Easiest opening to learn for beginners ..

Several IM's and GM's play the London ... that's more than enough of an endorsement. AND ... GM Kovacevic wrote a book on it ... 

At a beginner's level, you just say, "develop here." At the higher level, you must study the different systems and look at top-level games where good players were successful from the White ... AND the Black side. 

Really the only way to learn any opening. 

<Michael G> Stop trolling ... 

First I can see why Mr Goldsby took offense to the post. BUT I have to agree that the London, colle and any other opening like this are bad for beginners. 

I respect the coaches that do teach it (susan polgar recommends the colle zukertort and IM Lakdawala teaches the London as well both people I respect) The arguement for these openings is that it allows beginners to develop naturally and focus on the middlegame with out worrying about the opening..That said I disagree with teaching beginners theses systems and here is why

Improvement at chess is about elimination of mistakes and the punishing mistakes by your opponents.  The biggest mistakes made by 'beginners' are ones of a tactical nature. To improve these mistakes must be eliminated and punished. Playing safe systems results in automatic thinking where players dont really look at what their opponents moves are until they are  done with their their setup. This is not a productive thinking process. Players should be thinking from move 1 about what they are doing and what their opponent is doing in response. I have literally watched scholatic players playing 10 moves against masters and then looking up to "see" what is going on. 
The issue is that losing and winning games in 10 -20 moves is not something to be feared but something to learn from. iWhile they dont drop pieces due to oversights they dont learn to be careful either and look at what is going on. In the colle and london pieces are not developed in a direct and active manner. Tactics are delayed... Mistakes are delayed,... Improvement is delayed..

Locally players who were taught the London quit chess in droves around 1200 and by 1500 they were 'done' with chess for the most part because of the frustrations once players learned to avoid their tricks. One GM coach said that the player needed to learn dynamic play and was stagnated for several years while he learned how to play actively.

yes GMs play these sytems but GMs play many systems inappropriate for amateurs. There are books on the grob so because a book is published doesnt make it valid. 

Is it a bad system no but I think there are long term problems from a didactic point of view. When I did a search of U10 and U8 world championship games I found that the winning players played simple systems with straight forward plans of rapid development and central control. The Italian, scotch, dragon etc... I just used their ideas since my logic is these are players whose livelyhood is based on producing VERY successful players not just amateurs. 

Anyway thats my logic...

is it ok if I drop out of this as a guy who only plays what he plays to get to positions where tactics dominate and I can have fun and maybe get better at calculating.

These particular points, for me, are spot on and get to the essence of the subject Thread.

First of all, thanks for stating things in a nice way. 

Secondly, there are many holes in your argument, and you seem to not entirely understand what I am saying.

I said that the Colle was a good opening for a RAW BEGINNER to learn. I NEVER said he had to play it his whole career!!! 

I have had many students over the years. I have always been a big believer that a student should play openings that are conducive to their natural style of play. 

The DOGMA - for well over a hundred years, especially in the USA, (I can even show you a few old books as proof.) - was that a beginner HAD to play lots of tactical openings (like the King's Gambit) to learn tactics. 

This might have been true back then, but it is an OUTMODED form of thought in today's world. Nowadays, you have dozens of good books on tactics, hundreds of web pages, on-line curriculum, computers, chess engines, DVD's (on tactics); ... ... ... the list is almost endless! So today saying that a player HAS to play tactical openings to learn tactics is simply both not true and a completed outdated, old-fashioned idea ... that has to give way to a new paradigm ... in today's world of technology. 

I have one student in Pensacola, I started him off with the Caro-Kann, as he was relatively poor at tactics, and seemed to have a tendency to always play defensively. Today, after about five years of training, he now likes the Sicilian. I have given him my blessing to play it all the time, if he so wishes; he has even defeated me in a couple of training games. (From BOTH sides of the opening!)  

