need white opening for a begginer

FrugalLiving: I would have to debate that. The vast majority of the most experienced chess players and teachers recommend 1. e4 as a "starter" opening because the ideas tend to be easier to grasp, and the principles learned tend to be the most important ones for beginners to learn. And they know a whole lot more about chess then any of us.

I have to disagree with the above for improvement (if you are playing for fun then ok then what I say doesn't apply that much). You said playing a system gets you similar positions. Ok, and in fact that is what 'hurts' your chess if you are trying to improve, when you need to be used to different positions/tactics/etc....

By the way, positional play does matter imo below GM lvl, just not as much of course (and for a beginner it won't matter at all).

And the London is also unambitious and gives Black an easy path to equality compared to the QG. So how is it increasing your chances to win? Ok, you may know the positions better than your opponent but this doesn't really matter in such an opening. It would matter in something sharp like the Open Sicilian but for the London, the amount it would matter doesn't seem like much.

1.e4 will not slow down your progress. It is the most recommended move for beginners and it is the best for long term improvement...

Explain how 1.e4 will slow your progress. It has a lot of theory but the beginner doesn't need to know this theory at their lvl. A often cited reason to play the London is to minimize opening theory, but it doesn't even matter at the beginner lvl so why not play 1.e4, get a a feel for more positions/tactics, and improve.

Again the English, especialy reversed sicillians

The Scotch four knights is a great opening for a beginner.  I am playing it now,  but honestly you would be better off not thinking about openings and just thinking about every move.

I personally think that openings are very important. If you don't have a good opening, you don't get to have a middle or end game. Of course, at the lower levels, the propensity for making mistakes determines the outcome of most games. My suggestion is to play through a few openings and various variation thereof. Pawn to E4 is a good place to start. Then try a few others. The Grunfeld or Dutch Wall is good for black. You will often develop a preference for one opening over all the others. In that case go for it. When you start to get bored with it, then study another. Don't let anyone's pference influence you choice. If they are under 2400 their opinion doesn't count for much.

It also depends on your objective. Are you playing for fun, or to be as good as you can be? We allwon't get to be IMs or GMs etc. (Bleedin, obvious) If you wish to accelerate your progress - pay for a coach. I'm only a 1400+ and I am playing some of Botvinnik's openings. I find that I memorize some of the moves without understanding WHY. Then, what do you do if your opponent makes a differnet move from the classic line? I find without a mentor, it takes one ages to figure it out. I have analysed (by computer) some of the games I have won. The computer says most of my moves are weak, but at least I didn't make any blunders. The gamesw I have lost don't need an analysis. I have usually hung a queen, or made several consequitive mistakes.

Lotsa luck mate......Eccekio

Hypocrit whose ratting is 1300 youre opinion dosent count then, does it, but then niether does mine

@jetfighter. I hope I didn't voce too many personal opinions. Certainly not advocating one opening over all others.

1.. The propensity for making blunders at the lower levels being the most important. I can attest to that personally.

2.. It all depends on your (PERSONAL) objective.

3.. If you want to get there quicker coaching is best. Applies to all sports I know of. OK I know of the odd "natural" who got to ELITE level without having any coaching. Yeah! But how many got furthur than that. I almost got to that level in weightlifting. But! Weightlifting would not pay one enough to live in my day, so it was just a keep-fit hobby for me. WORK CAME FIRST. I freely admit I could have done much better if I had gone overseas and paid for a top-level coach.

4.. I don't have a coach either. Why bother? I have cone back to chess after a 50 year lay off. I was on my Chess Team at Grammar School. I don't include tthe game here or there in the intervening years, with a frien, over a bottle of wine as playing chess....Now? Does the Knight move two up and one across, or 4 down and two up? Or is i 10 down and means delaing unnecessarily? SORRY! Have another grass of vino mate.

