Don't worry too much about specific openings at this stage of your chess learning. Looking at a couple of your games, first priority is to practice and practice your "sight of the board" (seeing what I can take or threaten, seeing what my opponent is threatening and how to stop it working). No matter how good someone is at chess, it's ability to think on their feet that matters most. The great Magnus Carlsen often seems to get dodgy positions out of the opening and to have known less about the lines than his opponent...but he still goes on to win mostly. For the moment, stick to the key opening principles (get all your pieces developed, try not to move the same one twice without a very good reason, move 2 Pawns to get the Bishops developed but beware of making lots of Pawn moves before your pieces are developed, and so on). The puzzles on this site are a very good tool for developing one's "sight of the board".
Question from beginner to all experts
When you first start playing chess, you need to have at least 3 openings.
You need 1 White Opening.
You need 2 Black Openings.
—————————
You need to figure out what move do you like to play with White pieces?
The default Classical moves are 1.e4 or 1.d4.
So if you don’t have a move that you like to play, you can start off with 1 of those moves.
————————-
Then you need to have a move against 1.e4
So as Black you need to figure out a move against white Classical moves.
You basically need 1 Black line to play against 1.e4 and 1 Black line to play against 1.d4.
So you start off with 3 opening.
Than you can expand afterwards.
When you first start playing chess, you need to have at least 3 openings.
You need 1 White Opening.
You need 2 Black Openings.
Absolutely not.
When you start playing chess, you don't need any openings at all. Trying to learn an opening is a pure waste of time for a complete beginner.
For reference, the OP plays games like this:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132597594909?username=jaystarlight
What the OP needs to learn is some of the very basics, like what "checkmate" is or the value of the pieces. The most valuable thing to learn would be "don't play random moves".
Talking about openings is just absurd.
When you first start playing chess, you need to have at least 3 openings.
You need 1 White Opening.
You need 2 Black Openings.
Absolutely not.
When you start playing chess, you don't need any openings at all. Trying to learn an opening is a pure waste of time for a complete beginner.
For reference, the OP plays games like this:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132597594909?username=jaystarlight
What the OP needs to learn is some of the very basics, like what "checkmate" is or the value of the pieces. The most valuable thing to learn would be "don't play random moves".
Talking about openings is just absurd.
When you make your first move in chess, It has an opening name.
It is an opening.
Telling the OP not to have any openings at all is like telling the OP not to play chess.
Its kind of absurd to think a player can’t have an opening.
When you first start playing chess, you need to have at least 3 openings.
You need 1 White Opening.
You need 2 Black Openings.
Absolutely not.
When you start playing chess, you don't need any openings at all. Trying to learn an opening is a pure waste of time for a complete beginner.
For reference, the OP plays games like this:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132597594909?username=jaystarlight
What the OP needs to learn is some of the very basics, like what "checkmate" is or the value of the pieces. The most valuable thing to learn would be "don't play random moves".
Talking about openings is just absurd.
When you make your first move in chess, It has an opening name.
It is an opening.
Telling the OP not to have any openings at all is like telling the OP not to play chess.
Its kind of absurd to think a player can’t have an opening.
You are trolling again.
Any opening is fine. It doesn't matter one bit. There are a hundred more important things for a beginner than trying to memorize opening moves (which would almost certainly end in a disaster anyway).
Look at that game that I linked and please tell us how the opening choice affected the game's outcome.
When you first start playing chess, you need to have at least 3 openings.
You need 1 White Opening.
You need 2 Black Openings.
Absolutely not.
When you start playing chess, you don't need any openings at all. Trying to learn an opening is a pure waste of time for a complete beginner.
For reference, the OP plays games like this:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132597594909?username=jaystarlight
What the OP needs to learn is some of the very basics, like what "checkmate" is or the value of the pieces. The most valuable thing to learn would be "don't play random moves".
Talking about openings is just absurd.
When you make your first move in chess, It has an opening name.
It is an opening.
Telling the OP not to have any openings at all is like telling the OP not to play chess.