I love studying openings, and I have played many different openings myself. As a kid, I learned the Stonewall Attack, but I dropped it when I got past about age 10. Later, for about 35 years, I only played 1.e4, (mostly because of Bobby Fischer);  heading mainly towards a Giuoco Piano, (because the is a variation that is named after me). However, after many defeats in this line, (as White) at the hands of mainly FM Stephen Muhammed, I rethought my whole approach to chess. Today, I try to open with 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3, and play a different system every game, never repeating the same line twice. And I also defend with nearly every opening under the sun. 

The bottom line? The openings are merely a TOOL ... a really good teacher will use every tool at his (or her) disposal! But what I said still stands, from a viewpoint of pure simplicity, few openings can rival the Colle, especially when you are teaching a pure beginner. 

I agree with you to some extent but I think the idea that practicing tactics via books is effective it is more effective if you are also practicing it in games where the positions are not spoon fed to a player with a flag of "there is a tactic here" waving in front of them. Most moves in chess are not tactical in nature but preperation for tactics or the prevention of them. Posting pieces on active squares and fighting it out in open positons is a great learning tool to help reinforce tactical learning. 

I also feel that beginners dont have a 'style' they may have a mental approach the is more suited to them but this is also a flaw. Karpov is primarily a positional player but he is quite able to attack someone ruthlessly if needed it was a choice made but the skills sets are still there. A class player should practice both tactical and positional play but the fact is that tactical shots occur very frequently at the amateur level and players need to be alert for them at all times. A 'target consciousness' if you will. 

One of my red flags as a coach is if a student 'fears' somethning or is uncomfortble with a certain type of position thats what they need to work on. IMO players should be universal in their strengths. being brillant at endgames doesnt help since the between the opening and the endgame there is the middlegame.  if a player doesnt like endgames we work on them. They dont like complications, we work on that. 

I agree openings are just tools but what can you build with those tools is the critical question. I advocate simple systems as well where players can understand active posts and simple plans. the scotch (4 knights or main) and italian game seem to fit that bill. My best student has moved on but she is 1970 (i stopped around 1750-1800 and shes being taught by a GM now. During our time together She learned the italian game , accelerated dragon and benko at first. then we rotated out and she moved to taimanov, king's indian and queens gambit. She has beaten a few masters and drawn an FM so far in OTB games. 

As a note this is probably the most benefical conversation than has occurred in this post in the last few pages :)

I agree ... we don't even seem to be talking about apples and oranges anymore, he is talking about lampshades and I am talking about floor coverings ... 

Capablanca is quoted to saying that he never cracked open a book on opening theory.

If you are happy with this casual approach, that is fine. 

Many people take up a sport - say tennis, for example - and they would like to get as good as they can as quickly as possible. When this is your goal, it is common practice to get a coach/teacher/tutor/instructor. 

Also - when you get a chess teacher, it is probable that you will not have to learn everything the hard way, nor will you spend a lot of time making mistakes. 

I read somewhere - I think it was Bjonn Borg - that he wished he would have had a teacher when he took his first steps. As a result of learning many incorrect ideas, he had to RE-LEARN the CORRECT way to do things later on. 

I could go on, but I trust you get my point. 

And that is inherently a lie. 

Capa had many teachers that taught him theory. He also spent time with a man on Cuba, he had an extensive library. (This is where he borrowed the book that had all those R+P endings, and he replayed all of them.) 

I think Capa did a lot to promote the idea that he never had to work at the game ... 

Euwe seems to think that he didn't spend much time on openings. Maybe not none, but then again *much time* to Kasparov on openings and MY interpretation of *much time* is very different.

 I like to play the stonewall which is similar to the openings discussed. There is little doubt that these opening do diminish much of the tactical play that often happen in many other openings. However there are still the tactics founds in both the middle game and the endgame. So in my view these openings do not eliminate study of tactical play it simply delays it until further in the game. Even in the opening it is dangerous for the white player to go into "autopilot" as there are certain moves which must be met in a precise manner.

all the names you have mention pfren, are they history reserchers ?

Tactics are delayed... Mistakes are delayed,... Improvement is delayed..

          Exactly that phrase by TonyH  is the key point and the reason why systems like Cole and London should not be taught to beginners.It's something that unfortunately  very few "coaches" have realised with the obvious result to get paid and do more damage than good.