Regards......Eccekio.

uffruffEccekio: I agree with most of your post, though at one point you say to start playing a specific opening/defence, and then study another one when you get bored with the first one. Actually, this is one of the worst things you can do (Speaking from my own experience and the advice of most masters I know of). If you constantly change your opening, you will only confuse yourself and end up spending a great deal of time on openings that should be spent on other things. From what I have heard, the best thing to do is to choose 1 opening for white, 1 defence for black against e4, 1 defence for black against d4, and stick with these for a long time. Play these in every game you play. In the end, you will become a veritable expert on that opening/defence and will have much better results than if you skip from one opening to another. True, you will be predictable, but this doesn't really matter until you reach fairly high levels. When you feel bored with an opening, don't immediately skip to another: try looking through the opening you have and find some new lines. For instance, when I felt that my Caro-Kann was becoming a bit boring, I revitalized it by adding in some new, more exciting lines to it.

That's nothing more than an alternate method of studying opening theory!

Those who claim to have achieved a high rating without studying "opening theory," may not have devoured opening manuals, but they surely have worked on their openings. This may have come from osmosis -- emulating what others have used against them, or what others have used against their opponents. It may also have come from trial and error -- re-inventing the wheel. Either way, they HAVE done opening study in some fashion.

I do NOT recommend that a beginner memorizes a particular opening or system, but I DO recommend that he exposes himself to such things. The notion of following basic principles of development is fine, but seeing them in action can be an eye-opener. Look at white's development in a Queen's Gambit Declined, and see how those principles are used. White occupies and fights for the center; he activates his pieces quickly and in a co-ordinated fashion; he develops the "bad" bishop outside the pawn chain before the pawn chain is complete, and supports it with a knight; he castles early. All of his pieces find decent squares, are well placed for attack and defense, and they are not blocked or tripping over one another. How long would it take a beginner to stumble onto something like that, left with advice limited to something like "push a center pawn and get your pieces out?"

Look at some other lines, and see how those basic principles can work. Then think about such things when playing.

Superior tactical ability is wonderful, and something to strive hard to achieve, but superior tactics are often difficult or impossible to find in inferior positions. Chess is NOT 99% tactics. Tactics are the bullets. Without the rifle, the bullets are just paperweights.

"Tactics are the bullets. Without the rifle, the bullets are just paperweights." - Perfectly put, Bur_Oak. I'll remember that one!

"Let's poll everyone who is over 2000 in turn-based or blitz or standard on this site, and see if they got there by playing a system or by learning to play chess." - As a 2000+ player both on this site and in real life, I'd say I can't really answer that question because it is nonsensical. It counterposes two things which are by no means mutually exclusive.

Ajedrecito, I agree with most, if not all, of your post.  Much of chess is clearly pattern recognition, and this is particularly true of tactical shots. These tend to be the most memorable moments of a chess game, and I believe this gives rise to an inflated estimate of the percentages. The end of a game may be 99% tactics/pattern recognition. Large portions of the rest of it, granted usually heavily reliant on skill and experience to prosecute successfully, can be something more difficult to categorize.

Of course, the definition of "pattern" would also come into play, particularly if someone includes opening "patterns" in which no immediate tactical shot is available, but for which a strategy exists that should lead to tactics as the game progresses. If this is the case, then it argues in favor of having some familiarity with opening patterns.

This does NOT mean that I recommend memorization of multiple lines of variations. I do not. Learning some opening theory without memorizing lists of variations is precisely what I advocate.

But, just as some recommend that beginners study games of masters, I see no harm in some of those games coming from opening manuals. It helps to have annotated games giving some inkling of strategy in an opening, how that strategy can determine the transition into a favorable (or in some cases such as defenses, at least equal) middlegame, and perhaps lead to a winnable endgame. Taken with a large grain of salt, knowing that in the real world either the novice player or his opponent is likely to get "out of book" at a very early stage, even some minimal understanding can provide a foundation for more rapid learning than just "winging it."

I agree that too many novices are looking for a book of recipes which they hope (in vain) to memorize, thinking that it will quickly lead them to glory. Also, far too many are averse to even minimal endgame study. I would add to your list, the recommendation of some work on K&P vs K endings. Knowing how to win those (if possible) with the pawn, or draw (when possible) with the lone king can have a dramatic effect on one's overall success. I have salvaged many a game because my opponent either did not know how to gain or press their advantage, or counter my efforts when I had the advantage. Similarly, and somewhat related, I would add some work to understand the principle of opposition. This sort of knowledge can aid one's ability to assess the middlegame possibilities, and further speed one's learning of the game as a whole.

