I need help choosing openings (yes one more of that post)

I am at the beautiful situation that i got a little break from school. So now i have some time for chess study! :D

So first of all, im in the situation that i need to find some openings to actually study a bit. I was watching the Dan Heisman show today on chess tv, he talked about what openings new players should go for. He said (as i recall) that you should find a opening against e4 and d4 (as black) and a few openings you like as white. Im not here to discuss if that is correct or not, i wouldn't know.
 
I am rated around 1200 in daily chess and live chess - standard.
I have played +500 games of chess, but i have never been tought chess, so my understanding is very basic. I would say that i play better open than closed games. My tactics are better than my understanding of pawn movement at least. I don't know if it has anything to do with that, but it just underlines where im at hehe
Maybe i should go for both open and closed games to get practise in both?

The few openings i have looked a bit into is Queens gambit/semi slav?, Kings Indian defense and attack and the danish/scandinavian opening. In another post people was very against playing the KID/KIA as a low level player as they are both hard to play well, so i guess i should take a break from that. The danish apperently don't play too well either? I'm not sure, i just liked to play something other people don't use.

Anyways, im guessing where i am at is the Queens gambit as my d4 opening, and the whatever slav as my d4 defense, is that a good idea?
Please help my fill out a little beginners repertoire.

edit1: i do know that you can't simplefy what openings to use to only a few, but i have to start somewhere, and then build from there. So please don't write posts about that.

E4 defense learn caro kann d4 slav they have similiar structures and are good practice for positional play as far as white u need to learn how to attack all the defenses that would arise against said opening example e4 opening u need to learn how to attack sicialian, caro, scandinavian , etc . Hope this helps some good luck

Go through your games and see what openings you are encountering on a regular basis. This is a good place to start because you have already played them and know some of the pitfalls.

You might think "Why study openings I already know the moves for?" Well, of course, an opening is more than the moves you make. By going back and studying them, you will learn the goals and reasons behind the moves as well as see why doing them incorrectly may have put you in a weak position at the start of the middle game.

Never heard of opening systems before. Thanks.

Here is a link I found that seems to be a good starting point for understanding opening systems:

http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/chess-opening-systems.html

Advice about openings is like opinions. And we know what opinions are like.

My own idea is that one should learn ALL of the openings - in the order in which they developed historically. Your first "repertoire" would be open games, and after playing those for a while, I'd recommend Ken Smith's suggestion of adopting a "forcing" repertoire (mine is London System as White, Center Counter vs 1.e4, and Dutch vs 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 - none of these can be avoided by my opponent, so that's why they are "forcing") and learning that as well as anyone in the world.

By the way, those against KIA/KID for beginners are probably thinking that you should play open games first. OK, but otherwise what they said is crap. Any opening has more subtlety than will be appreciated by players at a lower level, and KIA/KID actually have some very good points in their favor in terms of being beginner's openings. If you like KIA/KID, there are two of your three forcing lines ... you'd probably like either the Pirc or the Sicilian against 1.e4.

But don't ignore the open games and classical defenses. At the very least, play them in casual games, because they tend to teach the lessons that should come first in chess.

That's my 2cents.

Are they like armpits? Everyone has a couple and most of them stink?

Present company included.

Studying the openings in order of development historically is a bit far-fetched. 

Anything you study in chess is best done methodically and with a clear purpose or intent. 

If someone goes about studying opeinings in their historical order, they are going to be studying lots of openings that either 1) are never played 2)are outside the scope of the players ability. 

Studying an opening takes a lot of time to get the most out of it, so this approach could take ages before you can learn relevant openings.

For openings, your 2 best options are:

1) Learn the ones that people generally consider appropriate for your current skill. Usually these are openings that lead to open positions.

2) Look at the games you have played and find openings that occur regularaly. Often times, I think you will find that openings found here match openings found in #1 above.

For the most part you just want to open the game. It really doesn't matter what you play as long as you stay away from things that don't make sense to you and break a lot of rules. 