Its kind of absurd to think a player can’t have an opening.
You are trolling again.
Any opening is fine. It doesn't matter one bit. There are a hundred more important things for a beginner than trying to memorize opening moves (which would almost certainly end in a disaster anyway).
Look at that game that I linked and please tell us how the opening choice affected the game's outcome.
I never told the OP to memorize openings?
You are literally making stuff up.
I told the OP to start thinking about 3 openings.
You don’t need to memorize anything in order to do the above.
My opening repertoire is very simple:
1. d4 as white
1. e4 c6 as black
But I have to learn all openings after 1. d4 because I cant control the moves of black.
You cannot just learn one opening. Every second halfmove is done by your opponent.
---
That said, up to about rating 1000 openings dont matter too much. Just follow general opening principes:
- Develop your minor officiers (knights and bishops) as soon as possible. All that bishops need is an open lane. Knights are more local in their effectiveness, ideally they want to go to c3 and f3 (c6 and f6 if you play black), or even better more centralized or even within enemy territory. After which they would be a true thorn in the back of the enemy.
- Fight for the center, i.e. have pawns there and officers that have control
- Get your king into safety, usually through castling
My Friend Kinda Spongey just sent me an impeccable message which deserves to be shared.
———————————————
My Friend Kinda Spongey has said the following:
Magipi went back to February 6 in order to choose the 1 g4 game, https://www.chess.com/game/live/132597594909
It seems to me that Jaystarlight could reasonably be advised to start with 1 e4 instead of 1 c4.
https://www.chess.com/game/computer/235331027
It seems to me that Jaystarlight could reasonably be advised to reply to 1 d4 with 1...d5.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132681579867
It seems to me that Jaystarlight could reasonably be advised to reply to 1 e4 with 1...e5.
https://www.chess.com/game/computer/235003021
It seems to me that Jaystarlight could reasonably be advised to react to 1 e4 e5 with 2 Nf3.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132684013471
———————————
My Friend Kinda Spongey finished off with a remarkable Quote that I have always enjoyed by NM Dan Heisman
"... I am not a big fan of weaker players memorizing lots of opening lines they will never play. However, it is quite a different issue to spend a small amount of time learning how to play your openings a little better each time they occur. A long journey begins with a single step. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
———————————
My Friend Kinda Spongey is recommending the OG Opening Lines! You can’t go wrong with such impeccable advice.
Millions of chess players have played the Classical Opening lines in chess!
The Question from my point of view is what does the OP want to do?
My personal philosophy is to play the move which calls out to you. Is there a move which calls out to the OP?
If you have a desire to play a move, Then we can try to build off that desire!
If you have a foundation, We can Build Castles on it!
If you have nothing, Then you can play a Classical line till something comes to you!
Right?
Anyway - I want to share.
@Jaystarlight FYI, I know that friend of @Compadre_J too, and if he says it I bow to it. I was once a somewhat better player than I am now, but when I have been confused about something in chess and in danger of going astray over my past year's engagement on this site he's put me straight with his gently-kind well-referenced wisdom.
As you can doubtless tell from how this thread has gone, the question of how much opening work to do can be a surprisingly emotive one. People of my grade and above can sometimes end up over-sensitized to a specific problem phenomenon; that of players in their early stages of chess growth looking for (or banging on about having thought they've found) a Magic Bullet opening; because that is chimaera and no such opening exists, and because those of us of advancing years have seen too many promising chess minds fritter their time and potential away in the futile search. Which is always saddening for anyone with a reasonable portion of human empathy.
My own post at #3 was in part the product of such past experiences, #4 was a welcome counterbalance.
To my mind, if there is any danger in learning openings it lies in sailing too close to Scylla (letting study of openings leave you not enough time in which to work on your middlegame and endgame skills) or to Charybdis (rote learning without seeking to understand why those moves are played). Steer your craft wisely and you'll not founder.
When you first start playing chess, you need to have at least 3 openings.
You need 1 White Opening.
