Easiest opening to learn for beginners ..

LOL ya i think a few russian masters (which for people who dont know Russian master was considered equivelant to GM, I believe)... and world champions 

One key to remember is that the Russian school was designed to make GM's the vast majority of people never got a chance to attend the school and those that did were already strong players before they entered. Candidate master level or higher I believe was a minimum requirement. a 2250 FIDE friend of mine and I laughed about a chess camp that was being offered by Ivanchuk and some other masters where the MINIMUM level was 2400... 

My experience with watching players play closed systems is that it creates an artifical sense of safety . Players that do this tend to miss out on dynamic play and never grow. (This was my own weakness and one that i work hard on with my students never letting them hide behind a strength and avoid weaknesses.)

Botvinnik's school was accepting kids from all levels if they were promising.Karpov was on it from his very first steps , long before he gets any title, Kasparov the same.

your wrong actually, From age 7, Kasparov attended the Young Pioneer Palace in Baku and, at 10 began training at Mikhail Botvinnik's chess school 

The Young Pioneer Palace is where players of any level could attend and was used as a training ground for a lot of sports.

they were promising but also already strong players Kasparov started the botvinnik school at 10. (wiki) my guess is that he was 2000+ at the time based on how other talented players were. Kramnik wasnt admitted until he was a candidate master. (2100)

I am not wrong about Karpov, Karpov was in Botvinnik's school before he get any title.

from Wiki

Karpov's early rise in chess was swift, as he became aCandidate Master by age eleven. At twelve, he was accepted into Mikhail Botvinnik's prestigious chess school

None of these school accepted people unless they were proven to be talented AND skilled. there was a minimum requirement and had to have a sponsor I believe

I don't know if you are right or wrong but I know for sure that you should consider using more rational and less polemical arguments.

I think we agree that Botwinnik isn't some kind of god who can't possibly be wrong. But what's the point of your reasoning then?

According to Averbach  on an article about Karpov in a Shakhatyi Bulletin , Karpov was accepted in Botvinnik's schol long before he becomes a candidate master.Wiki pedia is not always right.

So we know beginers need Tactics, and Endgames, but what about some sort of Stratagy, the most a beginer should know about the opening are the principles, and maybe 5 moves of a few crittical openings(plus a few traps so long as they don't intend to use them) control the center, develop rapidly, and get the king to the safest place possible, even if its e1.

I AGREE WITHSIRD=== NOBODY IS PERFECT===

1. develop your pieces towards the center

2. castle

3. look for tactics, checks and threats

4. voila, you're at least 1500 now

jetfighter , 

The problem is that everyone thinks that a chess game starts with the opening.That is far from true.Before the opening is understanding.

To understand the opening you have to understand it's product the middlegame and to understand middlegame you have to understand it's product also , the endgame.That is why everything starts from the endgame.

   After the endgame the important is to learn to do "safe moves".This is not exactly tactics as many think.You have to learn to do a safety check with every move you choose and be sure that doesn't hang a piece.Tactics are the 2 or 3 moves combinations(for start)that lead to loss of material(or checkmate) through a series of forced moves.It is obvious that if you can't keep the material balance , no strategy can help you.

   Once you are ready to keep the material balance, knowing where to put your pieces and how to make a plan or how to exploit or create a weakness becomes very important.

   Without all the above , knowing every opening perfectly can't help you.Botvinnik is  perhaps the best teacher ever appeared.All those self called teachers or coaches would "kill" to be his students if he was alive  and frankly, none of them would even qualify for it.

    If Botvinnik says that for beginners opening is useless we have to take that under serious consideration.

    I respect anyone that teaches for 35 years but I don't believe that he necessarily does his job right.A doctor in my village was a doctor for 45 years and he did many things wrong.If you have learned some things wrong that sometimes doesn't change with the years.It is even getting worst.Because you take a student , that student improves , sometimes fast.Yes , but he could improve faster with a correct method and no one knows if that student ultimately will hit a wall in his improvement because of the terrible gaps he left in his chess education(something that wouldn't have happened if he followed the correct method).

