Forums

How do I decide which openings to learn?

Sort:
LegallyABirb

Help, I am trying to learn openings, and I don't know which ones to learn. How do I figure out my style, and learn what openings fit that, and how do I even learn openings? I have the book Fundamental Chess Openings, but do I really just read that and memorize?

Compadre_J

My recommendation is to start off with some simple openings.

StevieG65
Just skim the book and see which openings appeal to you. Use FCO to check your openings after each game. Until you are a professional, that is the best way to learn.
AtaChess68
Google ‘opening principles’. That is far far more important than openings. At least upto 1000 elo or something.
ThrillerFan
LegallyABirb wrote:

Help, I am trying to learn openings, and I don't know which ones to learn. How do I figure out my style, and learn what openings fit that, and how do I even learn openings? I have the book Fundamental Chess Openings, but do I really just read that and memorize?

This is long, but a VERY valuable read! Basically a life story and very valuable lesson about openings.

You aren't going to like this, but this is the correct answer with proof of results.

In 1995, I was precisely in your shoes. I had only even heard of one opening because of buzzwords I heard. Queen's Gambit. 1.d4 d5 2.c4. We (college students) thought if 2...dxc4, then we are supposed to play 3.Qa4+ and 4.Qxc4.

So then, in the fall semester of 1995, I played hundreds of blitz games, not even knowing what an opening was other than basically 2 .moves of the Queen's Gambit. So I played 1.d4 and 2.c4 as White. I played 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 as Black. I had nothing for 1.e4. I proceeded to read 3 books over that fall semester, Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, and How to Win in the Chess Endings. Each took about a month, studying 1 to 3 hours each day.

In the mean time, I played hundreds of blitz games, and when I faced 1.e4, I had to experiment, knowing I need to fight for the center. I tried 1...e5, 1...e6 and 2...d5, 1...d6 and 2...e5, 1...c6 and 2...d5, 1...d5 (quickly realizing i had to take back with the queen and she was chased - had no idea about 2...Nf6), etc. I played hundreds of games, and the positions after 1...e6 and 2...d5 simply "made sense". I asked someone around November or December 1995 (this all started September 1995) if the opening had a name? I was told the French Defense. Over Christmas 1995, I got Winning With the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann and Play the Queen's Gambit by Drazen Marovic. I spent spring semester going through, thoroughly, all 60 games of Winning With the French. I also went through the Exchange Variation chapter, first chapter, of the QG book. Then next was the Rubinstein (the line with 7.Qc2). It was so different than the first chapter that it made no sense. So I skipped to the Exchange slav and called it a day.

So now it is summer 1996 and I have the following:

White - Exchange QGD and Exchange Slav

Black - QGD and French (closed Tarrasch, Winawer, Advance, Exchange, and KIA)

I play in my first tournament June 29-30 1996, and continue to study books. I started playing tournament over the board regularly starting March 1997.

Now, note the difference. I played the French naturally like a baby becomes left or right handed. I forced myself into the Queen's Gambit as both White and Black.

Fast Forward to 2024. Over those 27 years, sure I played the Caro-Kann, Pirc, 1...e5 with 2...Nc6, Petroff, Philidor, and Najdorf and Taimanov Sicilians with Black, but they were all change of pace, or temporary solutions while I resolved a problem that came up in the French, like in 2007, many new ideas for White came up in the Advance and again in 2020ish with the Milner Barry where White does not retake on d4 but instead 7.O-O. Otherwise, the French has been my weapon for almost 3 decades.

Looking at White and defending 1.d4, I have floundered all over the place, changing openings every 2 to 5 years, both White and Black with 1.d4. I force-fed myself into the QGD rather than play naturally like I did against 1.e4. I played the Leningrad Dutch 1998 to 1999, Semi-Slav 2000 to 2002, Nimzo-Indian 2003, QGD and Slav 2004, Modern Defense 2005, back to the Semi-Slav 2006 to 2007, to the Stonewall Dutch 2008 and 2009, back to the Nimzo 2010 and 2011. The kings Indian from 2012 to 2020, the QGA 2021, and the Stonewall and Classical Dutch from 2022 to now.

I have equally failed with my White game.

However, the French lasted the test of time because it came to me naturally. Now at 49 in late 2024, I realized my results of the exchange French were far better than my recent results against 3.e5 or 3.Nc3, but with FULL AND NATURAL UNDERSTANDING of the French, I knew exactly where to go. The Petroff, when even has a line that directly transposes to the Exchange French. The positions are slightly different, but have many similarities and hence I actually understand the positions, unlike say, the Najdorf or Grunfeld.

