Sorry, didn't realize it was the 3rd page of answers. Didn't have coffee yet! : )
I still do not see the advantage of Learning the Ruy Lopez and Caro Kann early. (white-black)
No matter what you play you may as well design it for what you aspire to be. Your not going to lose too many playing these systems against 1000 players either and in the end you will become very proficient with them. At least that's my thinking. I am sure others will see it differently.
I started playing the Sicilian Najdorf as both White and Black over 50 years ago, when I was around 1400 strength (OTB CFC rating).
Still playing it 50 years later.
from Compadre:
"It is pointless teaching a rank 900 player how to play the Italian Game, Spanish Opening, or even the London system because on move 2 their opponents will deviate or do something random. It’s better to teach them brutal force attacking and piece coordination."
I kind of agree with Compadre's first sentence there.
Regarding what opening is 'best' - opinons vary.
Including according to definitons of 'best'.
Is it such a sin to play Nf3 d5 d4 ... has white 'besmirched the realm'?
Is the simple d4 Nf6 Bf4 'Awful'?
It isn't just the labyrinth of openings that is a beartrap for beginners ...
its transposition too.
I would say - go over terminology first.
In other words - first improve both communications and thereby understanding too.
'Transposition' has got to be one of the top five issues in openings.
But its constantly downplayed and ignored or even dismissed ...
some instructors possibly never even mention the word 'transpose' ...
London you can bully 2000s with it
Instead of 'London System' we could say something like:
'The idea of intending to develop your c1 bishop to f4.'
Where each of the four bishops 'belong' in whatever opening - is probably the most nitty-gritty toughest and most definitive issue in each opening.
Discussion of the four bishops in each opening - is again one of those 'downplayed' issues. Like transposition.
Would it be silly to say or think?: 'When playing with white - I don't like playing Be3. It doesn't do much. Surely it would be better hitting a black N at f6? Or if that's bad surely it would do a lot more at f4 than e3? Its like putting it at d2. It looks silly. And if If I play b3 and Bb2 that takes an extra move and that diagonal will be blocked by black pawns and my own pawns. And if I leave it at c1 that's blocking my a-rook. Hey! There's Ba3!. And Bh6 sometimes.'
Any move or plan for each piece in the early opening might have both advantages and disadvantages.
A bishop at f4 is hitting the Qside not the Kside.
A bishop at f4 is blocking your fpawn from going to f4.
A bishop at f4 can be 'swung on' by a N going from f6 to h5.
A bishop at f4 can be 'tempo'd' by an e5 pawn move and then that pawn forks a knight at f3 and the other bishop at d3.
A bishop at f4 could leave b2 unguarded - enabling nastiness by the black Queen or black f-bishop.
Theory - even with all of those Criminal Counts against Bf4 ... all of that doesn't sum up the Essence of Bf4.
Some would just say: 'Bf4 is a common developing move. Get developed. Get castled. Have the bishop out. Don't worry about it. Figure out later about that bishop as the position progresses or changes.'
Theory: Masters would understand much better about the significance of Bf4 versus Be3. So I don't understand it well.
Fact: Chess openings aren't 'solved'. They're the most 'unsolved' part of the game.
That fact could be one of the Top Five realities of openings.
Sometimes, a Bishop at f4 will allow (or even encourage) Black to play Nc6, since with the vulnerable Bishop sitting on f4, Black can reply to d4-d5 with e7-e5 (!) opening up the favorable e7 square for the attacked Knight.
Some would just say: 'Bf4 is a common developing move. Get developed. Get castled. Have the bishop out. Don't worry about it. Figure out later about that bishop as the position progresses or changes.'
Development is somewhat over-rated.
Playing Black against an IM. White has just played h2-h4.
What's Black's best move in this position?
Sometimes, a Bishop at f4 will allow (or even encourage) Black to play Nc6, since with the vulnerable Bishop sitting on f4, Black can reply to d4-d5 with e7-e5 (!) opening up the favorable e7 square for the attacked Knight.
I haven't looked much at the en passant alternative for white there. d5xe6 e.p..
Was the first thing when I looked at the moves ...
Maybe its bad ... 
Hi @blueemu !
Regarding the second diagram - similiar immediate reaction:
When black's rook attacks white's Queen - that Q going back to e3.
Yes - they're probably both bad for white ...
The opening with which I beat Crafty (3200+ rated computer on ICC) the most is the Colle system.
We almost never hear about the Colle.
Is it that bad?
Too passive?
Black would often respond with getting his pawns to c5 and d5 and his fbishop to g7.
White's bishop at c1 stays at home for a while and is locked in.
Compared with the London (and perhaps London variants) where that bishop goes to f4.