You need 2 Black Openings.
Absolutely not.
When you start playing chess, you don't need any openings at all. Trying to learn an opening is a pure waste of time for a complete beginner.
For reference, the OP plays games like this:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/132597594909?username=jaystarlight
What the OP needs to learn is some of the very basics, like what "checkmate" is or the value of the pieces. The most valuable thing to learn would be "don't play random moves".
Talking about openings is just absurd.
When you make your first move in chess, It has an opening name.
It is an opening.
Telling the OP not to have any openings at all is like telling the OP not to play chess.
Its kind of absurd to think a player can’t have an opening.
While the moves he or she makes might be some "named opening", there is no use in learning specific openings when below 1600. You need to understand OPENING CONCEPTS! Control the Center. Don't move the same piece twice unless attacked by a piece of lesser value (like the Bishop in the Ruy Lopez if Black plays 3...a6 - but he does not need to know that this is specifically called the "Ruy Lopez", just mentioned the name for your reference.). Don't move the queen early.
And you need to know a lot more than 1 opening with White. Same with Black.
I play 1.d4. With the lines I play, I have to know the Levitsky Attack (1...d5), the Trompowsky Attack (1...Nf6), the Bg5 Anti-Dutch (1...f5), the French (1...e6 2.e4), The Modern (1...g6 2.e4), the Exchange Slav (1...c6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5), the Saemisch Kings Indian (1...d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 g6 4.c4), the Saemisch lines of the Old Indian (1...d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 e5 4.d5 followed by 5.c4), Owen's Defense (1...b6 2.e4!), etc.
As Black, I have to know the Petroff (1.e4), French (1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 or 1.d4 e6 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.e4 d5 or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5), Dutch (1.d4 e6 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 or 2.g3, 2...f5), Dutch Sidelines, like 2.Bf4 d5, 1.c4 f5, 1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 f5, etc.
So it's not as simple as one for White and two for Black.
A beginners should not worry about learning a specific opening. Focus on general principles: develop quickly, control the center, castle quickly, bring your rooks to the central files.
if you follow these principles, you should be able to reach a playable position regardless of what your opponent does.
Later, as you gain more experience, you can pick up various openings.
How can you learn opening concepts without learning an opening?
EASY!
In 1995, I did not know what an opening was. I played against a few other players that were at the time rated about 1500 when I was in college.
I studied 3 books in the Fall 1995 Semister:
1) Winning Chess Tactics (Seitiwan)
2) Winning Chess Strategies (Seiriwan)
3) How to Win in the Chess Endings (Horowitz)
I did not need a book on how the pieces moved, I first learned the rules of the game in 1983.
I had no idea what an opening was. I learned to attack the center.
One of the players always played e4. Another always played 1.d4. Against the e4 player, I tried different OPENING CONCEPTS. 1...e5. 1...d6 and 2...e5. 1...d5. 1...e6 and 2...d5. 1...c6 and 2...d5. Etc.
With 1...e5, my f7 pawn always felt week. With 1...d6 2.d4 e5, I didn't like the loss of castling. With 1...d5, my queen was being kicked around like a soccer ball and it violated the don't move queens early. 1...c6, to make it so if White takes after 2...d5, I don't have to take back with the Queen, it felt like the knight and bishop were tripping over each other on d7. But with 1...e6 and 2...d5, yes the Bishop was blocked by the pawns, but not by the other pieces. I felt that was OK. I got to use the Bishop later.
This IDEA made sense, not even knowing what an opening was.
After a few more games with it and while working on that third book on endings, I asked the question: "This position just MAKES SENSE compared to the others. Does this opening have a name?" I was told it was the French Defense. The 4th chess book I purchased was "Winning With The French" by Wolfgang Uhlmann. I had nothing played my first tournament yet. That was June 1996. 5 rounds, I played in the Under 1400, 2 wins, 2 draws, and a loss to the top seed then (user KassySC on here) for an 1177 provisional rating, but by 1998, I was over 1750.