I think "don't study openings" is a decent guideline, but level-appropriate opening study. I've gone from about 1100ish to 1700 ICC in the last nine months, which still leaves me a rank novice but I think that's the kind of improvement most beginners are looking for.

At first, I didn't study openings other than looking at what would have been considered the "book" move in each game and where I diverged from it. I built a decent enough opening tree that way, learned most of the common traps and such, took some beatings against e4 but learned, etc. (Incidentally, I started with d4 at random and then switched to e4. I strongly prefer the latter, but I think it's nice that I'm at least somewhat familiar with both).

Anyway, the point I'm rambling toward is that a little level-appropriate opening study will go a long way.

Just learned how the pieces move? Learn the first few moves of any very common opening (Ruy Lopez, Italian Game, Queen's Gambit) and you'll start to get the idea that developing pieces is key.

Getting a little better but still blow up in the openings sometimes? Time to learn how to deal with the most common traps in your openings (I swear every 1100-1300ish ICC player I find could gain 100 points just by learning to deal with Ng5 correctly in the Two Knights' Defense).

At my current level, some light opening study is making a huge difference. A 15-minute video picking up the Evans Gambit freed me from the boringness of the Giuocco Piano and helped me learn to (try) to play with initiative. A 10-minute video on the classical Sicilian dramatically improved my results in games against that opening and let me incorporate it myself. First, knowing the basic setup for white gave me a better position, from which more tactics can flow. Second, knowing the common middlegame plan for white and black is a lot more comfortable than just trying to figure them out blindly, and gives me a template for how a good middlegame plan can be constructed.

Bouncing around from opening to opening is a good way to waste study time, but "Don't worry about studying openings" is maybe a step too far in the dogma.

I agree completely!

Sorry bout one of my rude comments earlier @ ecci something sorry i forgot it i was ticked at someone sorry

@jetfighter. Not to worry mate. I figured that I may have struck you on  a bad liver day.:P.

 To whover took my comment : "Play an opening until you get bored with it, then try another." As advocating regularly chopping and changing between openings on  a regular basis. The only mistake there was, that I was assuming everyone thinks like I do. The scenario I had in mind was around  a year or so.

Im totum veritas......Eccekio 

@jetfighter. Do you also dispute the fact, that if your opening is so weak that you are so disatvantaged, that the game is virtually lost after the opening, subsequently you have no chance at all. That the opening then is not a very crucial part of the game.

Hope you can read that sentence in one breath......Eccekio

Outside of dropping material to traps, there are very few scenarios where playing the opening poorly will leave you with no chance at all at the class level.

1.e4 openings immediately seek to dominate the center.  London system, Colle system do not put immediate pawn pressure on the center but instead they employ a gradual buildup with the idea of later going e3-e4 eventually.  1.e4 openings as a rule accomplish the breaks d2-d4 or f2-f4 much earlier and thus fight more ambitiously for domination in the center.  "System" openings employ a very longwinded approach to fighting for the center.   It never occurred to Morphy to modestly place his pawns on c3, d4, and e3.  Based on pure middlegame concepts, the "system" pawn setups really are much much less intuitive in my opinion.  This is why "system" openings were not developed or practiced until the 1910s or 1920s (London/Colle) and 1940s (Kings Indian Attack).  1.e4 is much more straightforward and this is why it was played exclusively by the old masters from the early 1800s onward.  This is also why i (and many others) suggest that improving players should get some early experience opening with 1.e4 as white.

But ultimately chess is just a board game or hobby that we all just play for fun, so folks should simply play what they prefer to play.

katar (2059 USCF)

I don't want to enter the debate London sucks/Londoon rocks, but Katar post is the best until now. In my opinion playing the london with some bite at club level requires much more study, opening preparation and chess understanding than playing mainline stuff. The idea "play the london to avoid studying teory and win thanks to superior understanding" is totally flawed under master level.

That said, if you like the London just play it and don't care about detractors.