If You Could Do it All Over Again (or are learning now)

Ruy from both sides and QGD as black.  Classic variations of other stuff, not necessarily main lines, but stuff 2600+ would play.

Not that e.g. 1.g4 isn't playable, but you'll learn more about chess in general (and IMO have better results in the long run) with classic and solid stuff.

That doesn't seem to be a point in favor of learning the Queen's Gambit.

Thanks. Would you mind elaborating a bit on this? Which classic variations from which openings and for which colors (and, if possible, which lines of the classic variations).

As white with
1.e4
after:

1...e5 Ruy
Petroff I like 5.Nc3 lines.
1...e6 Nc3 frenchs.
1...d5 Main line stuff (Most played moves in a database) 3.Nf3 ok too.
1...d6 2.d4 with Nf3 Nc3 stuff (think it's called classical actually)
1...c5 I like the Bb5 lines to cut down on theory.
e6 Sicilians Nxc6 with Bd3 standard stuff or if odd move order just Be2 quiet stuff with classic type development (see the bottom of post).
1...c6 I like two knights variation
1...Nf6 Modern variation (4.Nf3)
 

As black
after:

1.e4 
Ruy Breyer
Scotch main lines (most played moves in a database).
Two knights and bishop's opening can play Bc5 with natural development stuff.
King's gambit - Modern defense.
1.d4 QGD Tartakower
1.c4 1...e5 with Keres variation
1.Nf3 d5 with Nf6 and see what it may transpose into.
KIA Keres (he has a variation here too) d5 c6 Bg4 Nd7 type of setup
Colle and CZ: QID type setup although KID type is also totally fine.

Not sure how much I missed or what you were looking for... basically put a pawn in the center early, develop to influence the center, and castle.

Helpful. Going into my saved notes. Thanks much (to all).

Any other repertoires from people, showing White and Black play? Maybe some people who open with d4?

I used to think that learning certain openings were important for your "overall growth," and such, but I'm not sure there is really much evidence to confirm this. Even as someone who was biased towards this view, I still ended up being unconvinced by it as time went on. Sure, one way you can learn chess is by studying certain openings... and there are zillions of other ways to do this too. I'm not sure which ones are the best, but to learn chess, you can just find important positions, whether they come from some particular opening or not; the content is what's important. That doesn't mean learning positions from openings isn't a good idea -- it is perhaps one legitimate means to an end among others.

Any opening study I would do would just be for practical purposes: Make sure I'm in a position I understand, stuff like that. I would go towards the sounder stuff because it tends to be richer (that is, not summarized by a bunch of trappy variations), and you are less likely to have to fundamentally change up your repertoire as you move up.

So sound openings are richer and unsound positions are trappy but learning certain openings over others makes no difference to chess growth?

Well I guess so.  It's sufficent but not necessary to learn reasonable openings.  Fine.  But then the trappy stuff is certainly less efficent, perhaps to the point of being impractical.

I agree with the practical considerations.  I'd also add classic stuff is easier to understand and in those positions good moves are easier to find.

"So sound openings are richer and unsound positions are trappy but learning certain openings over others makes no difference to chess growth?"

Well outright trappy positions are a bit exceptional because, as I said, you can pretty much summarize them by saying "black wins if white falls for it, black loses if he doesn't." But any system that has reasonable long term goals to achieve are fine imo. And that includes almost anything. Even the dutch for example has some well defined positional goals, even if it's risky.

But yeah as said, learning certain openings might be one way to learn stuff in general, but hardly the only way. In general I don't think a person should play a certain opening just because they feel like they have to.

"Too much of a narrative"

That's interesting you say that because I'm the same.  At first I loved the book, but now I wonder exactly how useful it is.  It has some great concepts, and they're communicated in a user friendly way (so to speak).  But I think that same communication somewhat obfusacates some core ideas.  A Taoist the more you spell it out, the more you're getting it wrong kind of idea.

Not that I have a better idea for how to teach certain ideas.

I think that criticism is a bit unfair though. No matter what book you read, you will find advice that if taken literally will certainly be contradicted. I think it's one of those things where the effects of hearing the way he presents the material is more important than what would happen if you followed it literally. He got me to see the beauty and soul of planning, and by noticing "imbalances," it got me passionate about listing all of the positive features of my position and trying to make use of them. "Milking" the advantages you have, playing to your advantages, is a very fundamental part of chess strategy.

It's true, he's not going to cure you from being too inflexible about some particular plan, etc. But it's unfair to ask everything out of one book. Even "advanced books" -- well guess what they rely on -- that you learned the simpler stuff somehow -- because they are "missing" that.

His 3rd edition remains as a memory of being one of the most inspirational things I read about chess. I think the problem is some people want to automatically be a master after reading a book. The book does not do all the work for you. You will have to learn plenty of things that the book does not speak about. I did have to make plenty of adjustments. But that habit to learn the features of a position, and to "milk," them, that absolutely fundamental component of strategy, that was built largely from reading that book.

Definitely true.  Another practical consideration for nearly all wanting to improve is that chess should also be fun, so I think we pretty much agree.