I became a successful French player for 29 years not by studying openings as a beginner. I studied tactics, strategy, and endings, played based on opening concepts, and the French came to me, I didn't come to it.
I still play the French via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 as I play the Deferred Dutch, but since the Exchange French is my best and there are many similarities between the Petroff and Exchange French, and some of the anti-French lines are annoying while I have no issues with the Vienna or Kings Gambit, I switched 6 months ago to the Petroff as my primary defense to 1.e4.
You have to let openings come to you. You don't go to them and force the issue.
So no, you don't need to know openings initially. You need to know opening concepts. Who the bleep cares if it has a name? Quit getting tied up with the names. Worry about names when it comes time to study openings. Ask someone if what you are playing has a name. If it does, there is the opening you study, and then work off and expand from that.
The things which will help you learn the best chess are going to be tactics/puzzles (which teach board vision, calculation, and complex positions, as well as how to break a game wide open in the middlegame) endgames (every game ends in one, the better you are at these the better you are at CHESS), and playing slow, learning not to blunder.
Play 15|10 or longer, take your time on each move, then after the game go through each move first without an engine and see if there was anything you missed in the game and then with an engine to double-check. Learn when to trade, when to push, when to defend, when to retreat, when to counter-attack, when to sacrifice, and when to concede. Play games through the center with the Queen’s Gambit Declined, the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, the Slav, and its e4 counterparts, the Ruy Lopez, the Italian, and the Scotch. Don’t focus on the openings, just play the first 2-3 moves of those and then freestyle from there. Just have fun with things experimenting.
How can you learn opening concepts without learning an opening?
EASY!
In 1995, I did not know what an opening was. I played against a few other players that were at the time rated about 1500 when I was in college.
I studied 3 books in the Fall 1995 Semister:
1) Winning Chess Tactics (Seitiwan)
2) Winning Chess Strategies (Seiriwan)
3) How to Win in the Chess Endings (Horowitz)
I did not need a book on how the pieces moved, I first learned the rules of the game in 1983.
I had no idea what an opening was. I learned to attack the center.
One of the players always played e4. Another always played 1.d4. Against the e4 player, I tried different OPENING CONCEPTS. 1...e5. 1...d6 and 2...e5. 1...d5. 1...e6 and 2...d5. 1...c6 and 2...d5. Etc.
With 1...e5, my f7 pawn always felt week. With 1...d6 2.d4 e5, I didn't like the loss of castling. With 1...d5, my queen was being kicked around like a soccer ball and it violated the don't move queens early. 1...c6, to make it so if White takes after 2...d5, I don't have to take back with the Queen, it felt like the knight and bishop were tripping over each other on d7. But with 1...e6 and 2...d5, yes the Bishop was blocked by the pawns, but not by the other pieces. I felt that was OK. I got to use the Bishop later.
This IDEA made sense, not even knowing what an opening was.
After a few more games with it and while working on that third book on endings, I asked the question: "This position just MAKES SENSE compared to the others. Does this opening have a name?" I was told it was the French Defense. The 4th chess book I purchased was "Winning With The French" by Wolfgang Uhlmann. I had nothing played my first tournament yet. That was June 1996. 5 rounds, I played in the Under 1400, 2 wins, 2 draws, and a loss to the top seed then (user KassySC on here) for an 1177 provisional rating, but by 1998, I was over 1750.
I became a successful French player for 29 years not by studying openings as a beginner. I studied tactics, strategy, and endings, played based on opening concepts, and the French came to me, I didn't come to it.
I still play the French via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 as I play the Deferred Dutch, but since the Exchange French is my best and there are many similarities between the Petroff and Exchange French, and some of the anti-French lines are annoying while I have no issues with the Vienna or Kings Gambit, I switched 6 months ago to the Petroff as my primary defense to 1.e4.
You have to let openings come to you. You don't go to them and force the issue.
So no, you don't need to know openings initially. You need to know opening concepts. Who the bleep cares if it has a name? Quit getting tied up with the names. Worry about names when it comes time to study openings. Ask someone if what you are playing has a name. If it does, there is the opening you study, and then work off and expand from that.