I still get an occasional French via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 (2.c4 f5) d5, and I know what to do with 29 years of knowledge, but the Petroff is now my primary weapon to e4.

So just look at the difference in my game as Black vs 1.e4, where while I occasionally experimented with other openings just for change of pace, the French and Petroff came naturally and have lasted a lifetime.

By force-feeding openings on day 1, I have failed for 30 years with White and defending Queen Pawn openings.

This 30 year life story should be a valuable lesson to all beginners asking what openings to learn, and YOU DO NOT LEARN BY MEMORIZING - YOU MUST UNDERSTAND IDEAS!

Edit - I should say that when I play White or face 1.d4, I do not completely fall flat on my face, but finding consistency is hard. I had a 6 round tournament this past weekend. I only had White twice. They were a French Steinitz (1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5) and a Levitsky Attack, the game of which I published on another thread on the Levitsky here under openings. I had Black rounds 1, 3, 5, and 6. Rounds 1 and 5 were both the petroff, and in both I was completely Winning, like -6, but made late game blunders in both, losing the first and allowing perpetual check in the 5th. Rounds 3 and 6, a loss and a draw, were deserved results. Both were a Dutch. So even now, still struggling with defending 1.d4, though I did defend 1.d4 to a draw Tuesday night against a WGM. So not good results, 3 out of 6, but from an opening perspective, I succeeded both times against 1.e4, won both with White, and basically failed against 1.d4.

So outside of the success this weekend with White, the openings followed the script above, success against 1.e4 and basically failure against 1.d4 and groveling for 2 draws in 3 games.

LegallyABirb
ThrillerFan wrote:
LegallyABirb wrote:

Help, I am trying to learn openings, and I don't know which ones to learn. How do I figure out my style, and learn what openings fit that, and how do I even learn openings? I have the book Fundamental Chess Openings, but do I really just read that and memorize?

This is long, but a VERY valuable read! Basically a life story and very valuable lesson about openings.

You aren't going to like this, but this is the correct answer with proof of results.

In 1995, I was precisely in your shoes. I had only even heard of one opening because of buzzwords I heard. Queen's Gambit. 1.d4 d5 2.c4. We (college students) thought if 2...dxc4, then we are supposed to play 3.Qa4+ and 4.Qxc4.

So then, in the fall semester of 1995, I played hundreds of blitz games, not even knowing what an opening was other than basically 2 .moves of the Queen's Gambit. So I played 1.d4 and 2.c4 as White. I played 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 as Black. I had nothing for 1.e4. I proceeded to read 3 books over that fall semester, Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, and How to Win in the Chess Endings. Each took about a month, studying 1 to 3 hours each day.

In the mean time, I played hundreds of blitz games, and when I faced 1.e4, I had to experiment, knowing I need to fight for the center. I tried 1...e5, 1...e6 and 2...d5, 1...d6 and 2...e5, 1...c6 and 2...d5, 1...d5 (quickly realizing i had to take back with the queen and she was chased - had no idea about 2...Nf6), etc. I played hundreds of games, and the positions after 1...e6 and 2...d5 simply "made sense". I asked someone around November or December 1995 (this all started September 1995) if the opening had a name? I was told the French Defense. Over Christmas 1995, I got Winning With the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann and Play the Queen's Gambit by Drazen Marovic. I spent spring semester going through, thoroughly, all 60 games of Winning With the French. I also went through the Exchange Variation chapter, first chapter, of the QG book. Then next was the Rubinstein (the line with 7.Qc2). It was so different than the first chapter that it made no sense. So I skipped to the Exchange slav and called it a day.

So now it is summer 1996 and I have the following:

White - Exchange QGD and Exchange Slav

Black - QGD and French (closed Tarrasch, Winawer, Advance, Exchange, and KIA)

I play in my first tournament June 29-30 1996, and continue to study books. I started playing tournament over the board regularly starting March 1997.

Now, note the difference. I played the French naturally like a baby becomes left or right handed. I forced myself into the Queen's Gambit as both White and Black.

Fast Forward to 2024. Over those 27 years, sure I played the Caro-Kann, Pirc, 1...e5 with 2...Nc6, Petroff, Philidor, and Najdorf and Taimanov Sicilians with Black, but they were all change of pace, or temporary solutions while I resolved a problem that came up in the French, like in 2007, many new ideas for White came up in the Advance and again in 2020ish with the Milner Barry where White does not retake on d4 but instead 7.O-O. Otherwise, the French has been my weapon for almost 3 decades.