  Today you see players that reach 2000 , even 2200 and they still don't know what minority attack is.A, considered, great  book and best seller("Reassess your chess")written by one of the , considered, best teachers right now in USA(Sillman) devotes no chapter at all on minority attack in a 600-page book that claims that teaches people how to exploit imbalances!!!!

  We live in the era of easy solutions.The one that offers them is the one that gets the money(either from books or from "teaching").He is the THE teacher.Does any of these guys gave any exams to be a teacher?Most of them(if not all) should still be students.

      Believe me , if your middlegame and endgame knowledge is good you will have no problems with openings.Openings should only bother you as for the middle-game they produce.Try to understand that and you will easily catch up with  openings once you improve. 

I mainly focus on tactics, hardly ever spend time with openings, one reason I play the KG and Evan's Gambit, and my endgames are somewhat weak (takes me around 30 moves to mate with 2B & K vs Lone K, I can find a very quick way to mate with K & Q vs. Lone K, and i still have a hard time with R & K vs. Lone K, though I can do it with out forcing Stalemate, or going over 50 moves.)

Michael-G,

As with practically all subjects, we non-experts have to decide which experts we trust. When we choose an expert to trust, it's usually not the one who claims: Trust me, I am right and Silman is wrong. You could at least offer some reasoning   and no, stating that Botwinnik shares your opinion is not enough - it would possibly be different if you could claim the vast majority of strong players to be with you. But there are lots of GMs who view systems like the KIA (or maybe even Colle) as suitable for beginners and encourage us to study them - not by memorizing lines, but by looking at the middle games and endings that arise from them. This approach seems perfectly reasonable to me (who was it who claimed that the beginner's main goal in the opening should be to reach a playable middle game?). Now tell me why I should trust you and not these experts .

Rook and King shouldn't be hard, once you know what you're trying to do, every move is fairly natural. Take opposition, check from the side, step forward with king. Sometimes you will need to just do a waiting move with your rook to force opposition or cut off a file from his king just before delivering mate.

I don't think there's really any need to follow the 'box' idea which might be quicker in moves, but I don't think quite as easy to blitz.

Sred

You obviously understood nothing.I never said that Botvinnik shares my opinion.I said I share his , huge difference.

I offered a lot of reasoning and it's not even mine reasoning but things I have read.I don't try to convince anyone, I don't even care.Like you, most unfortunately are totally lost cases.Perhaps one or 2 out there are not and perhaps are capable to listen.They may see what I say and decide to "dig" for the truth and not accept the easy solution.The truth is not something that anyone can give you.You hear opinions and you search.But to discover you need to have "open eyes" or as Marcel Proust says "new eyes":

"The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes."

In the meantime you keep studying openings and be sure that you are right and I am wrong.I have no problem with that , do you?

I follow a meathod somewhat to the below

Please try to stay polite.

Edit: I am actually interested in an answer. I am quite a beginner when it comes to studying chess seriously. I play the KIA, the KID and the modern, and I am actually improving. If I am on a totally wrong path, I'd like to know. But right now, I just don't see it.

Eventually an argument, thank you. I already realized that the variety of pawn structures arising from the openings of my choice can cause difficulties, especially when playing the KID. On the other hand, I found that challenging and thought that it wouldn't hurt to try to swim in deep water immediately.

I guess I'll meet some significantly stronger players in the near future in my online tournaments, so I will see.

Btw: some GMs (for example Nigel Davies) state that the KIA is quite easy to learn. Are there different schools of thinking out there amoung strong players?

 I started with chess at the age of 8. I was quite promising.

at the age of 10 I was 1200. I picked up an opening book and became obsessed with opening nonsense and was stuck at roughly the same skill level (though with a few wins through traps) for four years.
Just play the godamn game. Stop worrying about ''learning'' an opening. Why do you want to have moves on autopilot? To win? How about you win through your own creativity and effort rather than because of a book?

good point, lol, I think it helps with not loosing on time which can be a pain in the but unless you have a loaded gun, then you will never loose (+50 if its suppressed) (+200 if its a pen gun)