The books you mentioned aren't about opening principles... one of them is about the endgame.
You grappled with ideas without knowing the opening - sure... but I see no reason to assume that learning an opening actively hinders learning the ideas. So I'm just left wondering why do this to yourself?
You learned the game a very long time ago, where that approach made alot more sense. Nowdays with all the available information online... I don't think this approach to the game is an efficient one anymore. If you want opening ideas.... watch Danya's speedrun, you will get very good exposure to opening ideas within a short amount of time. Then go watch a hanging pawns 30 minute video on an opening you find interesting, and play it. You'll hear about the ideas during the video... and you'll get a feel for them as you play. That's about how much time / effort we're actually talking about here. Keep experimenting and you'll know your way around the opening, and have a good broad understanding of different ideas and how different positions feel.
You are clueless, kid.
Nowhere did I ever say any of the three books were on openings. Two were middlegame and one was endgame.
I was simply informed of 3 very basic opening concepts from a player at the time higher than me. You clueless kids have no concept of human interaction. The internet has Poisoned you. Not all knowledge comes from books or artificial intelligence.
Those 3 concepts were:
1) Fight for the center. Hence why EVERY experiment I tried involved ...e5 or ...d5 no later than move 2.
2) Do not move the same piece twice in the opening.
3) Do not move the Queen early.
No opening video will tell you these basics. They will go into detail specific to that opening, and leave you scratching your head saying "Why that pawn?" The games I have played in the past, it was the other pawn. Well, if you are playing a pirc, you attack the e-pawn. If you are playing a French, you attack the d-pawn. If you simply apply opening concepts, you are attacking the center and applying the concept to look for yourself which pawn is objectively weaker.
Watching a video, even on concepts, is soft studying. A board and pieces, where you must do it yourself, repeat many moves many times in a game because of sideline analysis, forces it to be ingrained in your mind. With a computer, you just click back on move 12, and don't re-enforce the ideas.
I guarantee you Magnus did far more hard work than watching a bunch of lame videos. Videos are meant to supplement what you have already learned, not to teach things for the first time. That would be like me spending 30 minutes with someone who never skated before, and then think they have mastered the triple toe-loop.
And by the way, we had engines in 1995. Fritz 5 was out then. Yes, we are now at what? Fritz 19? But Fritz dates back to the 1990s.
Something I have wondered is if you aren't studying specific openings where do you find inspiration? I have always been a player who studies specific openings. One of the first ones I studied and played was the Kings gambit. Studying and playing the Kings gambit lead to looking at the games of great players such as Paul Morphy, Adolf Anderson and David Bronstein, I have had similar experiences studying other openings. Getting to know the theory always leads to studying the great players who played the opening I studied and I am get inspired by the games of the great players. I guess one can enjoy the games of the great players without studying the theory but maybe then the process is reversed.....you see a brilliant game and then you want to know more about the opening where this wonderful game was played, so you go study some theory. But what about if neither of these things happens....you don't look at theory and you don't look at the games of the great players? Where does the inspiration come from then?
I agree with Crazed Rat!
———————————
However, It is worth mentioning Chess was different in the past!
Being alive + Playing Chess in a similar Era to Thrillerfan does change things.
We have to remember their was no internet!
No Youtube - No Reddit - No Nothing
When the internet did come to the general public, it was in its infancy.
A lot of conversations was done in messengers.
———————————
So when a person wanted to learn how to play chess.
They had to buy Chess Books or Chess Coach!
———————————
Now, here is the tricky part, Most Chess Opening Books where Mammoth Books!
We are talking about a Massive Chess Book with hundreds of openings.
None of these “Chess Opening Books” actually helped a person.
You would look up how to play Sicilian Dragon.
It would show you the moves to get to starting position.
Then the book would move on to next opening.
You would be left completely confused not knowing what to do next.
It wasn’t really helpful.