   The fact that many GMs play London and Colle certainly proves nothing and it is an argument used by those that don't understand what a beginner needs.Even more GMs play King's Indian defense and Najdorf.Should we teach a beginner King's Indian defense and Najdorf before anything else? Of course not.

       The point is that beginner should be encouraged to do mistakes and not hide in the safety of any system.By doing as many mistakes as possible he is improving.If there was a system in which a beginner could play 20 safe moves should we teach that to him?Of course not.

      Beginners should not learn anything more than 5 opening moves and the basic principles.The emphasis should be from day 1 to endgame and maybe from day 5 middlegame should be included.

     Here is what Capablanca says:

    "In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame".

        So while Capablanca says that we should start our study from endgame , some "teachers" start from Colle system because Colle is played by some GMs.But Capablanca is not just a GM but one of the best World Champions ever appeared.

      One of the best teachers ever appeared , Botvinnik , also has expressed the opinion that  openings are useless for beginners.

           Although both these great players say the same thing there are still "teachers" that insist that they are right in teaching Colle or London to beginners something that is an obvious mistake.

     Colle and London is the easy solution and in chess there are no easy solutions.You have to lose many times on move 5 or move 6 or move 7 to understand the basic principles and their usefulness.You have to fully understand the basic principles, because everything, no matter how complicated it is , is nothing more than a  complicated form of the basic opening and middlegame principles.

  When you learn Colle , you learn Colle , but you don't learn chess.Simple as that.

   You want a good opening repertoire?

This is it:

1.e4 as white and use  basic opening principles

1...e5 against 1.e4 ,1...d5 against 1.d4 and use basic opening principles.

       Yes you will lose many times with this  "poor" in moves but "rich" in learning chances opening repertoire but you will understand chess much quicker than by playing Colle or London. 

The Colle version Yusupov suggests is actually Rubinstein attack that later was re-named  Colle-Zukertot.

One of the awarded Trainers in Soviet Union, Rashit Nezhmetdinov , also recommended the same in an even more simplistic form(with the bishop at e2 instead d3) but again not for total beginners but for "beginner tournament players".Beginner tournament players in Soviet Union were considered those that had completed the "basic training".

     "Basic training" according to Rashit Nezhmetdinov focused on endgame, as it is considered  the key for any players improvement and understanding.Opening study should only be some basic moves and the basic opening principles.According to Nezhmetdinov ,a beginner should take no more than 2 opening lessons(!!!) and the allocated time after that should be 75% time of his study to endgames and 25% on middlegame.This time allocation would be  50-50 only 12 months after and basic openings should be taught only 18 months after.That means that for the first 18 months every beginner should do no more than 2 opening lessons and should learn nothing more than the basic opening principles.     

     Let me inform you that Rashit Nezhmetdinov was  Tals' analyst(after Tal's personal request) and awarded trainer with the highest award in Soviet Union.His training program has been approved to be implemented in all Soviet schools back in 60's.

Obviously Yusupov has not see you play and doesn't know your line.Forgive him.

Your line is indeed good for black but hardly a refutation.Your surprise ("you kiddin' me") clearly shows that you don't understand it.Rubinstein attack is a system that produces positions very "rich" in strategic ideas and plans.Almost every  important middlegame concepts (isolated pawn ,hanging pawns , attack on the wings , minority attack etc.)  can be learned by adopting a system that has practically no theory at all and won't burden a 1500+ payer with extensive opening study while at the same time will offer him the chance to understand vital middlegame themes.If you study games with Rubinstein attack carefully you will realise why Yusupov suggests it for players 1500+.

LOL!!!Sure , it's no better than Parham.

Man you really have great evaluation skills.Yes b3 is a total waste of time , but this fool Yusupov(he still plays Rubinstein attack regularly) doesn't know it.Also  Bronstein ,  Rubinstein , Capablanca , Shlechter, Nimzowitch,Alekhine  and others who have played it, didn't know that b3 is a total waste of time.What idiots!!!