To me it seems chess is a very hard game to teach well.  Ideas that are more or less truisms such as "keep your pieces coordinated" are impossible to get a feel for in actual play as a beginner when you're still missing that certain pieces attack certain squares.  The point being that you have to play and learn a lot before you can actually start playing and learning the "important" stuff if that makes any sense 

I actually agree with you too heh.  I was just thinking about this today... that it seems to teach chess you can't avoid teaching some kind of bad habit or thought process that the student will eventually have to overcome on their own.

I mean, that may be my imagination, but that's my current thought on it.

 "The point being that you have to play and learn a lot before you can actually start playing and learning the "important" stuff if that makes any sense "

A very interesting observation, hehe. A large part of chess skill is indeed knowing what protects what, and knowing that really well. And there are just some things that I'll always know for sure -- I know, without looking at the board, that if I play the move "Nc1," I will control e2, or if I play Qh5 and there is a pawn on e5 I will be attacking that :) When you know that stuff, all you have to do is ask yourself what squares are important, and you'll know how to maneuver your pieces to control them. But yes, that requires a lot of pattern recognition.

"that it seems to teach chess you can't avoid teaching some kind of bad habit or thought process that the student will eventually have to overcome on their own."

It certainly seems that way. I do think that people (myself included actually!) freak out too much about a possibly bad habit being formed from otherwise instructive ideas. Chess is an empirical thing. Through experience you will figure out what adjustments you need to make, which I have. But what I will always have is that desire to list all of the good and bad features in my position, and ask how to take advantage of them. While this is just one skill a chess player needs, it's important, and I have to credit Silman for giving me this skill.

Or for example I make a calculation and find the right move order to control the open file and then get my knight on a good sqaure.  Meanwhile my weaker opponent plays something that loses time and then drops a pawn.  Like you said, some things you just see right away.  By being able to ignore a lot of bad moves, and see the tactic that wins the pawn, I was able to spend my thinking time refining my move order and play some good positional moves.  To me the moves may even seem obvious, but it's really hard to actually communicate it to my opponent after the game in a meaningful way when their response amounts to "yeah but I was worried about your bishop coming here" or something like that.

Just sort of thinking out loud here.

"To me the moves may even seem obvious, but it's really hard to actually communicate it to my opponent after the game in a meaningful way when their response amounts to "yeah but I was worried about your bishop coming here" or something like that."

Ok, so you're saying, for example, that the move your opponent worried about, you just know from experience that that kind of move could never work? Yeah I can relate to that.

And this just reminded me of a slightly different but related thing. I think when people go over, for example, one of Tal's games, what they should do is not just explain the moves Tal played, but compare what he played to similar looking alternatives. When I'm looking through one of his games I might think to myself "ok this is where he sacs his bishop," but instead Tal just plays a developing move. He sacs later of course, but he knows when he should develop and prepare his position first. And that's the difference between Tal and us mortals. Tal knows the sacrifices that work (or are plausible), but he also knows the ones that don't, such as, the sacrifices that look similar to what Tal did, but are either premature, or have some other important differences that are hard to care about without experience. Understanding the difference between what Tal did and the "similar looking moves that don't work," would result in a lot of learning.

Interesting analysis tip thanks!

Yeah, that's what I meant, when you know such a move is unimportant without having to give it much or any attention.

Woah, you mechanically consider every move?  Are you serious?  That's pretty interesting to me that someone can play like that.

I assume a lot when I play.  The thought has occurred to me that the more I assume the more I risk repeating mistakes or dismissing playable moves.  So I try to keep an open mind in analysis and I'm willing to look at "bad but interesting" moves.  To try to clear the mind and look at each possibility is something I've never tried.

I guess I'm kind of in the middle ground. Basically I try to keep in mind all of the conceptual ideas with planning, but make it flexible and practical. For example, I do think you need to look at the tactics in the position first -- first of all because missing these is the most consequential, and second, the tactics can sometimes tell you about the strategy, as tactics, being the servants of strategy, tend to favor the better side; they tend to have the initiative.

I did have to adjust by being more flexible with plans -- if a long term plan works cool, but usually you have to be able to change what you want to do based on what your opponent does. It might be that one move your opponent plays will be weak against one idea, while another move is good against that idea, but weak against something else. This is important to consider. I think what's important is not so much sticking to a plan, but being able to evaluate the pros and cons of both current and future situations, as dozens of distinct ones come up during a game.

I'm not sure how you could literally consider absolutely every move. If anything maybe consider "absolutely every concept" you can think of, even ones that seem like they won't work. Even that won't lead me to consider every single move if there are dozens of alternatives. Perhaps you mean visualize every move for a half second and check to see if it hangs a tactic? I'm not sure, maybe I do that subconsciously, haha, but even then calculating every single one on every single move seems to be taking flexibility to an unpleasant extreme. There are other ways to be secure about a position besides looking at a move -- I don't need to calculate even for a second what's going on with the queenside pawns if I have sacrificed a piece on the kingside and am going for mate. It'll all be about my opponent's defense there.