Looking at White and defending 1.d4, I have floundered all over the place, changing openings every 2 to 5 years, both White and Black with 1.d4. I force-fed myself into the QGD rather than play naturally like I did against 1.e4. I played the Leningrad Dutch 1998 to 1999, Semi-Slav 2000 to 2002, Nimzo-Indian 2003, QGD and Slav 2004, Modern Defense 2005, back to the Semi-Slav 2006 to 2007, to the Stonewall Dutch 2008 and 2009, back to the Nimzo 2010 and 2011. The kings Indian from 2012 to 2020, the QGA 2021, and the Stonewall and Classical Dutch from 2022 to now.

I have equally failed with my White game.

However, the French lasted the test of time because it came to me naturally. Now at 49 in late 2024, I realized my results of the exchange French were far better than my recent results against 3.e5 or 3.Nc3, but with FULL AND NATURAL UNDERSTANDING of the French, I knew exactly where to go. The Petroff, when even has a line that directly transposes to the Exchange French. The positions are slightly different, but have many similarities and hence I actually understand the positions, unlike say, the Najdorf or Grunfeld.

I still get an occasional French via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 (2.c4 f5) d5, and I know what to do with 29 years of knowledge, but the Petroff is now my primary weapon to e4.

So just look at the difference in my game as Black vs 1.e4, where while I occasionally experimented with other openings just for change of pace, the French and Petroff came naturally and have lasted a lifetime.

By force-feeding openings on day 1, I have failed for 30 years with White and defending Queen Pawn openings.

This 30 year life story should be a valuable lesson to all beginners asking what openings to learn, and YOU DO NOT LEARN BY MEMORIZING - YOU MUST UNDERSTAND IDEAS!

Edit - I should say that when I play White or face 1.d4, I do not completely fall flat on my face, but finding consistency is hard. I had a 6 round tournament this past weekend. I only had White twice. They were a French Steinitz (1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5) and a Levitsky Attack, the game of which I published on another thread on the Levitsky here under openings. I had Black rounds 1, 3, 5, and 6. Rounds 1 and 5 were both the petroff, and in both I was completely Winning, like -6, but made late game blunders in both, losing the first and allowing perpetual check in the 5th. Rounds 3 and 6, a loss and a draw, were deserved results. Both were a Dutch. So even now, still struggling with defending 1.d4, though I did defend 1.d4 to a draw Tuesday night against a WGM. So not good results, 3 out of 6, but from an opening perspective, I succeeded both times against 1.e4, won both with White, and basically failed against 1.d4.

So outside of the success this weekend with White, the openings followed the script above, success against 1.e4 and basically failure against 1.d4 and groveling for 2 draws in 3 games.

Thank you for this, but how do I know what comes naturally? I like the scotch and have been learning that, but I don’t know if just clicks or if I am forcing myself into it. Also do you enjoy the French, and did you enjoy the QGD? I play the scotch and enjoy that, but I also play the carro kan and don’t like that.

ThrillerFan
LegallyABirb wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
LegallyABirb wrote:

Help, I am trying to learn openings, and I don't kno which ones to learn. How do I figure out my style, and learn what openings fit that, and how do I even learn openings? I have the book Fundamental Chess Openings, but do I really just read that and memorize?

This is long, but a VERY valuable read! Basically a life story and very valuable lesson about openings.

You aren't going to like this, but this is the correct answer with proof of results.

In 1995, I was precisely in your shoes. I had only even heard of one opening because of buzzwords I heard. Queen's Gambit. 1.d4 d5 2.c4. We (college students) thought if 2...dxc4, then we are supposed to play 3.Qa4+ and 4.Qxc4.

So then, in the fall semester of 1995, I played hundreds of blitz games, not even knowing what an opening was other than basically 2 .moves of the Queen's Gambit. So I played 1.d4 and 2.c4 as White. I played 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 as Black. I had nothing for 1.e4. I proceeded to read 3 books over that fall semester, Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, and How to Win in the Chess Endings. Each took about a month, studying 1 to 3 hours each day.

In the mean time, I played hundreds of blitz games, and when I faced 1.e4, I had to experiment, knowing I need to fight for the center. I tried 1...e5, 1...e6 and 2...d5, 1...d6 and 2...e5, 1...c6 and 2...d5, 1...d5 (quickly realizing i had to take back with the queen and she was chased - had no idea about 2...Nf6), etc. I played hundreds of games, and the positions after 1...e6 and 2...d5 simply "made sense". I asked someone around November or December 1995 (this all started September 1995) if the opening had a name? I was told the French Defense. Over Christmas 1995, I got Winning With the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann and Play the Queen's Gambit by Drazen Marovic. I spent spring semester going through, thoroughly, all 60 games of Winning With the French. I also went through the Exchange Variation chapter, first chapter, of the QG book. Then next was the Rubinstein (the line with 7.Qc2). It was so different than the first chapter that it made no sense. So I skipped to the Exchange slav and called it a day.

