Italian, Spanish (Rui Lopez) or London system

What do like the most and why, me personally Italian clears

The Ruy Lopez is a good option for beginners.

No, it’s not

bro the ruy lopez has more theory than physics, with many tricky variations💀 it is definitely not beginner friendly.

None of the above!

The London is garbage unless you are a GM. Below the GM level, London players have a 1 track mind. They think they can dictate the game and play the same moves no matter what except the LSB. The assume d4, Bf4, e3, Nf3, h3, Nbd2, c3, and Bd3 except if Black fianchettos the Bishop, then Be2.

A person who truly understands the London does not play it systematically. They understand when to play h4 (where h3 is a complete waste of time), when to play c4, when it is dubious (vs Dutch), when it is outright bad (vs Modern - 1.d4 g6 2.Bf4? Bg7 3.e3 d6 4.Nf3 Nc6 (or 4...Nd7 and 5...e5 leading to a different but also really good game for Black) 5.h3 e5! 6.Bg3 (best, others are worse, the most common and horrific 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Qxd8 Kxd8 8.Bg5 is even worse) and Black has a very slight edge.)

Italian? Ruy Lopez? Hard Pass! I quit playing 1.e4 as White (Will transpose to certain KP openings, like 1.d4 e6 2.e4 or 1.d4 g6 2.e4). Black? 2...Nf6! Forget 2...Nc6 - No thanks!

I play a lot of scotch tbh, in my opinion it's flexible and you get some fun, sharp positions

I love taking opinions from 100 elos

I play the scotch and anderssen-polish (Bugayev attack)

I have never heard of Wormald Variation.

What does it look like?

@Compadre_J The Wormald has never really seemed to be in vogue. It's one if those anti-theoretical White options trying to reach a Closed Lopez type of position without having to spend years learning and updating one's opening theory. The characteristic move is 5. Qe2:

One potentially interesting feature is that in some lines White can angle for O-O followed by Rfd1, which might disconcert someone playing the Black side routinely.

Ruy Lopez is just objectively the best to play for a win, if u know ur stuff

I do not prefer London system because improving players play it automatically, plus as a beginner one will get a narrow set of positions, and novice players should probably experience different positions if they seek improvement.

Both Italian and Ruy are good options. Ruy Lopez theory? Who cares on a beginner level, some random 600, or even 1 200 level player will not exploit if you make a weak pawn or something similar that often. They will beat you if you hang a rook and then a piece. And by the time people starts punishing you, you should be reviewing your games and figuring out what went wrong anyway, which should in turn make you stronger.

I have been playing Ruy since I restarted playing chess in 2020. Plus, when I was a kid, I probably played one of the 2 as well (I always played 1.e4), without knowing the names of those openings. Learning curve is pretty forgiving there.

Are those 2 the only options? No, the only thing I would really avoid playing as a beginner who seeks improvement (at least playing as a main thing, trying out something is fine) are system openings like London System, because of their repetitive nature and the tendency of beginners to play them automatically, and some losing gambits as they teach hope chess.

London system is best

The Ruy Lopez was the first opening I learned. I believe it's quite instructive, because it directly shows how pawn and piece development can be combined with attack and defense.

White develops his king pawn, occupying the center and opening lines for his king bishop and queen.

Black does the same, regaining equality and blocking White's pawn from advancing further.

White develops his king knight, attacking Black's central pawn.

Black develops his queen knight, defending his pawn.

White develops his king bishop, attacking the defender of the pawn.

And so on, and so forth ... there's very direct and clear logic to the Spanish game.

In something like the London, on the other hand, the purpose of the moves are less clear. The bishop goes on f4 for what reason? What is it pointing at, and for what purpose? Why does the c-pawn go on c3 and not c4? Why does the e-pawn go on e3 and not e4? Where does the king bishop go - e2, d3, c4, b5, or g2?

Often the answer is "Well ... because in the London those pawns / pieces usually go here." The explanation doesn't necessarily help the player understand better.

So players often learn the general setup of the London (the pawn triangle and such), but they aren't so much thinking about attack or defense - they're mostly thinking about trying to attain a specific structure. It's useful to learn in some ways, but also not ideal in others ...

Thank you for sharing, Ralph.

Very interesting line for sure.

Italian is best for new players imo. You will learn the most about chess. To play the Spanish properly you will have to memorize theory and you won’t know what to do with the positions that you get. Once you get better then you can switch to the ruy Lopez which is pretty similar to most positions you get in the Italian. Or just play the Italian because it’s a good opening (played in the world championship today).

I don’t think mindlessly setting up pieces (the London system) is good for chess improvement. I only just recently started playing it as white at 1700 and I do like it and it’s a great opening. But I learned how to play chess first before messing with it.

Yeah, After seeing the Wormald variation, I have decided to double down on my original statement.

The Ruy Lopez is to complicate for beginners to play.

The Ruy Lopez - Wormald Variations looks even more complicated to play.

Looking at the game Rhys posted just reinforces how complicated the position.

Bxh6! Crazy Tactical Shot with a Qg6 move exploiting the pin f7 pawn.

And people want beginners to do the above?

No Chance!

It doesn't have to be.

When I was a beginner, playing against other beginners, a lot of my Spanish games went like this, more or less:

Not really theoretical ... just developing pieces and responding to basic tactics.

I think your example further supports what I have been saying.