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

I agree with your point. So many high-level players think too much in how THEY see chess, not how the scrubs like me and the guys down here see it.

I like your answer, it has some open structure to it. I will try to look into it and i might message you with a bit more questions :)

I like your idea, but i think it kinda is how i play at the moment. Sure i stick to the first 2-4 moves of queens gambit, but then its just 'whatever i feel like' from there on out.

I can see what you mean, but i still belive that i can learn from looking at openings. Understand what to look for and attack/defend/avoid can still give you some understanding of chess as a hole. In some openings 1 square is really key, and learning to play around or towards that can be very good learning. 
But learning long strings of endless move orders will never work. Its like starcraft where people have a strict plan for the first 20 mins of gameplay, will never work :D  

Better players know that begineers dont need openings, at this point why even say it. Lets just suggest some openings and move on, This stupid game is for fun anway, and if learning openings seems like more fun then learning endgames then why should we dissuade anybody from that. Not everybody needs to become master chess players unlike real life where good advice is often ignored good chess advice can be safely ignored with no real issues resulting.

Back to the point to kind of go along with the good advice you have gotten. Study and try out some gambits, they are fun to play and at most levels the edge in development will be well worth the pawn.

1) Survey all the main ones and learn the first 8 or so moves for all of them. This means about two dozen or so openings. That gives you a flavor. It's not hard to do this. 

2) Pick a few you like, and/or have a lot of experience with, and buy good books on them. The books are getting better...the "Move by Move" series is a good example.

3) Read the books and play all the lines in them, and read the author's comments as you do. Yes, you need to do this to "study" an opening. It will make you a better player in general too. Try to play the lines on a real board, not on a computer screen or in your head. It helps. 

4) Finally, take Bobby Fischer's advice. Get the MCO, and play every line and every footnoted variation on every page. Then do it again :)

BTW, I am long on record as being totally opposed to the time-honored canard that "beginners shouldn't study openings" and "just play good opening moves." All this does is rack up a lot of goose eggs at tournaments. 

Studying a few openings in depth greatly improves your abilities as a player, strategically, tactically, and thematically, and should be done from the very beginning of one's chess education. No one is saying you have to memorize hundreds of lines...but playing those lines out will hugely improve your understanding of what a chess game can be...a lot more than sitting on your hands "playing good opening moves," whatever those are :)

As Black, play the Sicilian. You might as well, your chances with it are just as good or better than if you try the French (hard to play well) or the Caro-Kann (easy to get locked up). The Scandinavian is a waste of time and e5 just sets up a long slog to stop regretting that you played e5. 

Pick the Classical or Taimanov for starters. Don't worry about all the variations, just play the damn thing's first 10 or so moves, THEN you can "play good opening moves." And if White runs and hides with a closed Sicilian, you just won the conversation...now onto the game. 

Play Open Games

Ruy Lopez

Scotch

4 Knights, etc

Open games lead to more tactics, and at your level tactics are #1

You are correct...e4 doesnt lead to more tactics, open games do.  of course all openings lead to tactics, but open games have the potential for more.  It is not a rumor.

Tactics don't come out of nowhere. You suffer tactics when you're in a worse position, your pieces are discoordinated, and you have no idea what to do strategically.

I think learning chess should be a fine balance, and this balance should include learning the general themes and plans of certain openings. I agree that memorizing moves is mostly a waste of time (at any level that is not titled), but studying the general strategies of the opening phase of the game is as important as studying tactics.

If I fall into a knight's fork, I don't think "wow, why didn't I see that? I should do more puzzles". I think "why did I allow so much activity to that knight, and why were my pieces unprotected? What did I do wrong positionally?"

Start by playing Kings Gambit is always a fun, classical and romantic way to play. First of all you will learn about material unbalance, tempi, attacking, weak squares, defense in just one opening. As black I would recomend 1...e5 and as black something classical too and Slav defense to d4

It is interesting to see all the different idea's around something as simple as openings for a begineer. Once again it is like anything else, take what advice you want and do what you want.

Another complication to the debate, what the best player recomends is not always best for you. Also just because someone got to a certain rating one way does not mean thats the only or even fastest way. However logical people believe themselves to be, most things are conjecture. 

@btickler:

I have tried this kind of opening recently with good success. Do you have a similar idea for an approach when playing black ? I would appreciate it much.

try queens gambit reversed jes variation.I trapped many friends with it.I think i may suit you.

EXCELLENT points.

Which kind of opening? :)

I only listed an exercise ("move 2 pawns into the center and go!"), but no specific opening (though some do fall into real openings, of course...the first board I listed is basically a Caro-Kann, etc.).  The reason that this exercise is perfect for someone just starting to get into real openings is that it will take you through a wide swath of opening ideas and complications/traps in a short time and let you sample them all.  

Then when you want to decide on a set of openings to be in your repertoire, you'll have a better idea of (a) what you like, and more importantly (b) what suits your actual playing style and natural leanings.

For example, a lot of new players see themselves wanting to play like Tal, wildly attacking and creative, etc. but in actuality, their playstyle and skillset is more suited to a slow buildup and clean positional play, eschewing complications, and end up playing something like the London system.  Chess players have a hard time being honest with themselves about stuff like this...I mean, everyone wants to think they play like Fischer or Tal, not Carlsen or Petrosian.

Do you really enjoy playing with 5-6 pieces en prise all the time?  Or do you prefer to feel in complete control of the situation?  Do you enjoy ripping the center wide open?  Do you actually thrive on making a position work when your space is cramped?  Would you rather have open diagonals for your bishops, or deftly insinuate your knights through a sea of pawns?  When you find yourself a pawn up do you want to simplify immediately to a won endgame, or do you start looking for a mating net?

These are the kinds of things you can work on finding out about yourself before you narrow your opening set down.

silcilian dragon is the best

>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.<

Terrible, dated, group-think advice, even more sullied by the "all your losses" determinism. 

<At your level, spending your time "learning openings" is at best a complete waste, and it could actually hurt your progress.>

Another uninformed opinion that the poster read a thousand times somewhere else. They used to think the Earth was flat, too.