So now it is summer 1996 and I have the following:

White - Exchange QGD and Exchange Slav

Black - QGD and French (closed Tarrasch, Winawer, Advance, Exchange, and KIA)

I play in my first tournament June 29-30 1996, and continue to study books. I started playing tournament over the board regularly starting March 1997.

Now, note the difference. I played the French naturally like a baby becomes left or right handed. I forced myself into the Queen's Gambit as both White and Black.

Fast Forward to 2024. Over those 27 years, sure I played the Caro-Kann, Pirc, 1...e5 with 2...Nc6, Petroff, Philidor, and Najdorf and Taimanov Sicilians with Black, but they were all change of pace, or temporary solutions while I resolved a problem that came up in the French, like in 2007, many new ideas for White came up in the Advance and again in 2020ish with the Milner Barry where White does not retake on d4 but instead 7.O-O. Otherwise, the French has been my weapon for almost 3 decades.

Looking at White and defending 1.d4, I have floundered all over the place, changing openings every 2 to 5 years, both White and Black with 1.d4. I force-fed myself into the QGD rather than play naturally like I did against 1.e4. I played the Leningrad Dutch 1998 to 1999, Semi-Slav 2000 to 2002, Nimzo-Indian 2003, QGD and Slav 2004, Modern Defense 2005, back to the Semi-Slav 2006 to 2007, to the Stonewall Dutch 2008 and 2009, back to the Nimzo 2010 and 2011. The kings Indian from 2012 to 2020, the QGA 2021, and the Stonewall and Classical Dutch from 2022 to now.

I have equally failed with my White game.

However, the French lasted the test of time because it came to me naturally. Now at 49 in late 2024, I realized my results of the exchange French were far better than my recent results against 3.e5 or 3.Nc3, but with FULL AND NATURAL UNDERSTANDING of the French, I knew exactly where to go. The Petroff, when even has a line that directly transposes to the Exchange French. The positions are slightly different, but have many similarities and hence I actually understand the positions, unlike say, the Najdorf or Grunfeld.

I still get an occasional French via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 (2.c4 f5) d5, and I know what to do with 29 years of knowledge, but the Petroff is now my primary weapon to e4.

So just look at the difference in my game as Black vs 1.e4, where while I occasionally experimented with other openings just for change of pace, the French and Petroff came naturally and have lasted a lifetime.

By force-feeding openings on day 1, I have failed for 30 years with White and defending Queen Pawn openings.

This 30 year life story should be a valuable lesson to all beginners asking what openings to learn, and YOU DO NOT LEARN BY MEMORIZING - YOU MUST UNDERSTAND IDEAS!

Edit - I should say that when I play White or face 1.d4, I do not completely fall flat on my face, but finding consistency is hard. I had a 6 round tournament this past weekend. I only had White twice. They were a French Steinitz (1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5) and a Levitsky Attack, the game of which I published on another thread on the Levitsky here under openings. I had Black rounds 1, 3, 5, and 6. Rounds 1 and 5 were both the petroff, and in both I was completely Winning, like -6, but made late game blunders in both, losing the first and allowing perpetual check in the 5th. Rounds 3 and 6, a loss and a draw, were deserved results. Both were a Dutch. So even now, still struggling with defending 1.d4, though I did defend 1.d4 to a draw Tuesday night against a WGM. So not good results, 3 out of 6, but from an opening perspective, I succeeded both times against 1.e4, won both with White, and basically failed against 1.d4.

So outside of the success this weekend with White, the openings followed the script above, success against 1.e4 and basically failure against 1.d4 and groveling for 2 draws in 3 games.

Thank you for this, but how do I know what comes naturally? I like the scotch and have been learning that, but I don’t know if just clicks or if I am forcing myself into it. Also do you enjoy the French, and did you enjoy the QGD? I play the scotch and enjoy that, but I also play the carro kan and don’t like that.

