not give any decisive material advantage.

About 'superior' positions: there is no such thing as superior position without first pointing out the players involved. It means the evaluation of positions is not independent of players. Good or bad position depends on players as much as the position itself. So, when you advice beginners playing against other beginners, you have to provide them with openings or positions which have the maximum potential for success and learning for them.

PS: De La Maza

Quoting De La Maza isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, and explains some things.

I would guess that I have a complete understanding of 1 g4 e5 2 f4, but, apart from that, I sometimes have the feeling that I have a partial understanding of this or that.

I was not quoting him...