Or with the Queen's gambit - where that bishop goes to g5 and hits black's f6-knight.
Or the Trompowsky and the Torre - where that bishop hits that black knight Earlier than in the QG.
Ding Liren used the Colle recently to win a 12th world championship game in that series.
Aspect of the Colle ... can black prevent it?
Say d4 c5 ... now what - is it still a Colle? (or an 'old' Benoni?)
I don't know.
Regarding the Colle and the London ...
can they both be played against anything black does?
Apparently yes.
That's why they're called 'system' openings.
Colle's System. The London System.
I like the idea of the c1 bishop getting out first - so the London looks better to me.
////////////////
But then white must be ready for black's f6 knight 'swinging' on the bishop at f4 by
going to h5 - attacking it.
(No - white's queen does not prevent Nh5 because white's knight will be sooner or later at f3 blocking white's queen-control of h5.)
Strong players might say 'don't worry about Nh5' but its an option for black.
Often - white stymies Nh5 by playing h3 and gives his bishop a 'parking place' at h2.
But h3 early has its own downsides.
Problem with 'System' openings. Can encourage the fundamental error of not attending enough to your opponent's pieces.
LONDON
@52
"White's bishop at c1 stays at home for a while and is locked in."
++ In the real Colle as played by Edgar Colle white prepares e4, which frees Bc1.
In the Koltanowsky-Colle as played by Georges Koltanowsky white plays b3 and Bb2.
@52
"White's bishop at c1 stays at home for a while and is locked in."
++ In the real Colle as played by Edgar Colle white prepares e4, which frees Bc1.
In the Koltanowsky-Colle as played by Georges Koltanowsky white plays b3 and Bb2.
That's right.
But with the London you get the bishop out.
I see two issues with the London - to start.
One is black swinging his knight to h5 hitting the bishop ...
And the other is black playing Qb6 early. Hitting white's b2 pawn.
Issue: what about white playing c3 first instead of e3 in response to a black c5 ...?
Then white will have his own Q-options to counter Qb6.
Qb3 'ugh'. Or Qc2. Black might half-open the c-file and then will white's Queen be bad on c2. (reminds me of Karpov games where he plays his Queen one square sideways - but that's something else perhaps far up in the chess stratosphere ...)
If White had left the Bishop at home on c1, he wouldn't need to worry about Nh5.
Development is somewhat over-rated.
If White had left the Bishop at home on c1, he wouldn't need to worry about Nh5.
Development is somewhat over-rated.
@blueemu Hi!
You seem to be arguing there - that Nh5 is a legitimate issue regarding Bf4.
I remember studying that Bf4 move - long before the internet was around ...
There were lines where white even responds to Nh5 with Bg5.
Nowadays we can try these lines out on an analysis board ... but when the board returns an evaluation of close to even ... that may not tell us enough. We just know that the computer found nothing seriously wrong right away.
I remember one player telling me ... 'Hey if you play Bf4 and black 'swings' his knight to h5 ... if you're epawn isn't up at e3 yet you can back the bishop up to d2 and black will have invested three knight moves to get his knight back to f6 while you invested two to get your bishop to d2.
Reminds me of the Bayonet attack.
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 g4 and Bd7 for black - instead of his pieces put into Coma after Bg6?? e6!!
What makes you think the Bishop will be able to fall back to d2? Wouldn't Black wait until White plays e2-e3 (shutting the Bishop OUT) before playing Nh5?
I don't like bringing a piece out only to have it traded off... especially if I have to invest more than one move in it, only to see it traded and the moves wasted.
Depends on your level ig for what opening is good, but generally solid openings are Italian, queen's gambit, and I have been seeing a rise in center game lately, so its worth a try. You can try fianchetto openings as well, those are common, but more so as black however because of king's Indian. You can still fianchetto as white though.
What makes you think the Bishop will be able to fall back to d2? Wouldn't Black wait until White plays e2-e3 (shutting the Bishop OUT) before playing Nh5?
I don't like bringing a piece out only to have it traded off... especially if I have to invest more than one move in it, only to see it traded and the moves wasted.
@blueemu - I'm not claiming white's epawn is up to e3 yet or not up to e3 yet.
It depends.
I mentioned that somebody mentioned that idea to me.
And now that reminds me of another instance of a similiar idea.
A player Queen-checks in the opening - and when the opponent interposes with his bishop the Queen doesn't go alll the way back.
Have you seen that?
Its a generic idea.
Anyway - in the London another issue is whether white can afford h3.
Or when.
Ruy Lopez is the most often used opening by Magnus in classical chess, that says it all. You can look up games by the greats using this opening.
It says nothing. What is good for a 2800+ player isn't necessarily good for a class C- one.