What you need to do is rid the bias. It may be hard to do at first, but it is the only way. Ay your level, you cannot possibly tell whether you "enjoy" and opening or not. Nobody at your level plays them right. My "concept" of playing the French had no actual opening knowledge. All I went based on was opening CONCEPTS. Fight fir your state of the center. Don't move pieces multiple times. Don't develop your queen early. So to fight for my share of the center, I needed to get in something like e5 or d5. When I played e5, the c4-f7 diagonal was open. The f7 pawn felt loose only being covered by the king. So the position felt safer with that diagonal blocked. 1...d5 lead to a violation of concept 3, developing the queen early. So needed e6 or c6 first. Playing e6 first lead to a total blockade of the weakest pawn at the start. Every pawn except the f-pawn is guarded by a piece that is not the king. The f7 pawn is only guarded by the king in the starting position.

That is when I asked if this was an opening with a name, and was told it was the French Defense. I had no idea about the wildness of the Poisoned Pawn or the lack of wildness in the Symmetrical exchange variation. That's for later. So don't worry about enjoying the opening. When it comes time to actually study said opening, you will realize all openings have their share of wild lines - Poisoned Pawn French, 5.Nc3 Petroff and tame lines - Exchange French, 5.Qe2 Petroff. What you see from following concepts against an 800 player ain't anything like what you will see long term as a 2000 player when you actually understand the nuances of the opening.

And any opening you "ENJOY" when you are sub-1500 you likely only enjoy because you opponents are clueless as to how to play it. You face a 2000 on the White side of a Scotch, I promise you he will make your life a living hell as he will be playing either 4...Nf6 or 4...Bc5. Not some ridiculous moves that allows you to blast him.

On the flip side, when I first was playing the French in the late 90s, I accepted that I had to deal with the exchange, and often lost trying to force activity - opposite side castling, etc.

In 2014 is when I first started playing the Petroff. Played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 5 times as Black in the 2014 US Open. Not one of them wound up a Petroff. 3 of them went 3.Nc3 Nc6 (Four Knights Gamr) and the other two went 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3, leading to the Exchange French. At that point, I had started playing the Symmetrical lines in the exchange French. Whether that be via the French or via the Petroff, which required 2 extra moves by each player. In about 80 to 90 games of the Exchange French from 2014 to today, I lost 4 times, all of which with a time control of G/60 or less, drew about 20 to 25 of them, and won the rest, about 60 times, or scoring roughly 71-72 points in about 90 games. That is over 75 to almost 80% WITH BLACK in the Exchange French. Why? Because I was a more mature player by 2014 than I was in 1997, accepted the fact that I was, and still am, very strong with my minor piece endings, and won my games grinding out knight endings along with N vs B, and even OCB endings. In 20 years, the Exchange Variation went from being the dull, boring line I hated to being my favorite to face. Now one thing I don't ever do is accept early draws unless it would say, lock me in for line first place in an event paying out a LARGE sum of money. Otherwise, all those clowns that thought they were getting a draw, often kids, are in for a rude awakening when the lose after 50 moves of a knight ending.

If you study what you should study, like endings, what is "fun" often changes. I would rather play a knight ending than defend the Poisoned Pawn Winawer.

ChessMasteryOfficial

Start by picking simple, solid openings that align with your style, focus on ideas rather than memorization and gradually build your repertoire.

mikewier

First, learn the general opening principles. These can be applied in every standard opening.

then, read some books that discuss the reasons behind basic openings. Reinfeld, Chernev, and Horowitz are the classics. Fine’s book The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings is also very good.

Then, play some games. Try out different things. Try to figure out why something worked or did not work. This will help you start to learn whether you are more comfortable with open or closed openings, aggressive or positional openings, etc.

Do NOT simply try to memorize sequences of moves. If you understand the general opening principles, you will be able to play reasonable moves in any opening.

Do NOT simply play games without analyzing them in some way. That will lead you to try to learn through trial and error, which is very inefficient and frustrating.

Do you have a live chess club to visit? If so, playing with a group of people at your level, followed by discussing the games to figure out what went wrong, is a fun way to progress.

Good luck!

SamuelChess321
mikewier wrote:

First, learn the general opening principles. These can be applied in every standard opening.

then, read some books that discuss the reasons behind basic openings. Reinfeld, Chernev, and Horowitz are the classics. Fine’s book The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings is also very good.

Then, play some games. Try out different things. Try to figure out why something worked or did not work. This will help you start to learn whether you are more comfortable with open or closed openings, aggressive or positional openings, etc.

Do NOT simply try to memorize sequences of moves. If you understand the general opening principles, you will be able to play reasonable moves in any opening.

Do NOT simply play games without analyzing them in some way. That will lead you to try to learn through trial and error, which is very inefficient and frustrating.

Do you have a live chess club to visit? If so, playing with a group of people at your level, followed by discussing the games to figure out what went wrong, is a fun way to progress.

Good luck!

WOW that’s really great advice! Thx! I will go over the opening principles soon