Good Opening for Beginners?
Sort:
What’s a good Opening for a beginner/intermediate player?
Evans Gambit
Easily the Caro-Kann. Watch GothamChess’s video on it.
ScrumptiousBricks wrote:
Easily the Caro-Kann. Watch GothamChess’s video on it.
The Caro-Kann is pretty good, but I recommend the Ruy Lopez, the French, and the Nimzo-Indian at the beginner level.
- Sicilian
- Ruy Lopez
- Evans Gambit
Yessir!!!!!! Samuel likes evans gambit 😁
Jun 3, 2023
0
#8
As a beginner I played the Stonewall Attack with the white pieces and the Scandinavian and Englund Gambit with black. I had success with all three. I wouldn't recommend the Englund Gambit, but the Stonewall and Scandinavian are playable and don't require learning a lot of theory.
BlueHen86 wrote:
As a beginner I played the Stonewall Attack with the white pieces and the Scandinavian and Englund Gambit with black. I had success with all three. I wouldn't recommend the Englund Gambit, but the Stonewall and Scandinavian are playable and don't require learning a lot of theory.
if you play the Scandinavian you have to know this gambit:
it’s technically dubious but it’s a lot of fun to play, it’s also dangerous if black doesn’t know what he’s doing
it also takes the drawish theme away from the scandi and makes the game more dynamic
TheSampson wrote:
ScrumptiousBricks wrote:
Easily the Caro-Kann. Watch GothamChess’s video on it.
The Caro-Kann is pretty good, but I recommend the Ruy Lopez, the French, and the Nimzo-Indian at the beginner level.
The Ruy lopez is incredibly impractical and you’ll get so many different positions thoughout your games that it’s like playing the opening without theory
You can force the game into something you will get 99% of the time as white. Why play the Ruy Lopez if you’re gonna get a Bird’s one day, a Cozio another, or a fianchetto the third? It doesn’t make sense.
ScrumptiousBricks wrote:
Why play the Ruy Lopez if you’re gonna get a Bird’s one day, a Cozio another, or a fianchetto the third? It doesn’t make sense.
Because it's more fun and interesting than playing the same boring Vienna line every game.
Also it's a better opening.
Also the Bird is trash.
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
ScrumptiousBricks wrote:
Why play the Ruy Lopez if you’re gonna get a Bird’s one day, a Cozio another, or a fianchetto the third? It doesn’t make sense.
Because it's more fun and interesting than playing the same boring Vienna line every game.
Also it's a better opening.
Also the Bird is trash.
why sacrifice your win rate just to make your games “more fun and interesting”? Like bro I’m gonna play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit instead of the Queen’s Gambit to make it more “fun and interesting”
Jun 3, 2023
0
#13
TheSampson wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
As a beginner I played the Stonewall Attack with the white pieces and the Scandinavian and Englund Gambit with black. I had success with all three. I wouldn't recommend the Englund Gambit, but the Stonewall and Scandinavian are playable and don't require learning a lot of theory.
if you play the Scandinavian you have to know this gambit:
it’s technically dubious but it’s a lot of fun to play, it’s also dangerous if black doesn’t know what he’s doing
it also takes the drawish theme away from the scandi and makes the game more dynamic
I would play 5...c6 and go from there.
ScrumptiousBricks wrote:
why sacrifice your win rate just to make your games “more fun and interesting”? Like bro I’m gonna play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit instead of the Queen’s Gambit to make it more “fun and interesting”
It doesn't sacrifice winrate. Ruy Lopez is one of the best openings objectively.
You can't compare the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit to the Ruy Lopez at all. Most of your openings are this type of garbage that Gothamchess promotes which actually is sacrificing winrate to make it "more fun" (according to him).
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
ScrumptiousBricks wrote:
why sacrifice your win rate just to make your games “more fun and interesting”? Like bro I’m gonna play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit instead of the Queen’s Gambit to make it more “fun and interesting”
It doesn't sacrifice winrate. Ruy Lopez is one of the best openings objectively.
You can't compare the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit to the Ruy Lopez at all. Most of your openings are this type of garbage that Gothamchess promotes which actually is sacrificing winrate to make it "more fun" (according to him).
It takes you out of your own prep, how doesn’t it sacrifice winrate? How does Gotham’s recommendations- the best openings for sub-2000- sacrifice winrate?
Because he promotes garbage hope chess where you play some trash, hoping to surprise the opponent, and if they aren't surprised then you are just worse.
The Ruy Lopez will always be good, at any level, against any opponent, whether opponent is surprised or not. It's objectively one of the best, and it's also more fun and interesting than any of the boring trash that Gothamchess promotes.
Jun 3, 2023
0
#18
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
Because he promotes garbage hope chess where you play some trash, hoping to surprise the opponent, and if they arem't surprised then you are just worse.
I don't follow him that closely, but I have seen him play some of the openings he promotes. When he was playing tournaments for GM norms, he had good positions in most games, and then lost many of them, but not because of the opening.
Jun 3, 2023
0
#19
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
The Ruy Lopez will always be good, at any level, against any opponent, whether opponent is surprised or not. It's objectively one of the best, and it's also more fun and interesting than any of the boring trash that Gothamchess promotes.
Agreed.
BlueHen86 wrote:
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
Because he promotes garbage hope chess where you play some trash, hoping to surprise the opponent, and if they arem't surprised then you are just worse.
I don't follow him that closely, but I have seen him play some of the openings he promotes. When he was playing tournaments for GM norms, he had good positions in most games, and then lost many of them, but not because of the opening.
So he didn't win because of the opening either. Also there's a difference between what someone plays because it's their style and it works for them and what should be promoted in general.
Should everyone play the Stafford Gambit because Eric Rosen has a winning record with it?