Good positional openings for a beginner?

Winning Chess Openings by Seirawan

I don't know where Silman suggested 1.e4, but it's obviously not outside the realm of possibility.

I think for fast improvement, having an understanding chess teacher is far more important than studying any kind of openings. (Someone, please disagree with me :) )

 OK, I believe you that Seirawan said that. However, I still think e4, d4, c4, and Nf3 are all equally good for a beginner (or anyone at any level, as a matter of fact.)

Although having a good coach is obviously a recipe for success in chess, it costs money. The person in question is looking for some free opening advice, not an in-depth repretoire from some GM.

AbsoluteZero has given you a sound advice, although I disagree with him about a few points.

Basically, you shouldn't be learning openings, you should be learning chess. Every single world champion emphasized about the importance of studying endgames in the process of learning.

If one want to compare chess with boxing (or wrestling), endings build the sceleton of a player, tactics build the muscle.

Here I disagree with AbsoluteZero - learn ALL basic mates, including KBNvK. It happens rarely, but the technique of this mate happens in every game. Wikipedia does have a good explanation, and a link to practice site for KBNvK. Pandolfini's checkmate, for instance, gives an excellent excercise for KQvKR, broken down in 7 problems. Simultaneously start studying pawn endings, and don't go further before you complete them. Take three months for them, to learn and repeat many times. Pawn endings teach you calculation, rook endings teach you technique.

If you take a game as a box match, it would be clear that boxers don't practice and improve by having a large number of heavy matches at the beggining. It would be premature. My guess is that between 70% and 90% of chess at the beginig shouls be the exercise.

Regarding you particular question about the positional opening, take Spanish game (a.k.a. Ruy Lopez). It does have everything, a number of variants, some highly tactical, some very positional. Playing Spanish game one will learn chess.

These are my 2cents, take it at your own risk. I've come to that conclusion following the personal advice of various FM's, one IM and books and articles of several world champions and real coachess (Heissman, Dvoretsky).

If the rating you put down isn't in the database under your name, you're lying. (seems to happen quite a bit around here) 

He does have an all-win record in online chess here, though, which might count for something.

Doesn't change what I said.

 I agree that online chess " credentials" prove nothing. Only verifiable otb credentials mean anything concrete.

If you find you are lost after the opening you had best study openings or else simply continue losing, this is plain common sense.

 Ok, I'm sorry for being stupid. Now please, enlighten me and tell me what simple logic I don't understand....

Now about the rating/strength, I am in agreement that my 100% record doesn't quite prove me as a strong player. However, in response to westy1 said (that I'm lying about rating), I am most definitely not. I don't even know how you got a name in the database (I do not ever remember putting my name or location on my profile.) Unless my brother's been fooling around with my account again (which again you will yell is a lie, buy he has done it before...)

I didn't say you're lying. I said "If the rating you put down isn't in the database under your name, you're lying." Which is a simple statement of fact. I didn't say that was the case, but I presumed FirebrandX wouldn't just be making up your name. Anyway, I'll believe that it was probably your brother who put it down although I'm not sure why anyone would do that...

 I'm not sure. Kids do that, just to have fun, I guess. Anyways, lets stop talking about this as it's off-topic.

It sounds ridiculous, I know. Yet I don't understand why you think I would be lying. Let me say again: why would I lie about my rating? What is in it for me?? I'm not looking to coach anyone, or boast about my playing strength by giving a false rating. I am, most honestly, at least 2000 strength.

Upon questioning of my brother, I found out that this "Daniel P" from Arizona was someone he had played before and he is "friends" with him. Honestly, I really don't know what to even think.

And if you still don't believe, stop posting on this topic and forget about me. I think we would both be better off that way.

@orinoco_w: That's sound advice. I don't think you should grab a ton of opening books necessarily (databases are a better option, although I would still reccomend to get a few opening books so you can understand the actual concepts of them.)

As for 1. Nf3, it shares many charactaristics with 1. d4 (there a ton of transpositions here.) However there is something to it that may draw some players to it. Here I quote David Vigorito, from the Introduction in "Challenging the Nimzo-Indian" (Quality Chess, 2007):

"1. Nf3 worked quite well against certain players. Many people were not prepared for the move and it allowed me to use various move-order tricks both in queen's pawn openings and certain line of the English Opening. Essentially, I was able to achieve my IM title with very little study by employing 1. Nf3 against untitled players."

As can be seen, the move order tricks can mess many players up. However, nothing in life is perfect, and the same applies with this opening strategy. Vigorito went on to say that against strong, titled players, 1. Nf3 is not quite as strong. If black played Queen's Gambits, NImzo-Indians, Queen's Indians, etc., white was left with little options.

That's not to say that 1. Nf3 is bad, it's just one must know how to play it. It doesn't mean being as good Kramnik at 1. Nf3. It just means that, in playing 1. Nf3, white must not expect to get a psychological advantage my mixing black up. He must expect to play a long game and just outplay his/her opponent.