Studying openings is a waste of time because all your loses will occur due to tactics regardless of which part of the game they actually occur in. I think trying out new things and getting some ideas about openings is ok and you learn things that you can use all the time instead of the first few moves. 

Also check this out: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ten-rules-opening

And yeah this is the 23565542123 thread on this so you probably can just search for some answers.

I just noticed you play Online Chess.

I play Online Chess as wel. During the opening, this is the process I follow:

1. Once there are enough moves (2-3) to identify an opening, find some video tutorials about the opening on Youtube. Personally, I like the ones by Chessopenings.com. The guy is very clear and thorough for an introduction to the opening.

2. Check opening books for the most popular move orders. The one here at Chess.Com uses masters games to create its tree, so it is pretty solid.

3. Review the video 2 or 3 times during the opening. If you have done this over several games and understand the points from the videos, then begin Google searches to get information that delves deeper into the opening.

This is the process I have been following for a couple of months now. By doing this, I know the first 7-10 moves of several openings as well as the theory behind the moves and final opening positions.

For me, this is very effective because it allows me to know WHEN I MAKE THE MOVE why it was made and this seems to stick in my mind much longer than just reading about an opening.

When I was your level I have to say I liked the italian a bit more than the ruy, hitting f7 is not a bad focus early in the game.

If you play it try to build the e4 d4 center with c3 instead of the relatively boring variation with the knight on c3 you will find it to be tough for opponents to equilize.

I like your suggestion after you said all this, but what is far-fetched about following the advice of at least a dozen famous grandmasters among others (including at least one world champion), and the method inherent in the organization of a few notable chess manuals?

Method: study chess according to the order of its actual development

Purpose: you actually learn the right things at the right times, because chess theory is built up, idea by idea, each idea requiring the previous ones for it to have any sense.

There's a reason that the Pirc and Modern defenses weren't often played by great players until well into the 20th century; there's a reason that moves are played in particular orders in certain openings.

These reasons can only be learned by looking at how things were done before ... and if you start at the beginning, and work forward, things tend to make more sense.

As far as openings not being played anymore ... what of it? There are only two reasons that an opening was played before but not anymore:

1. A flaw was discovered in the opening/variation.
2. The opening/variation has fallen out of fashion.

In the first case, to really know your opening, you'd better know what that flaw is. Not to mention that some of the improvements uncovering these "flaws" turn out to be flawed themselves.

In the second, this only matters to fashion snobs, and the only way to be a true fashion snob is to have historical perspective.

I really cannot understand how a suggestion so natural can be labeled as "far-fetched". I found the process far less arduous than any other that has ever been suggested to me. All I did was follow Euwe's recommendation, and the organization of books like Masters of the Chessboard by Reti, The World's Great Chess Games by Fine, and The Development of Chess Style by Euwe, and I applied that to all phases of the game.

I don't claim it's the only way, but I do think it's the best method for ensuring that there are no gaps in one's chess education.

I'm sure there are plenty of historical and theorical concepts by studying this way, but it really is not the thing for a D class player. This is why I used the term (a bit) far-fetched.

If you were suggesting it to a B class or maybe even a really good C class player, I would have only thought that it seems like a lot to study to get to the point. But it would have seemed appropriate to the skill level.

I understand we all have our own ways of improving that appeal to us. My process in Online Chess, for example, is more than many would want to do themselves because it is a bit tideous, but it works for me.

I definitely wouldn't play the KIA as white because of the vast number of responses with little if any edge. The KID as black is different and IMO teaches a lot about pawn breaks and produces interesting games that cover a narrower range of ideas than the KIA.(Although I must admit, I do like playing against the KID as white).

At the risk of sounding like one of the site's wet blankets, perhaps playing through a good annotated games collection ("Most Instructive Games of Chess - Chernev, comes to mind) may indicate to YOU via a selection of different games the repertoire that grabs YOU.

Keith Arkell said something recently (Chess magazine)that we all know but need to be reminded of. He recommended that the club player not torture himself with endless opening preparation, but play slowly through good quality games. Many of us know this but we forget it.

