Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly

Change is the only constant in life ... 

I find this narrative of chess history amusing. To avoid getting into trouble for using too much profanity, I will tone down the conversations I imagined when I read it.

Marshal: Well screw you person who decided Ruy Lopez was right. It takes you all day to move the bishop around, and then you play c3 and d4? The hell with this, you can have a pawn...well screw you too Capablanca.

Spassky: Hey look, Marshal was right. Tal: Yeah I guess he was, but you didn't have any winning chances either.

Zaitsev:  That seems extreme, yes it takes White all day to do that, by why not just play Bb7, Re8 and Bf8 with pressure on e4? Really who wants to force a draw as White? Karpov: Looks good to me.

Kramnik: Why bother with any of that nonsense in the first place? Kasparov: But your position sucks! Kramnik: Prove it.

I think learning to play 1.e4 e5 is an admirable goal that every novice should make a priority! 

If you really want to learn the game well, start with the Open positions that arise from 1.e4 e5, also learn the main lines of the Spanish, and go on from there. There are some good opening books, but the best way to learn how to play 1.e4 e5 is the old fashioned way:

Study well annotated games of the great masters from before WWII. 

When you've really studied the games of Morphy, Anderssen, Steinitz, Rubinstein, Capa, and the rest, then open up your favorite copy of My Sixty Memorable Games and see how Fischer played 1.e4 e5. Then break out My Great Predecessors and focus on every game in all five volumes that you haven't already studied involving 1.e4 e5. 

That should take at least six months, probably longer. The more work you put into learning 1.e4 e5 from the ground up, the better you will be in the long run.

If you want short cuts, follow the advice of others.

Thanks.

Wow. I just read this. Reb's question goes to the heart of learning. His question is essential for anyone giving concrete advice. 

Reb and I disagree (rather vehemently) on some issues (such as his idol worship of Fischer and his perception that I idolize ratings). But when it comes to what it takes to improve in chess, I think we're in pretty close agreement. 

In order to improve in chess, study the classics and devote at least 10-20 hours a week on the game. Don't count time spent writing in the forums. That's entertaining, but won't help your chess.

SmyslovFan: I have three friends who made it to Master. None of them studied according to your advice.

I'll bet few American Masters have done so, aside from looking at some games from the Fischer and Kasparov books.

I don't think your advice is bad, just not the only way to skin the cat.

Ipcress, there are indeed many ways to skin a cat. 

I wasn't answering the question of how to make master, I was answering the question of how best to learn 1.e4 e5. I think my answer will provide the most certain results for players who do not have the benefit of a personal coach. 

There are indeed other ways to learn chess. Nakamura, who had a famous coach for a father, learned most of his trade by playing blitz and bullet chess on ICC for ~8 hours a day. I wouldn't recommend that path to anyone, even though it's been proven to work. Even Nakamura had to go back for remedial training with Kasparov because he had huge holes in his education.

But to learn 1.e4 e5, and begin to master the game, my recommendation is a pretty sure way to achieve the goal. Almost all masters agree that in order to improve one must:

• Study well annotated games
• Study endgames
• Play, a lot! 

Unlike those recommending books published in the past few years, I'm reasonably certain that none of those arguing about what Rodrigo Lopez wrote have read, or even seen a copy, of the priest's book.

Batgirl could tell you which libraries own a copy without checking her notes, of course. She certainly has read and reread H.J.R. Murray's synopsis of Lopez's argument with Damiano, and likely is also acquainted with the views of Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa on the matter. Murray and von der Lasa both examined copies of Lopez's work.

Reb's pasting of a passage from Wikipedia was perfect because the whole argument hinges upon a couple of pos(t)ers whose knowledge stems from such tertiary sources.*

*jlconn fooled me with a reference to an early nineteenth century text with which I have some familiarity, although I failed to catch that the author was misnamed. Nonetheless, the association between the named author and the actual one was close. That one citation is the closest anyone has come to naming a source that a bona fide historian would find acceptable in an argument concerning the past. The author of this problematic text was the teacher of the one to whom the text was attributed.

