Openings for Beginners

I’ve heard from a few sources that it is best for beginners to just play developing moves, and not focus on openings. I have tried to play a few different openings but the most common problem I face is that my opponent never plays the next move of “theory” so I am forced to make up moves in a position I don’t know anything about. For example: If I play the Scandinavian as a response to e4, my opponent almost never takes the pawn.

Most videos I see online say something along these lines: Once white plays this move, black will respond with either move a or move b, and anything else is a bad move or losing for your opponent. More likely than not at the beginner level I never see the book moves and usually lose to a move that is considered bad for my opponent but one that I don’t have anything prepared for.

Is there a particular opening that I should focus on as a beginner, or is it best to just respond move by move to what my opponent does? Any advice is appreciated.

Recently I have been trying the London system as white, and the Scandinavian or Kings Indian as black.

You're at the ~700 level. There'll be some players who know a bit of theory, but a lot of the time, people are just making moves and not understanding why. 

I think it's best to focus on an opening you find the most fun in! That way you stay interested in the game. Having said that, it's hard to sometimes play King's Indian Defense as it can be quite a passive opening. If you know an opponent has played a move which isn't good, then it's up to you, through training your tactical vision, to find out why. 

You seem to know about chess principles at least, when you suggested developing moves. If you can't see any tactics, for you or your opponent (when your opponent plays a weird move), then just continue your plan and see how you go! It's only experience that will get you there.

The point of learning an opening is not just memorizing the theory moves but knowing why they are the moves. Then if your opponent dose not play the "right" move you know how to punish it. take your example in the Scandinavian if your opponent dose not take but plays for example e5 (This move is not terrible) you get to play c5 and have a better version of the caro-kann/french. If they play something else you can get ride of the central tension by taking e4 or locking the centre with d4.

 

 

Thanks for the advice. I will look at a few different openings than the ones I have been playing.

@1

"just play developing moves" ++ Yes right.

"not focus on openings" ++ Correct.

"my opponent never plays the next move of theory” ++ Thus theory is worthless for you

"make up moves in a position" ++ That is the essence of chess.

"If I play the Scandinavian as a response to e4, my opponent almost never takes the pawn."
++ Then think.

"Once white plays this move, black will respond with either move a or move b" ++ Do not worry

"anything else is a bad move" ++ Not really

"or losing for your opponent" ++ Usually not

" I never see the book moves" ++ Do not worry about book moves

"lose to a move that is considered bad for my opponent" ++ You never lose or win because of the opening, but because of a tactical mistake

"one that I don’t have anything prepared for"
++ You can at most postpone the moment to think on your own

"Is there a particular opening that I should focus on as a beginner"
++ Defend 1 e4 e5 and 1 d4 d5 as black, open 1 e4 as white.

"is it best to just respond move by move to what my opponent does?" ++ Yes

"Recently I have been trying the London system as white, and the Scandinavian or Kings Indian as black." ++ That is not a bad choice. Stick to that to accumulate experience.

Learning chess opening principles https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/opening-principles-again is more important than memorizing opening theory. @jdwills29 is correct that it is more important to know why the mainline moves are preferred and so if the opponent deviates from what you know, you can reasonably assess if you think their move is playable or not and if it isn't perhaps take steps to exploit it short-term or long-term. @tygxc also has solid advice in their responses

#6
Sometimes I am able to see a move that my opponent makes and realize that it is bad. Unfortunately, I can’t always think of a good way to capitalize on their mistake. I analyze the game after it’s over and I may be right that the opponents move was bad, but I often put myself in a worse position trying to exploit it than just continuing to play normally.

Another concept to practice.

Understandable. Recognizing bad moves is the first step. If you can do this correctly (or at least "sense" if a move might be questionable), then at least you can begin to think if you can do something about it. Actually exploiting opponent errors takes a lot of experience and knowledge. Even the most obvious of opponent errors might take a lot of effort and moves for you to punish (if even possible at all). 

Your attempts to refute their bad play won't always work (yes, your opponent can mess up and you still fail to win...it happens a lot and that is part of a normal learning-curve), but when you can't capitalize on something, then there is always analysis and asking for help from others to improve for next time. Eventually, these things will become easier and easier to take advantage of until it becomes almost instinctual. 

Here are a few common examples of common errors and how we might think to try and exploit it (even though every position is unique)...

- Opponent neglects castling or losses castling rights (especially in the opening)

This can usually be exploited by you castling your King to safety and then developing your pieces (Knights, Bishops, Rooks and Queen) so they are poised to attack in coordination when the time is right. You might also exploit an enemy unsafe King by ripping open lines (files, ranks and diagonals) so your pieces can attacking their King easier. Usually open positions favor the side better developed, but all of this should be done quickly so that the opponent doesn't castle to safety just in time to escape.

- Opponent pushes too many pawns (especially in the opening, but really in any stage of the game)

Many ways this might be exploited, but one main draw-back of them spending moves on pawn moves is that they are indirectly not developing pieces, so that side usually neglects piece development. You can often take advantage of this by developing your own pieces quickly and by opening lines of attack (like in the unsafe King example) because open positions tend to favor the side better developed and all they've done is push pawns so far and barely develop any pieces. 

Pushing pawns might also be exploited by making use of the weak squares pawn moves leave behind, but this is a much more advanced concept with more subtle points and nuances.

- Opponent neglects central control; they either play flank moves like h4 or they develop passively with a space disadvantage like black trying ...d6, ...e6, ...g6 etc.

In these cases, the problem with them not actively fighting for the center is that it allows you to take the center freely. The way to pounce is just to grab the center and the space they let you take. If you can take the center and hold it, then the opponent will be cramped and find it difficult to fight back compared to if they were contesting central control from the beginning. 

* Basically, anything the opponent does that you sense is flawed, you think to yourself why you believe it isn't best and then you try to reason what this allows you to do about it. This sounds simple is concept, but in a real game, it can be challenging to do sometimes. It gets easier with practice and experience, but at least recognizing their flawed ideas gives you a chance of coming up with the refutation whereas ignoring your opponent ideas and just doing your own thing regardless doesn't even give you the opportunity to punish their erros.

Best of luck out there and don't be afraid to use resources like the forums or messaging chess friends if you have any questions about games or positions where you feel like there could have been improvements by you

If you are a beginner, it is best to stay away from gambits. When I was a beginner (And according to my ELO, I still am), I would always try fancy gambits without knowing how to properly use them. I would recommend the Ruy Lopez opening if you like playing aggressively. Exchange variation is my favorite as it weakens the enemy pawn structure and removes the defender of the center pawn

And then you decided to completely ignore this advice for some reason. And now you are complaining on the forums that you don't know what to do. Makes sense.

 

Thanks for the helpful replies.
#8 Thanks for the information.

#11 I haven’t complained, I asked a question to hear as many opinions and ideas as possible. I have received lots of useful advice, some say not to play an opening but focus on developing other skills first, while some have recommended some good openings for a beginner to look into.

As someone who studied openings at the 1000s, I can say that after 5 or 6 moves, theory is useless. People deviate so much that it is a waste of time. It's not bad to read an opening book to understand the ideas but for just theory you will be better off studying middlegame and endgames. In fact, Lichess has a puzzle theme for almost every opening so you can do tactics on the openings you like to play