Easiest opening to learn for beginners ..

Are you secretly The_Gavinator or something?

Flchessplayer, I'm sure you are too thick to evaluate a game properly.

This game was played with 55 mins handicap on me, due to late arrival at the playing hall. The piece sac was an OTB inspiration to end the theoretical discussion (Atalik is very good at that), and isn't bad. Suat has analysed the game on Chessbase Magazine, where he suggests 16...Nxe3 as a better move, but white still winning after 17.Bxe3 ed4 18.Ra5!! Qd7 19.Ne5 etc.

But unfortunately chess is a difficult game. The GM missed in his analyses (me too OTB, of course) the quiet move 18...Qf6! whan after 19.Bg5 Qg6 20.Bxd8 Be6 21.Qc2 Rfxd8 Black has some advantage.

White can keep some advantage only by means of the scary 18.Bxd4 Re8+ 19.Kd1!, which according to the engines is better for white, but the game is a total mess. The position resembles a Colle, although it's clearly more conservative.

The continuation in the game (the Nf2 piece sac) is worse, but instead of the dubious 22...Qd5? (I had just four minutes at that point) and the gross blunder next move, Black is equal after 22...Qb5 or even 22...Qxb1+.

I don't want to distract you any more than that from your Deep Colle analyses. Have a good day.

I don't hate the rest of the world that much lol

I am just a less than average IM, which I guess is better than FIDE unrated NM and wannabe trainer, and surely much better than "some guy" who thinks cryptoracist comments are smart.

Regards.

Something is missing."Beginners" love Goldsby and hate me , big time.

I didn't know the title LM. Does it stand for Lucrative Master?

Dear FLChessplayer,

Just saw your topic today (even tho' it's 7 months since you began it!). I was intrigued and went to the link you gave to The World Chess Academy and the article (series actually) by Goldsby. I followed his instructions to the letter in learning the fundaments of the Colle System. Then just to try out my "new set of wheels" I set up a challenge for White unrated. This attracted a 1340 player. I am an 1197.

Well he resigned on the 37th move! I think out of sheer frustration as much as anything else. I was in a pretty good position at that point, granted. But the deal is that with the Colle, White sets up a very sound opening position. And from there with your pawn structure and pieces working together, you can find some nice combinations.

Now keep in mind everyone (esp. naysayers) that I am a beginner. I joined Chess.com on April 15th. That was the first time I had played chess in 9 years. Basically I have started over at 64 years old. And I'm telling you all, this Colle System is THE opening for White when you otherwise don't know sh*t from shinola, as we used to say in West Texas.

Many thanks for steering me to this "F.L."!

Breck

If you seriously think that a self-confessed beginner can determine whether this or that opening is "THE opening for White" after playing one game with it, then you're as full of it as he is.

The game was won, like almost all games at that level, because of the amount of blunders, including your opponent throwing away a piece on move 12 and failing to take advantage of your own blunder and practically equalizing the game on move 32. It had nothing to do with your super-special-magical opening, I'm afraid. Play a bunch more games with it and you'll find that out for yourself.

Ladies, Ladies, we already know THE opening for white is the Parham.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't change the conclusion - you still can't determine which opening, if any, is "THE opening for White for beginners" based on the outcome of one game, either. Especially when the outcome of that particular game had nothing to do with the opening in question. But please excuse me if I came across as sounding overly grumpy, in hindsight it probably wasn't justified.

Bear in mind that even Goldsby doesn't claim it's the best opening for beginners - just that it's the easiest to learn, and that it helps a beginner to lose more slowly against better players. And even then, he's careful (when it suits him, at least) to point out that by "beginner" he's referring to people who just learned the moves a few days ago, which is not the type of beginner you are. Out of the previous nine games you'd played, you'd won seven of them - I bet that had more to do with the outcome of the game than did your choice of opening.

This is exactly whar Goldsby "sells".The delussion that you can play good when you can't.What you don't understand is that despite your excellent win against a formidable 1397 rated player , you are stil the same player as before.Nothing has changed.

   Just for your information I have managed to make a 1300 player win a 1900+ player using exactly the same "teaching method" that Goldsby uses(many months before I met him) but a much better opening system.Goldsby thinks he is a pioneer but thousands of ignorants "self-assigned teachers use exactly the same method, known for many years now , to take money from other ignorants that are impressed from a result or 2.

    It is not your fault.You are the "victim".You are misleaded and misinformed by a whole system that promises you "quick improvement" just to take your money.

Real recommendations ... from real people.

Thanks for the cudo's. 

Oh, you sell yourself short here ... 

By the way, where are your websites? 

Oh, that's right!~ You don't have any ... ... ... 

