Are you talking about the Poisoned Pawn variation in the French Defense or the Sicilian Defense? They're quite diffferent.

He is talking about the Poisoned Pawn variation in the London System

X player @

Listen to me X man!! People don't become Grandmasters at 13teen by study lines on google or watching Dereque Kelly opening bullshit! They become Grandmasters by using a specific method of training and learning that starts from the first moment they realize their talent. Everything is based on methodology.

Tell me X man when your teacher taught you how to counter numbers he show you how to solve equations?

Sometimes I wonder if you even read what you say Bg5.

Do you even process what you are saying before you post it online?

They become Grandmasters by using a specific method of training and learning.

Ok Bg5 what are they training and learning in there specific method?

Oh Wait a min that is right they are learning the opening, middle game, and the endgame.

The 3 different phases of the game. Which include and are not limited to pawn structures, themes, idea's, tactics, and/or mating pattern etc list goes on and on.

So when you go online and look at a Dereque Kelly video on an opening. Guess what that is helping you do? It is helping you improve your opening phase.

You could get the same help from an opening chess book, chess coach, and/or articles. All of which are different formats of learning to try and improve the same area the opening phase.

Same thing can be said for the other phases. Middle game and End games.

There are videos of them as well online.

You can always buy chess books or get a coach.

I love how you believe their method is so vastly different than everyone esle.

I would wager those super GM training methods involve things about chess in them.

I think this thread is getting off topic and it just become a dual between two posters, while both have some good points, neither is even near 2000 level, and is arguing about how to get there. Just following the entirety of their advice can be detrimental to chess players. It's probably better for OP to seek out strong grandmasters and proven trainers (e.g. a known coach or a player with FIDE senior trainer title) and follow their advice instead. They are more qualified than me or anyone in this thread.

All I can say, is I emphasis on tactical training among other things such as openings or positional understanding. 

OP's question is about what opening he should play as a beginner, not how to get 2000. My advice is to play open games to build at a tactical and dynamic eye. But it is better for him to find a coach/reputed trainer and ask for advice there.

If this thread gets too off topic, maybe it's time for a mod to step in.

Of course it is different. First of all they don't learn chess as three different stages as you mentioned. For them every opening move its a approach to the Middlegame and ending. Akiba Rubinstein have become experts in rook endings because his opening Queens Gambit had a character to lead in simplifications were minor pieces were usually exchanged early on. GM's like Vacher-Lagrave who have expertise their technique ending knows that when deviates from the Gruenfeld opening theory where the middle game it's gonna lead and they don't freak as the average chess player because they have trained to anticipate chess out of dogmatic rules .

So when you go online and look a Dereque Kelly video , you watching a NM fooling around with innocent people like you who are not ready to understand that chess is not only dogmatic opening guides of a variation called, for example Nimzo Indian defense. He will tell what is the main idea of the Nimzo, he will give you three alternatives sub variations after move three and you will be happy thinking, oh right! I learned the Nimzo. So when you go to play the opening OTB and your opponent plays an unknown fifth move, you call the arbiter! Excuse me Sir but this move is illegal, Dereque Kelly never covered in his video. Oh! Really? Your opponent will forfeit the game for uneceptable behavior and Kelly will lose his title. It's Fair enough?

No it isn't. Because you still lost years from your life thinking that you learned chess with the right method, while what you was learned was how to play on track and those years don't come back.

YOU LOST IT X MAN. You lost one year from your life believing that you learn chess with the right method. YOU LIVE IN A LIE. Please! I give 12$ to anyone who will tell him the truth!

I gave my advice, so up to people whether or not to listen to them. If they still want to use this thread as some battelground, so be it. Tracking turned off. I'm done here. Bye.

Thank you :) That is all I ask. I'm very grammar picky.

The thread started with an insult? I didn't notice...

X...Im not trying to understand your words.  You emphasize openings, I dont.  Im not here to try and change your POV.  If emphasis on openings works for you, then carry on.  I just dont agree on there importance for anyone below 2200.  

Enjoy the rest of this post guys, i have no need ot follow this any longer.  

Take Care Everyone.

This is really the best advise.  NM Dan Heisman said he really didn't start doing any serious opening study until his USCF rating was around 1700-1800 or something like that.  Most of the time (especially for lower rated players like me)  we are out of the book in 10 moves or less. 

Try to understand the ideas and plans of whatever opening you end up choosing, but don't waste too much time trying to memorize a ton of lines.  Memorize enough to get things rolling in the right direction and then analyze your game afterwards to see what you can do different next time.