I think jlconn's advice is well thought-out and makes perfect sense

the very most important part when you choose openings is that you choose openings you find fun! almost all openings are good at amateurlevel (below master). i even know a master who start with 1.a4 on this site. you dont want to be going on for years with openings that are boring to you do you? when you could have had fun

I would stay far away from opening systems at 1200, actually.  Stay away from the KID, too.  They are going to impress a "I need to find moves I can just play that will work regardless of what my opponent does" mindset that will kill you later.  You'll also limit what you see from your opponents, and that's the last thing you want.

If I could go back in time and tell myself what to do, I would say just play everything; read about a ton of openings and try them all.  Don't say "I'm a super aggressive player, so I want to become good at the Danish Gambit...why gambit one pawn when I can gambit two!", because you don't actually know what kind of player you are yet.  Don't play conservatively, either...walk into every opening like you own it, run right into the traps and pitfalls, and learn from them.

This is kind of like modern day Poker...in the old days, players that were trying to learn had to play when they could, and games were slow.  Now, a learning poker player will have played easily 20 times the number of hands by the time they enter a real tournament as a player from last century.  Same is true here.  You can play live chess every free moment, and you have effectively infinite opponents.

Before you even go into specific openings, though, try out this exercise:

Go to live chess and play a bunch of games...in each game, open with e4, d4, or c4.  When your opponent responds with anything but c5/d5/e5/f5, play a second pawn to c4/d4/e4 or f4.  If they first respond with c5/d5/e5/f5, then still play a second pawn, but avoid initial contact with their center pawn.  If they challenge your first pawn right away with one of theirs, push your first pawn.  

Let me give some examples:

...get the idea?  This exercise will lead to games that are fairly fast and open, and they will teach you to fight for the center.  They won't be "optimum", but those "openings" won't get you into deep trouble right away either, and you will see a ton of variety by trying this.

If you want a more quiet counterpoint for this exercise, try playing for draws.  Just play a set of games where your goals are to keep the position simple, material even, and draw the game.  Don't counterattack at all, just attempt to nullify everything the opponents tries to set up, trade off pieces, etc.

"I would say that i play better open than closed games. My tactics are better than my understanding of pawn movement at least"

So whats your aim? Play game where you feel comfortable (open tactics games) or learn to play better in closed positions?

"I am rated around 1200 in daily chess and live chess - standard."

This should translate into class E or even F by USCF standards (no offense) as ratings are typically inflated over the Internet.  Study very basic endgames and opening ideas, you learn exceptions such as breaking the balance or implimentation of a plan even if it means violating an opening principle later.  Read Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings.  Learn basic endgames and tactics, and train a thinking system.  Look for checks, captures, and threats and stop playing hope chess. 

"The few openings i have looked a bit into is Queens gambit/semi slav?, Kings Indian defense and attack and the danish/scandinavian opening."

Only the Scandinavian is good for your level.  The semi-slavs tend to be quite theory heavy whereas the queen's gambits tend to be better for intermediates at least. Petrosian said of the KID that he feeds his family off people who misplay it, and these people were high class IMs and GMs.  Save the KID for at least expert, if ever, way too much essential theory and sharp variations.  The Nimzo and Bogo Indian are far easier to play, maybe give the Benko Gambit a try.  As for 1.e4 go with 1...e5 and find replies against the Scotch, Ruy Lopez, Danish Gambit, King's Gambit, Vienna, Bishop's Opening, etc.  Know the reasons behind the moves.  If you don't know the theory then knights before bishops is typically a good policy. 

And stay away from the Danish as white!  Black discombobulates white as early as move 5 with:

good advice from most here, and imo jlconn is right.

TheGreatOogieBoogie Your answer is the kind of answer that is useless to a person of my level. No offence intended.

edit: The best way to describe why is to say: You would teach a 4 year old to put money in their piggy bank, not how to work their taxreturn for better outcome 

My aim is just to learn new openings. But i have no idea where to start.