——————————
So for the above reasons, Chess Players would buy Middle Game Chess Books.
The Middle Game Chess Books would show you an opening.
It would skim thru the opening.
Then you would reach a position the Author of the booked wanted to reach.
Then he would start talking about what Middle Games ideas you could do in the position.
This is how players actually learned how to play the line.
This is more or less how people use to skip thru the opening so to speak.
“Follow Chess Principles.”
”Don’t move same piece twice.”
These phrases are the types of crap those Middle Game Book Authors tried to Force Feed their Audience so they could skip the opening to reach the position they actually wanted to talk about in their book.
I didn’t like it back than!
AND I don’t like it now!
We just didn’t have any options!
———————————
When you asked people about their Chess Book collection
- It was 1 Massive Opening Book
- Several Middle Game Books
- Several Chess Puzzle Books
- A Few Endgame Books
The Middle Game Books & Chess Puzzle Books where definitely the big sellers.
The Paper Back Chess Puzzle Books were the best.
- Cheap
- Ink Durable - You could write on the Puzzles with out fear of Pen ink bleeding thru to back Puzzles.
- Disposable
————————————
As time past, Chess began to change as more information started to be shared thru internet!
The internet has increased Chess Books awareness for example.
You would buy Chess Books in past not knowing if the Book was good or trash.
The internet has helped people ask questions to weed out Chess Books for example.
I feel like their are a lot of Chess Books which flew under the radar in the past.
——————————
Also, I think Chess Opening Books have got way better!
A lot of Chess Opening Books give more insight.
You can learn how to play a certain line a lot better vs. in the past.
—————————
Not to mention all the new Chess Platforms we have available now!
- Chessable
- Chess Lecture Videos
- Chess Group Studies
So many options now - It really goes to show how advanced the world has become.
I think it’s possible for a player to learn their openings.
Than transition right into their middle games.
Than transition right into their end game with out skipping a beat.
——————————————
If a person was to sit their an explain to the OP starting at move 1 to move 30 all the reasons and logic behind each move, your telling me the OP wouldn’t become better chess player?
Of course, the OP would get better.
Kind of curious....what middlegame book tells you not to move the same piece twice? I don't remember seeing that advice in the middlegame books I have read: How to calculate and win by Andrew Soltis The middle game volume one by Ewe and Kramer, The middle game volume two by Euwe and Kramer, The art of attack by Vukovic, Pawn structure chess by Andrew Soltis,, Pawn Power Chess by Kmoch,,How to defend in chess by Colin Couch, the art of defense by Andrew Soltis and bits and pieces of other books such as Judgement and planning in chess by Euwe and the art of the middle game by Keres and Kotov.
I would disagree about the only books being available being big books that are sort of encyclopedias of openings unless you are talking about pre 1970ish. i started studying and playing chess in the late 90s. The books I bought were on specific openings and already 20+years old when I bought them. One of the first books I bought was on a specific opening. The french defense: main line winawer by John Moles(1975). Another book I was studying in my early days was Kings Gambit by Korchnoi and Zak(1974). I also had a copy of MCO which is probably what you are talking about with the big book of openings. I actually found it somewhat useful. It isn't everything one needs but in those days it was good to get a feel for the opening to see which openings you might want to investigate further.
You are clueless, kid.
As usual your post is mostly opinion-based bloviating where you justify universal claims via personal anecdotes, in this case outdated ones.
Nowhere did I ever say any of the three books were on openings. Two were middlegame and one was endgame.
Hence they don't support your claim.
I was simply informed of 3 very basic opening concepts from a player at the time higher than me. You clueless kids have no concept of human interaction. The internet has Poisoned you. Not all knowledge comes from books or artificial intelligence.
Those 3 concepts were:
1) Fight for the center. Hence why EVERY experiment I tried involved ...e5 or ...d5 no later than move 2.
2) Do not move the same piece twice in the opening.
3) Do not move the Queen early.
No opening video will tell you these basics.
Actually, all of that is extremely basic and covered extensively in the Danya speedrun, i.e. the very video series I just cited.
