Best opening for a new player

For a new player the best is 1.e4, in my opinion. Here's why

The object of chess the is to check mate your opponent. This requires some type of attack, and it's much easier to attack in an open position, 1.e4 almost always leads to an open position or at least a semi-open position, where you can develop your quickly and begin to attack right away. After playing a lot of open games you'll learn how to attack and mate your opponent, and defend against attacks. Once you get the point where you understand tactics and the basic ideas of attacking then switch to more positional openings like the Queens gambit or the colle.

The problem with playing the colle as a beginner is it's easy for the board to become closed, and a in a closed position and it may take 30-40 moves before you can get your pieces into position to attack. Now if you don't understand the basic ideas of an attack how are you going know where to position your pieces to attack or defend against an attack.

I am a beginner as well and have found a lot of good information at http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/links/openings.html 

The information in the research I have done so far was provided by masters and is in in line with what pvmike suggested above in post #71.  They advised beginners to start out with openings that facilitate tactical (open) positions and work towards openings that create positional (closed) games.  The reasoning provided states that tactical games give you some foundational knowledge that is used later in positional games.  Other information I have read suggests to move along a progression that goes from open games, to semi-open, to semi-closed, to closed.  This idea supports the prior advice about learning tactical games (e4) first and then progressing to positional games (d4). 

If anyone that has a great understanding of the fundamentals of the game sees any flaws in this approach, please share your wisdom.  :) 

Some very interesting responses here, some very flippant answers and some very thoughtful ones. :p

My personal course has been a facination with the sicilian defense and all its following permutations. I find myself disappointed when i see 1.d4 as black, and excitied when I see 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 (i'm currently experimenting with the sveshnikov, which continues 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5* :))

What i've been told by those more experienced than I, is that 1.e4 leads into a game that has many features that need to be mastered before moving into the 1.d4 lines. I personally consider 1.d4 as a stronger move (as white) solely because the sicilian is such a powerful play for an informed black player.

So therefore I recomend 1.e4 as white, followed by 2.Nf3 (unless they open with a pawn attack), and 1...c5 (the sicilian) but you'll need to study that a bit before being able to run the lines without faltering.

*the signature move of the sveshnikov

Keep it simple I'd suggest trying the Bishops opening 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 and the Scandinavian as Black 1.e4 d5

 Ideas Behind the Chess Openings by Reuben Fine is a bit dated, but it does a good job of presenting the basic strategies of all of the main openings.  Dr. Fine updated this classic (in the early 1990's, I believe) to include "newer" openings like the Benko Gambit.

BTW, please don't confuse Fine's book with two books by IM Gary Lane with a similar title:  "Ideas Behind the Modern Chess Openings" and "Ideas Behind Modern Chess Openings:  Black."  The Lane books are pretty good, but they are repertoire books, and not general books on opening theory.

I believe the kings indian would be good for a beginner because it's easy to learn and it's a good opening

thank you everyone to all your comments :) i'm quite enjoying the queens gambit, slav defense and ruy lopez at the moment

 gina x

King's Gambit is the best!

King's Gambit is the best opening for begginers? I  think begginners should avoid all openings which damage their king - and most of the gambits.

I agree that the king's gambit is not for begginers, but the Evan's Gambit, and the Morra Smith Gambit are great for begginers

I love you so much

what?

The Colle-Zukertort scores 58% in games between 2000+ players...I hardly would consider that crap.

And Cecil Purdy, who is one of the most lucid and helpful chess writers of the last century suggested the Colle system precisely for beginners.

Also, given that the Colle has more Bishop sacrifices in it than pretty much any other sound opening, one can hardly claim it is devoid of tactics.

Playing the same positions over and over and over again is not the way beginners improve at chess. Sure the Colle might score ok, but you're liable to stunt your chess education by not exploring the more rich and varied positions available in other openings. 

Not to mention the Colle is just boring as all hell.

Reti?! Hypermodern! For white, e4 for black against e4 e5 against d4 Nf6. drop in a nimzoindian which looks hypermodern but stops white from playing e4. Or just stay with simple easy develpment.

Then do what I do, play a solid, slowly-building-attack opening on White [the Colle-Zukertort] and something sharp and tactical on Black (I play the Najdorf and Semislav...are they "crap" too?). The Zukertort is excellent for honing strategic thinking and positional play.

What I find disturbing here is that noone actually seems to have bothered to read the first post.

Which would be the best opening to use as a new player? everytime i try new things, i end up making mistakes!

Especially to the higher rated bunch of you, how on earth did you get that high rating? I suppose you read tons of opening books when you were a new player, and that gradually improved your play to the level you are at now?
No, wait. Read it again. everytime i try new things, i end up making mistakes!
I read it like this: regardless of what opening i try, i end up making mistakes!

What I think you actually need to do is practice your middlegame, ie tactics & strategy, and your endgame. Years ago when I was a much worse player than now, I tried studying new openings as well. If I compare that to my opening study nowadays, the foremost difference is that nowadays I can grasp the ideas of a new opening much faster, simply because I spot the tactics much faster, understand the strategic ideas much faster, and evaluate the resulting endgames much faster.
How do you practise this? The tactics trainer and daily puzzle of chess.com are pretty good, the chess mentor too.
If you don't like them, I heard Seirawan's winning chess books are pretty good. I've never read them though, so you might want to look at some reviews first. For endgames, I'll recommend Silman's Endgame Course - it's the best and most practical nowadays.

Don't worry too much about your first moves. Don't carelessly make some moves either, but make them with your tactical and strategical ideas in mind. Remember, it's not the first mistake that decides the game, or the second one, or the third one, but the last one.

Not sure whether anyone mentioned this (I will not read all the posts above), but an interesting technique offered in a text I owned/own (who knows where) is as follows:

Take the White pieces (for example) and without any play by Black, take 10 moves to develop your pieces, central pawns, castle your king and get the queen and rooks ready for play. Then, try this again, doing it differently, using the standard notions of order of development and minimizing the number pawn moves and repeated piece moves. Examine the various ways one can do this. Do the same with the Black pieces. Try some of these out in real games, realizing that your opponents' play will make doing exactly any of this impossible and that one must always consider the effect of your opponents' moves on your plans, and that - as Black - you only control your response to White's moves.

This method of tackling learning the opening avoids rote memorization of lines, but focuses on learning where the pieces can go, being efficient in development, and understanding what your opponents can do to impede your development.

Just one idea.

Ruy Lopez is very good for white.

For black, I heard Scandinavian is easy to learn.

There are two primary schools of thought.

One is to learn openings that are easy to learn, safe, and that don't contain much theroy (or alternatively, can be played without knowing much theroy).

The other is to play 1. e4 to teach beginners tactics, classical principles, attacking, and open positions, which is important to learn in EVERY chess game.

The third school of thought is using whatever opening the poster likes himself.  Justifications include "it's so good", "I win all my games with it" and "you should learn hypermodern/strategical play/whatever concepts don't really matter to beginners with it!"

So the question is, do you want tofocus on the game using safe, unambitious openings, that allow you to focus on the game and never worry "Oh, only if I knew opening theroy"?  Or do you want openings that will launch you into instructive games that are more diffucult to play and require more theroy?

I prefer the latter, but come up with your own opinion.