Chess openings for beginners/ kids

My son is rated around 750 and I have taught him Vienna opening for white. After reviewing few of his games, I feel it might not be a good opening for beginners. Any recommendations for a good fundamentally sound opening for white.

Kings gambit maybe? To learn to attack

Ruy López

Ruy lopez is too boring imo

Is not an Italian Game a thing to start from? (and you can play it both tactically 4. c3 and more positionally 4. d3)

I agree with the Italian, it is also a good way to explain that the f pawn is only protected by the king.

When he gets better you could try the Queens Gambit

For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site. Perhaps ezamit would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM Johm Emms (2006).

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

Maybe consider:

Starting Out: Open Games by GM Glenn Flear (2010)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626232452/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen134.pdf

Chess Openings for Kids by Graham Burgess & John Watson (2011)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627040230/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen146.pdf

Basic Chess Openings for Kids by Charles Hertan (2015)

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/for-the-kids/

Also, perhaps look at:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/picking-the-correct-opening-repertoire

Young players will grow strongest if their development follows the historic development of chess theory. Hence, start with the Italian and King's Gambit. After considerable experience with these, introduce Evans Gambit, Spanish, Queen's Gambit, ...

OTOH. the Spanish may be the best way to teach both basic opening principles and the fundamentals of sound positional play. It may be a good lace to begin.

In any case, center control, reduction of one's vulnerabilities (and exploitation of those of the opponents), and basic tactics should predominate opening study.

Players who rely too much too early on a single opening system usually retard their long-term capabilities.

Thx all. I will switch to Italian and Ruy Lopez. 

I would recommend the knights first opening. bring out your knights then the d and e pawns and next attack with bishops. I am on a tablet so I cant make a diagram.

The Scotch, but use the move order. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3

I discuss this on my blog. http://chess-for-engineers.blogspot.com/2015/05/openings-for-beginners.html

What is wrong with people on this forum!

You can't teach a little kid the Ruy Lopez and Kings Gambit.

Whats the matter with you people.

Even Grand Masters struggle in those lines.

You want a little kid to play them?

Weirdos!

I bet many here have no clue how to even play them.

An you expect a little kid too?

What are you people smoking?

You start off with simple lines!

The Italian Game

or

The Kings Indian Attack

You reach the same positions over and over again.

The repetition helps!

Every strong player started off walking before running.

Bobby Fischer played the Kings Indian Attack and the Italian Game.

Even today's strong chess players who are young play the Italian Game.

Teach your kid the developtowardscenterconnectrooksdontmovepiecestwiceearly opening.

Ruy Lopez is an easy and pretty effective but slow and boring opening. This doesn't mean it's bad but likely won't lead to and exciting game.

You cannot teach a young pitcher to throw a change up when even professionals struggle to throw it well. Curves and sliders are even further from reach.

Naw. You're better off learning positional chess from some old guy who cannot beat kids rated 800. (see X Player's endorsements in the BYP thread.)

(I'm gonna stick with my program built on suggestions by Max Euwe and Jose Capablanca. They were world champions and several of my students have been state champions.)

Start with openings played before Howard Staunton won his first game, and then grow the child into the games of Staunton, Anderssen, and Morphy. If they played the opening, teach it. Focus on tactics, basic checkmates, and endgames. Read Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca and The Development of Chess Style by Euwe.

Also the developknightsbeforebishopsdon'tmovequeentooearlyandcastletodeveloprooksnevermove-a4or-h4togetrooksout opening

I would say don't teach them an opening, teach endgames and just how to really play chess and not blunder until like 1300-1400. My biggest mistake when I was starting out was concerning myself with openings, that definitely held my progress back significantly for a few years. Teaching someone rated 750, who plays against players who also don't know openings, or understand chess, would really harm his development as a chess player. Sure GM's played openings as kids, but they were also already playing at a high level, and had a good understanding of chess. Capablanca won the world championship without reading a single book on openings. Don't make the mistake of teaching him something that won't help him/will harm his development as a chess player

This is Hilarious!

If you was trying to prove me wrong well than that sure did backfire!

Thank you Ziryab for proving my point!

I made the simple statement:

You can't teach a little kid the Ruy Lopez and Kings Gambit.

Those lines are to complex.

You have to teach them to walk before you can teach them to run.

Which is why I said you should start with the Italian Game, Kings Indian Attack and I forgot to mention the London System/Colle.

They are easier lines to learn.

After which you can than slowly try and progress them into the more complex lines.

However, you always start with simple stuff first.

Than you go to advanced stuff.

This is how everything in life is done.

Your below statement Proves my point!

Start with openings played before Howard Staunton won his first game, and then grow the child into the games of Staunton, Anderssen, and Morphy.

Yes, start them off with Howard Staunton, Adolf Anderssen, and Paul Morphy's games!

All 3 chess players predominantly played the Italian Game & Evans Gambit.

Which is to say you can't reach the Evans Gambit unless you are playing the Italian Game.

Which is what I have been saying all along!

Furthermore, If you have watched the TheBackyardProfessor video's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBvOj4CoPsk

You would see how he talked about the Italian Game in several different video's.

Mr X,

Please read my first comment in this thread so that you understand the argument. It precedes your first post.

I recomment the Italian, King's Gambit, and Spanish.

If you want something too complex, then teach the KIA or some other quiet positional opening.

Capablanca (Chess Fundamentals) puts basic opening principles third behind endings and tactics. But, his model games are a mix of old lines and those current in his day. Unlike most who post here he is not a dogmatist. Euwe (Development of Chess Style) argues that a player's development should follow chess history. He starts with Greco and Philidor. The King's Gambit is prominent, as is the Italian.

I have a student who learned the Colle from an older relative. He played it against another student of mine in a tournament this weekend. Neither player had the faintest understanding of the position, but the stronger tactician reached a better position before making errors that let the other equalise. They agreed to a draw in an unbalanced position. They tied for first in their section. The student who won first on tiebreaks (the stronger tactician of the two) usually plays either the Italian or the Spanish. The tactician also faced 1.g3 in one of his games this weekend. He outplayed his opponent tactically. Again, neither player demonstrated positional understanding commensurate with the position.

I showed both students other model games in the Colle and then redirected their focus to basic tactics.