Someone mentioned gambits.  These are great for getting some sharp games to help improve your tactical vision.  The main thing is pick something fun for you and not because it happens to be the flavor of the month by GM's.

If you are so picky then why do you start sentences with "but?" I'm just saying :)

devon:

It's fine to do a little bit of opening study, as long as you make time for tactics and playing and reviewing games, etc...check this out:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/study-plan-for-beginners-the-opening2

http://www.chess.com/article/view/openings-for-beginners

Because i can, C_M. There's nothing wrong with that.

What a huge assumption that is incorrect.

I will show the flaw in your agrument with an example below:

You are unrated on this site.

Does that mean your CM title is not real?

Do you see the error in the above question. This is the same assumption which you have made upon me?

You are looking at an online ranking on one chess site. Which by your own accord if we was to apply that same logic. You would not be considered a CM because you are a provisional player on here.

This logic does not fly and you very well know this. I am shocked you would say such an assumption toward me. I never said anything to you.

I have already stated that the main 2 lines recommended to beginners are:

The Italian Game and the London System.

One line is a 1.e4 opening.

The other line is a 1.d4 opening.

Some students prefer to play 1.d4 and don't like 1.e4 so coaches have come to find the London System or Colle very simpy for them to play.

They often go with the London System simply because it teaches to get the bishop outside of the pawn chain and directly fights for the center a little more.

This is a place of discussion we can give out discussion on openings here.

I don't like Bg5 and I have him blocked.

However, He and I are not off topic.

We are debating chess principles vs opening lines.

An since this is an Opening forum titled

opening

We are well with in our rights to do so. Thank you very much further more I am over 2000 on another chess website I play.

My agruement was simply showing how if a person follows a line instead of blindly using chess principles they would be able to improve better.

They will have long term benefits which will help their game in the long run.

The reason why is simply because of information.

If you find yourself following chess principles and ending up in rare/strange position. It will be hard for you to get information on how to continue in such a position.

Which will effect your growth over all. The reason this effects growth over all is because the chances of you reaching that same position every game is not that likely.

It is like going down a high way vs a side back road.

People are able to help you and find you easier on a high way vs a side back road.

This is simple logic!

You do not have to memorize an opening 30 moves.

All you have to do is try to attempt to play an opening line so that if you get lost during the game other people can find you and help you figure out what you did wrong.

If you play some weird variation never seen before many people might not even know what to suggest. An there suggestions might not prove to be useful simply because you may never see that position again.

You do not want to get advice on positions you will never see again.It is better to get advice on positions you will eventually see again.

All I want to know is do you guys understand what I am saying?

For some reason I feel as if you guys are not understanding what I am meaning. Which is making me try and rewrite the same thing in different formats to help you understand.

I just want to know if you understand what I am saying and are chosing to do another option.

vs

Not understanding what I am saying and making an assumption of what I have said.

The reason I am thinking this is because you guys keep harping on people memorizing 30 moves etc.

I still do not see the correlation on how playing an opening gets summed up to people memorzing 30 moves?

I am talking about beginners here.

Furthermore, I can use the example of the Italian Game.

The Italian Game happens after 3 moves.

1.e4  e5  2.Nf3 Nc6  3.Bc4

How does memorizing 30 moves have to do with playing a position in the Italian Game from move 3?

Are you guys trying to make the assumption a person should memorize 30 moves of the Italian Game?

If you was to teach a beginner the first 3 moves of the Italian Game and have them go from there on there own.

I do not see how that could be any different than following chess principles. Furthermore, I think it would be an improvement. Since at least they will more than likely get in a simlar position next time?

The champ' can play anything. It's your job!

Actually the CM is very justified in his scepticism of your credibility. You have played a decent amount of games and consistently below 2000 by alot in every rating catergory. I would be sceptical too.

His title is officially verified by chess.com and he doesn't have to play any games on the site to prove his title. Alot of titled players on this are unrated and doesn't play games here. Like GM Gserper or IM Silman, but doesn't mean they are not titled because they don't play their games here? He never claimed he was qualified to give the best advice or even people should definitely listen to him. He suggested for OP to ask trainers and GMs. This is a seperate thing to what you are claiming and it's not comparable.

You are the one claiming to be at 2000 level and giving the "best" advice to people to get to your level. The burden of proofs lies on you to prove your ability by putting up your OTB profile or your profile on the other chess sites. Anyone can claim to be anything these days and give out any advice even if it's not good. You have to understand why people like Bg5 doesn't agree with you (If a 2500 or a reputed trainer argued with him, he probably be more open minded to their opinions).