DoigteurFou well said. But there is another side of the coin.
When you memorize opening, even if you dont understand moves .. there is psyhological gain when you are black and your opponent does not know next move and plays some wrong move. You already know you know more than him and pressure is off. You are better out of the opening.
I agree with this, but this is relevant when we try to win a game, not when we try to get better.
OP doesn't seem to at the point where winning a game is more important than becoming a better player for the next game.
I am totally aware that this is just my opinion and people can disagree with this, I do not claim my approach is superior. My approach just reflects my own approach to the game, at the end of the day OP is free to act as he wants to and I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, OP can as well just think that my opinion does not apply to him and it's more important for him to win games and that's he'll get better this way anyways.
But at the end of the day, your comment is very welcome to compliment what I said and give a more general view of things.
X_Player: you're probably trolling, but in case your not, I do know titled players who don't play e4. Plus, a player can be a good player without being titled. Only a titled fraction of players have titles. Finally, GMs tend to know basically every opening, so you could insert literally any opening and say "well, all the GMs know Y opening, so if you don't you can't be that good". It doesn't help the OP with his issues. He doesn't need to know the Italian Game to improve his chess
I am not trolling. I think many tend to agree with me on this issue.
I strongly believe all strong players have started with 1.e4.
It teaches players how to play Classical Chess.
I am sure most title players don't stick with 1.e4 there entire chess life.
Many of them change to other opening lines.
However, I do believe if you ask them what is the very first line they started with the majority of them will say 1.e4.
The OP is a beginer. He wants to be a good player. He should start with the Classics!
X_Player: first off, the statement "I strongly believe all strong players have started with 1.e4" is inherently nonsensical. Either they have started with e4, or they haven't. You are giving an opinion to a question that is inherently factual. What you "strongly believe" is not relevant.
Even if you are correct, and most players learn e4 first, it doesn't mean it's best. Most players probably learn the basic moves of chess as children from parents, teachers, or friends, who are likely weak, casual players, most of whom probably play e4. My observation is that e4 is the overwhelming choice among casual players. However, that won't help those looking to enter tournament play or become anything better than casual players. I actually think d4 is better to learn first because it's easier to get out of the opening and not fall for a quick, easy tactic.
I think that your mention of "classical chess" is both incorrect and unhelpful. First, d4 is just as classical as e4. It was played by numerous early world champions like Alekhine and Capablanca. It was the opening of choice for much of the 1920s and 30s. Second, knowledge of games from the Romantic era isn't that useful today, given that defensive technique and opening theory were much less advanced.
Finally, a player can learn the "classics" without all of the essential opening theory. I've seen many games by Morphy, Anderson, etc and have been able to appreciate them without knowing all of the opening theory. Given how much theory has changed, learning modern theory won't help with the classics and learning ancient theory won't help OP get better now. I think either e4 or d4 is fine and that your insistence that beginners learn e4 first is incorrect.
X_Player: first off, the statement "I strongly believe all strong players have started with 1.e4" is inherently nonsensical. Either they have started with e4, or they haven't. You are giving an opinion to a question that is inherently factual. What you "strongly believe" is not relevant.
Even if you are correct, and most players learn e4 first, it doesn't mean it's best. Most players probably learn the basic moves of chess as children from parents, teachers, or friends, who are likely weak, casual players, most of whom probably play e4. My observation is that e4 is the overwhelming choice among casual players. However, that won't help those looking to enter tournament play or become anything better than casual players. I actually think d4 is better to learn first because it's easier to get out of the opening and not fall for a quick, easy tactic.
I think that your mention of "classical chess" is both incorrect and unhelpful. First, d4 is just as classical as e4. It was played by numerous early world champions like Alekhine and Capablanca. It was the opening of choice for much of the 1920s and 30s. Second, knowledge of games from the Romantic era isn't that useful today, given that defensive technique and opening theory were much less advanced.
Finally, a player can learn the "classics" without all of the essential opening theory. I've seen many games by Morphy, Anderson, etc and have been able to appreciate them without knowing all of the opening theory. Given how much theory has changed, learning modern theory won't help with the classics and learning ancient theory won't help OP get better now. I think either e4 or d4 is fine and that your insistence that beginners learn e4 first is incorrect.
He
will
not
understand
you
if
you
write
in
paragraphs.
Try
writing
like
this,
so
he
feels
at
home.
X_Player: first off, the statement "I strongly believe all strong players have started with 1.e4" is inherently nonsensical. Either they have started with e4, or they haven't. You are giving an opinion to a question that is inherently factual. What you "strongly believe" is not relevant.
If I had factual information showing every chess player starting there career with 1.e4 as a beginner, We wouldn't be having this discussion!
You wouldn't have a retort. Simply because you can't retort against facts!
Belief/Theories/Assumptions are used in the absence of facts or in the presence of partial facts!
The truth is we don't have every single chess game from every single chess player through out history!
Databases do have alot of chess games on them.
It does give us a small amount of factual information.
However, It doesn't account for every single chess game in existance.
Thus, we are in the absence of all the facts.
I as a chess player can use my own personal experince + partial facts from databases + strong belief to make the statement all good chess players started off with 1.e4!
It is completely relevant because we don't know all the facts.
Even if you are correct, and most players learn e4 first, it doesn't mean it's best. Most players probably learn the basic moves of chess as children from parents, teachers, or friends, who are likely weak, casual players, most of whom probably play e4. My observation is that e4 is the overwhelming choice among casual players. However, that won't help those looking to enter tournament play or become anything better than casual players. I actually think d4 is better to learn first because it's easier to get out of the opening and not fall for a quick, easy tactic.
