Is this how opening preparation is supposed to look like?

G'Day, Guys,

I am definitely not a good player, but I would like to study openings anyway. Right now I'm learning the Mujannah opening (1. f4 d5 2. c4) a rather underestimated opening (Stockfish even evaluates the starting position better than the Kings gambit...). Regardless of that, I have created a document with m study of 2... c6. Could you maybe give me some tips on how I might be able to improve it? How do you do it? and am I going into too much/ not enough depth?

Thank you guys so much for the support,

Watermelon Man

You dont follow opening principles.

Youre hanging pieces.

Youre missing simple tatics.

But yea...keep on studying openings.

"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
"... 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. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... To begin with, only study the main lines ... you can easily fill in the unusual lines later. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

Let me begin by saying that, at your rating and ability, I doubt you will get much if any benefit of studying any opening, let alone this obscure line.  This type of study is not necessary at this time.  That said, if you are going to do it anyway, you might as well have some tips.

First, a database with an actual board is likely easier to use than a word document with notation.  Something like SCID, Chess Position Trainer or Chessbase Reader (each one easily Googleable) would allow you to see the moves on a board, not to mention vastly cut down on notation errors.

Second, if you want to use written documents for whatever reason, you may find a Spreadsheet to be easier to manage.  Each cell is a half-ply (ie, white’s move is one cell, and Black’s reply is the next one), and I find it easier to line-up variations as well as add in new moves or change previous moves.  I approve of your colouring of different variations.

Finally, I see very little explanations.  When I make chess notes, I am excessive in my explanations.  “Black usually develops the Knight before developing the Bishop; c5 and b5 are common pawn thrusts, and Black tends to play in the centre and Queenside, depending on White’s responses.  Getting a Knight to e5 or c5 is thematic.”  I can remember that 100% better than just pure notation, and even better, if my opponent plays something different, I know how the thematic ideas anyway.

When it comes to learning, be it chess or anything, it is much easier to start at the general and then get more specific.  That’s why everyone will say learn basic opening principles (ie, general rules that apply to virtually every opening) before learning specific openings.  If you still want to study an opening, learn the general ideas first and then drill down to the specifics.  If you cannot list what your opening is in general, then it will do no good for you over the board.

Good luck.

Watermelon-Man,

Have you seen my old thread about what repertoires look like? I'm still using that system although there continue to be improvements every month to my notation and terminology.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/what-does-a-repertoire-even-look-like-1

P.S.--I believe SmithyQ is partly right. I believe beginners should at least get started on learning openings, but you're probably going to outgrow an obscure opening like that pretty quickly. Also, the database I'm using shows only 59 games with those first moves you showed, which isn't a very reliable sampling size to say that those are good moves. More likely the good stats are just from taking the opponent out of book in a very unfamiliar opening.

Watermelon-Man has it everything twisted. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, look at Grandmasters opening repertoires and choose acceptable openings from them. They have years studying REAL chess openings.

"... A typical way of choosing an opening repertoire is to copy the openings used by a player one admires. ... However, what is good at world-championship level is not always the best choice at lower levels of play, and it is often a good idea to choose a 'model' who is nearer your own playing strength. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf
Perhaps Watermelon-Man would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
"There is no such thing as a 'best opening.' Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate
https://www.chess.com/article/view/picking-the-correct-opening-repertoire
http://chess-teacher.com/best-chess-openings/
https://www.chess.com/blog/TigerLilov/build-your-opening-repertoire
https://www.chess.com/blog/CraiggoryC/how-to-build-an-opening-repertoire
https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-an-opening-to-memorize-or-understand
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-perfect-opening-for-the-lazy-student
https://www.chess.com/article/view/3-ways-to-learn-new-openings
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9035.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627110453/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen169.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9029.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/has-the-king-s-indian-attack-been-forgotten
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7277.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9050.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627104938/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen159.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627022042/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen153.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf

Just an historical aside, Staunton played 1.c4 and 2.f4 occasionally. In fact, I thought that was even called the Staunton English. 

And no, it's not particularly good, and yes, the previous comments have highlighted some of the problems with your approach.

The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ...

In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game.

For this reason the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended - as well as those of more recent players who have a somewhat classical style, like Fischer, Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Michael Adams. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

"Yasser Seirawan when asked by an amateur how did he prepared in openings he answered:

"First I want to know the endgame positions my opening produces , then the middlegame positions, then the lines."

    All this sounds weird, right?"

Well, I would ask Yasser how would I study the endgames of the Sicilian?  There doesn't seem to be a typical pattern.  Or is there?

SeniorPatzer, see if you can find Shereshevsky's excellent book on endgames. He studies typical endgames that arise from the Sicilian. His chapter on Dragon Sicilians is a classic! He breaks down the endgames based on pawn structure and minor piece vs r endgames. 

So the short answer is yes, Yaz actually does know what he's talking about!

Okay, I see what you are saying.  To be transparent I just picked Sicilian because I thought with all the open Sicilians, closed Sicilians, Smith-Morra gambit, Alapin, Grand Prix, etc., then how could you find typical or thematic endgame patterns?

It's not just the Sicilian.  What if you were an English player as white?  How could you study endgames associated with the English?

But I get Yasser's point.  I just wanted to push back gently.  

SP,

You are asking the right questions. In asking them, be open to finding the answers to your questions. There are indeed good answers!

If you can't find the answers in books, perhaps you could ask a knowledgeable coach rather than hope for random answers in a thread on chess.com for a solution.

Black just gave up a pawn in the opening and it is not deep enough.