Staying with the specific topic of 1.e4 e5:

I'm planning to go through Logic Chess Move by Move by Chernev soon. Beginner-friendly, well-annotated, loads of old Master games (plenty are of the 1.e4 e5 variety).

Some say start with the pre-WWII game collections by certain Masters. I get it. Basic...before complicated theory developed, and it shows mistakes that I might run into playing other beginners or intermediates.

Others say start with mixed collections of annotated games, which contain older and newer games, before moving to collections of a given individuals.

I applaud your resolve. Although I have vague recollections of going through at least part of Logical Chess in the 1970s, I finally went through it thoroughly two years ago.

I put all the games in a database that I could load on my notebook (in ChessBase) and on my iPad (in Hiarcs). I went through each game on my own, seeking to discover the critical moments and the unplayed tactical opportunities and threats. When I was confident that I had a grasp of the contours of the game, I read Chernev's comments.

Shortly after I started this process, I wrote this review: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/01/logical-chess-book-review.html.

@Chicken_Monster

I've read about 4-5 pages of this thread and as far as I can see there have been an avalanche of tips and advice for you to capitalize on. 
You see, when you ask a question in a forum you need to understand that people will answer your question in different ways. Some answers will be vague, some will be very precise. Some you might even need to decode. And tbh, I don't think Reb is trolling you at all. I just think you need to take a look at the underlying message behind his words. I totally see the points he is making. The same goes for jlconn. 

 Learning new things can be challenging. Learning a lot of new things simultaniously can be overwhelming. But to learn anything at all you need a certain kind of attitude. You need to be humble enough to not be offended when someone is asking you if you are really putting in the effort it takes to accomplish your goals? Instead, you need to be able to ask yourself: "am I"? 
If you do not do that at some point, it will only be a disadvantage to yourself. Because if you really think about it, you can learn something useful from anyone out there. You just need to see it. To make an analogy: it's like a chess puzzle just sitting there waiting for you to solve it. You can scream at it all day if you want, you can get offended thinking that whoever set up the puzzle is just trolling you and that it can't be solved. But what you may not have realized is that to solve it you need to think in a pattern that you have never done before. 
So when you read what Reb had written you think he is trolling because you don't see the solution to the puzzle, but if you apply a new train of thought you might be able to interpret his words differently which ultimately could benefit you. 

Do you see what I'm saying or am I just wasting your time too? :)
(sorry for any grammar errors, english is not my mother tongue).

Nice review. You write some excellent articles in your blog.

I believe the various Starting Out books and Move by Move books (already mentioned in this thread I believe) are probably also a good way to go for non-advanced students looking to grasp the fundamentals.

I still prefer a copious amount of annotations at this point in my development.

One of my highest rated correspondence wins on this site is partly due to looking at a particular line's analysis in Starting Out: The King's Indian.

And you know this is best, how?

italian

As Black or White or both?

Your English is fine.

There is some very good advice in the thread; one must sift through the thread and take out the useful nuggets.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to convey to me. What are you trying to say, exactly?

I must say I dont believe it humanly possible for any of us to learn thoroughly all openings after 1 e4 e5 .  I have books on just specific variations of the spanish for example and certainly dont know everything in them .  I have a book on the breyer defense in the closed Ruy and another book that covers all black replies to the Spanish without 3 ... a6  ( attributed to Morphy )   Its a tremendous amount of work just trying to master a single variation in the Ruy , like the Marshall counter attack . I have one or two books on that as well ... I started off playing the Italian game and after a few years switched to the Ruy and today can play either but usually play Ruy when the chance arises .  I toyed with the kings gambit but don't like the unsafe white king and the chaos that often results on the chess board and the kings gambit is one of the biggest reasons I choose not to play 1.... e5 in response to 1 e4 .  

Reb, what do you think of the Falkbeer as an antidote?

BTW, for you "historians", Ernest Falkbeer lost to Adolf Anderssen with the counter-gambit that bears his name.

I think the falkbeer is interesting and have played it some from both sides but usually in rapid chess , correspondence and online . If I am going to decline the gambit I like the falkbeer for that . In serious games ( classic rated tourney games for me )  I don't play 1... e5 unless I am almost positive my opponent plays the Ruy ...