How do you know it isn't the best? It could be the best?
Chess is a game which hasn't been solved.
Bobby Fischer said "1.e4 was best by test."
I believe 1.e4 is the best. You can't disprove me?
You believe 1.d4 is better! Guess what? I can't disprove you!
Do you see how that works?
I think that your mention of "classical chess" is both incorrect and unhelpful. First, d4 is just as classical as e4. It was played by numerous early world champions like Alekhine and Capablanca. It was the opening of choice for much of the 1920s and 30s. Second, knowledge of games from the Romantic era isn't that useful today, given that defensive technique and opening theory were much less advanced.
1.e4 e5 is Classical chess which is correct.
1.d4 d5 is Classical chess as well which is correct.
I believe it is helpful for every beginner to know that.
Thus, I disagree with your first point.
The Romantic era of chess is one of the greatest era's in chess history.
It would be a complete sacrilege for a chess player not to know some history about the chess line they play!!!
Do you know the Ruy Lopez was originally called the Spanish Game?
Have you ever heard or read the story of how the Spanish Game became known as the Ruy Lopez?
Many years ago there was a player known as Pedro Damiano's.
He is a famous chess player who refuted a line which is now known as the Damiano Defense.
He is the reason why most people don't defend the e5 pawn with f6 any more!
Well this man Pedro Damiano wrote a book.
In his book he said the best move for black in this position was 2...Nc6
A man by the name of Rodrigo (Ruy) Lopez De Segura read the book which was written by Pedro Damiano and guess what he thought?
He thought it was total garabage! He disliked it! He hated it!
Chess conflict on move 2 in the Kings Pawn Game 500 years ago!
Can you believe it?
Well you better believe it because that is what happened!
In fact, Rodrigo (Ruy) Lopez De Segura disliked the book so much he wrote a book a few years later criticizing Damiano book.
He said Damiano was wrong! 2...Nc6 is a terrible move which lets white play 3.Bb5!
How can you let white play Bb5? What are you thinking?
Now here comes the plot twist! People began calling the line Ruy Lopez instead of the Spanish Game.The question is why?
It is an unanswered question which leads many chess players to draw there own conclusions!
Do you want to know what my conclusion is?
I think the chess players during the time read both books.
I think they read Rodrigo (Ruy) Lopez De Segura book and was amused at him talking smack about another chess player.
It might of even made them laugh. Which I believe is very important.
The reason why is because of the way the human brain remembers stuff.
People usually remember things which are very terrifying or very funny.
So what I think happen was 2 chess friends read these books.
Than began playing each other!
The first friend started with 1.e4.
The second friend responed with 1...e5
The first friend played 2.Nf3
The second friend than remembered about the move 2...Nc6
The first friend than began to scream at the second friend!
"You played the move 2...Nc6 which is the worse move ever because Ruy Lopez said so! You terrible chess player. I am going to play the move Ruy Lopez said to play 3.Bb5! Ruy Lopez is a Priest from the Church. Ordained by God and I have God on my side. Your going to lose!"
I think that is how it happened. The people began calling it after the Priest! The rest as they say is history!
Now tell me knighttour2 do you know how the Sicilian Dragon got its name?
Maybe another story for another day.
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ... Just learn enough to get by, and spend more of your chess study time improving your tactical ability. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
X_Player: the sicilian dragon was named after the constellation draco, which resembles the pawn structure . I know a good deal about chess history. And guess what: I've still never played e4. Your stories about the Romantic era are interesting (but already known to me) but there's a critical problem with your theory: knowing chess history doesn't make one better at chess. Knowing how an opening got its name doesn't help someone play it better and won't help the OP. Plus, it's possible to learn history without learning deep theory. I'm a good example of that.
If you look at my first post, I said either e4 or d4 is fine for the OP, but I disagree with your original point that e4 is best and necessary for all beginners. I like d4 for beginners but I have no issue with a beginner learning e4 instead.
You said that beginners need to learn the classics, which you say is d4 and e4. Thus, it seems you believe beginners need to learn both d4 and e4, which I believe is totally wrong. Spending too much time on learning opening theory is a mistake many beginners make. I play tournaments and I don't know anyone below 2000 USCF who plays e4 and d4 at tournament level. At OP's level, he's best off learning one opening and spending his time on other areas. Most of the other posters here agree that one opening is plenty for a beginner.
A mistake many beginners make is to choose offbeat openings as White to try to cut down lines. Openings like the Kings Indian Attack, Reti and the English are highly positional.
Just pick e4 or d4 (e4 is easier for beginners to grasp in general) and stick with them. You will them get experience playing against the main lines of the various defences to whichever you pick. How will you ever learn to play chess by running scared of main lines?
I play d4. I need lines vs QGD, QGA, Nimzo, Kings Indian, Benoni/Benko,Dutch, Grunfeld,Slav/Semi Slav and tricksy stuff like the Albin, Chigorin and Budapest (beloved by blitz newbies all over the world). But in learning the theory of and some basic sensible lines against those defences, I massively increase my chess knowledge. Spend 1000 blitz games playing the Bird and what are you going to learn in comparison really?
As Black you can pick your opening lines more or less - just pick something sound and learn it vs each of e4 and d4, (and to a much lesser extent vs the English and Reti).
X_Player: you're probably trolling, but in case your not, I do know titled players who don't play e4. Plus, a player can be a good player without being titled. Only a titled fraction of players have titles. Finally, GMs tend to know basically every opening, so you could insert literally any opening and say "well, all the GMs know Y opening, so if you don't you can't be that good". It doesn't help the OP with his issues. He doesn't need to know the Italian Game to improve his chess