My little cousin (who is 12) has a website of his own which his dad made.

I suppose he can argue against the colle, then?

Mr. Goldsby, it's rather apparent that I do not do wholesale "chess", like you do.

But there is no point explaining you about chess as an art, for the very same reasons it's futile talking to the taxman about poetry.

I strongly suggest reading some Mayakovsky poems- I am sure your rating will climb at least 200 points.

     We started talking about chess and now our knowledge or understanding is doubted not because what we say is wrong but because we don't have a website!!!!

       The specific "awarded teacher/trainer considers the "possession" of a website a clear proof of his high understanding in chess!!!!!(am  I the only one laughing here?)

        So while Botvinnik , Capablanca and Nezhmetdinov claim that the study of chess should start from the endgame , Goldsby disagrees and till now his most serious argument is that he has a website while Botvinnik Capablanca and Nezhmetdinov didn't ever had one!!!(am I still the only one laughing here?).

         Despite the hilarious argument , the whole situation is more tragic than funny.This guy teaches(probably no one is laughing anymore).

          The whole thing is not personal, NEVER WAS.I never doubted Mr Goldsby as a player or as a person but seriously doubt his teaching method and his ability to teach.

        The problem begins by the fact that very few really understand why endgame is so important.Their low understanding makes them think like this:

    "When will I need Lucena or Philidor positions?I never reach a rook and pawn vs rook endgame.I usually lose or win far before that".

       A "beginner" even said that "a detailed study of Lucena position won't do any good to him".

    Dvoretsky said that he can make any talented player a grandmaster by teaching him endgames.Incidentally something similar said to me Petar Trifunovic , a great player with which I had the luck to talk and see him teach.We either have to accept that these 2 are fools or to try to see what they mean.I will only say what Trifunovic explained in a lecture Greek Chess Federation organised(note for pfren, the days Siaperas was the president, for the other, Siaperas was a "leading figure" for Greek Chess).

       With endgame study your ability to calculate increases significantly.Endgame demands accurate play and careful planing at any point.You can't play move by move as most do in the middlegame.Every move has to carefully selected and a part of a wider thinking process and plan that has to be accurately executed.While this seems impossible at first , you slowly learn to "look" what matters and ignore what is insignificant.Your evaluation skill steadily increases and you learn to understand what you must do , something that is directly related with your middlegame. That is maybe the most important problem beginners have.They can't focus on what is important and exclude on what isn't.Furthermore , endgame will teach you the value of cooperation and placement.In endgames with 2 or more pieces activity , placement and cooperation of pieces becomes essential.Everything you will learn from these endgames you will realise that is directly related to middlegame.You gradually gain a whole new perspective.You learn to understand how vital it is , for example, to have your pawns on the opposite color of the bishop which leads in understanding why a bishop is bad and when a bishop is bad which leads to understand how and you must develop in the opening and how you must plan your moves in the middlegame.Terms like "weak pawn" , "weak square" and others start to make much more sense and the whole process of placing your pieces correctly, become more meaningful and more understandable.Everything you will learn in endgame is almost the same in middlegame and once you understand the realtion you will do a huge jump in you understanding and improvement.What matters most is that you will set a solid foundation for your future improvement.

     By studying endgames you will also increase your tactical skills as a "weak" diagonal or file or a fork is "instant death" in endgame.

     In chess , serious understanding begins with the endgame , that is the truth.That is the reason Capablanca says that both middleagame and opening should be studied after you first master endgame.All these have been explained to me by 2 really charismatic players and teachers, Petar Trifunovic and Ilias Kourkounakis.I am not charismatic so no matter how I will try  it is impossible for me to be Trifunovic or Kourkounakis. 

      To avoid misunderstandings ,I don't try to convince anyone.I am not an awarded teacher , I don't get paid to teach and I don't take money from anyone for every time I recommend him.Those who have their eyes closed are not going to open them, that's for sure.For all the others , 90% of them will prefer the easy solution of the Colle.For the rest  10% perhaps some will understand that paying someone that teaches Colle is like wanting to learn driving and pay someone to teach them how to open the door. Of course this guy may teach other things too but how high his understanding can be if he starts with Colle?

     For me the discussion aims for these 10%.For anyone that insists to learn Colle , I can teach him for free , you don't need to pay to learn nonsense and you don't need a NM or an IM or a GM to teach you nonsense.I can teach you nonsense as good as Kasparov , I assure you. 

When this nonsense is going to stop ?! We all understood. Its all been said. FL is "vehemently disagreed with many of the standards of chess teaching, and many norms of traditional,conventional ways strike him as absurd"      Isn't that enough.

is best to learn all three, opening , middle and ending. would like to include thought process.