Easiest opening to learn for beginners ..

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.

I wonder which one is the liar:

DuMont who explicitly said so on "Memoir of Capablanca",

Harry Golombek who said the exact same thing in his book of Capa's 100 best games,

or Kasparov, who in  his Great predecessors book says that Capa had no idea of theory, did not contribute to chess more than a common master, had a generic laziness against chess but excelled simply because he was a rare genius?

Please enlighten us...

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

DuMont was the chief of British Chess Magazine for ten consecutive years. Golombek, a honorary GM wrote a bulky book on "The History of Chess" and Kasparov is just an ignorant patzer.

Any more questions, please?

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. 

So far, the only SERIOUS trainer that has recommended the Colle as a starting opening for chess courses, is Grandmaster Artur Yusupov. But Yupi recommends the strategically complex Zuckertort version of the Colle (with an eventual b2-b3), while he recommends things like the Bg5 Grunfeld, or the Smyslov KID against mainline Indians.

And- he recommends that not for newbies, but for average players (1500+). And it's no surprise that the very heart of his training books, is THE ENDGAME. Capablanca shades? Probably, but IMO it's simply the shades of Deep Dvoretsky, his trainer, who claimed that he could raise ANY ~2000 rated ***TALENTED*** player to Grandmaster status by just teaching him endgames.

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.

Michael-G more or less said everything.

Including that the mighty Nezh, one of the very few players that have demolished Tal with tactics, has suggested the improbable: three quarters of the newbies' time being devoted to endgame study.

A fool? Hardly- he was probably the most gifted tactical player, EVER.

A bad trainer? Haha... He raised a whole bunch of promising Grandmastes.

A pragmatist, and a wise teacher? Hell, YES.

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!!!

In the next game a "fool" uses Rubinstei attack to win another "fool" in just 28 moves.

Let's see...................hmmmm............found something.