So you got it from someone IRL. Nowdays someone gets it explained much better to them by a GM in an extensive video series dedicated to it... your point is what?
TBH there is even less substance to your argument than I thought there might be.
There are many videos out there which mention these things...
If you can say it via 1 half-baked paragraph why is it inconceivable that someone else could not say the same thing in a video...? Very dumb argument.
They will go into detail specific to that opening, and leave you scratching your head saying "Why that pawn?" The games I have played in the past, it was the other pawn.
That's when your thinking ability is supposed to kick in. You're presenting a false dilemma and not following the conversation: watching a 30 minute opening video does not somehow render a person incapable of thinking. You are actively discouraging people from learning the opening, i.e. arguing it somehow does harm to learn it. You have not demonstrated that.
Well, if you are playing a pirc, you attack the e-pawn. If you are playing a French, you attack the d-pawn. If you simply apply opening concepts, you are attacking the center and applying the concept to look for yourself which pawn is objectively weaker.
Watching a video, even on concepts, is soft studying. A board and pieces, where you must do it yourself, repeat many moves many times in a game because of sideline analysis, forces it to be ingrained in your mind. With a computer, you just click back on move 12, and don't re-enforce the ideas.
Again, it's this false dilemma which suggests watching videos somehow prevents a person from thinking.
You can watch a video series and not think for yourself beyond it, but that is not mandatory and you have not even argued the case. Furthermore, most opening videos do discuss the ideas. Which is going to give you a head start. Otherwise you're essentially arguing a person ought to learn everything themselves... but you didn't do that, and no one does. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, exactly.
You should think for yourself, that much is true.
If advances in learning technology were infact so detrimental why is it generally acknowledged that there's' been a dramatic increase the skill of the average player? Many GMs have acknowledged this, including Magnus and Hikaru. i.e. why do we now see 6 year olds playing at master level?
I guarantee you Magnus did far more hard work than watching a bunch of lame videos. Videos are meant to supplement what you have already learned, not to teach things for the first time. That would be like me spending 30 minutes with someone who never skated before, and then think they have mastered the triple toe-loop.
Again it's this false dilemma, since watching videos does not prevent a person from doing other things, like thinking. The fact people can be stupid does not mean we should assume they are.
And by the way, we had engines in 1995. Fritz 5 was out then. Yes, we are now at what? Fritz 19? But Fritz dates back to the 1990s.
Very weak statement here, keep trying
Your counter-argument is weak. You cherry-pick single sentences and try to counter what that sentence would say as a standalone. You still have not disproven the big picture.
The argument all along has been to NOT start out by studying openings, and to let the openings come to you, like the French did for me. Then when you are more advanced with a better understanding of chess, only then do you start looking yourself for alternatives, like I did with the Petroff in place of the French.
Watching a bunch of lousy videos at an early stage is going to cause you one of 3 problems (note, I said ONE of three, NOT ALL THREE - which one it is varies based on specifics):
1) You watch a bunch of lousy videos created by amateurs that are then advertised on the forums here, and they are full of incorrect information, and so you think you are studying the proper way to approach a certain opening where instead, the line was refuted decades ago by a move he or she does not mention because their skill is too low.
2) You try to study a specific opening by a GM. He is going to assume you are an advanced player that wants to learn a specific opening you hadn't played before. For a 2000 player, 1700-level content is beginner's stuff. A 1200 watches that beginners Video on the Najdorf and he's merely going to get lost.
3) You watch a GM video that talks about the basics of certain openings, like let's say all KP openings. You see one example or two of the Sicilian, Ruy, Caro, French, Petroff, Pirc, Philidor, Alekhine, and Modern. It is just packing your mind with useless stuff to memorize, you remember all these lines, but actually understand none of it. What I mean by that is could you explain in words why a different move is weaker.
If you tell me that you can spew a bunch of moves, like 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4, and I asked you "Why should White not play 5.Ne2 instead of 5.Nf3? What is, in words, the problem with 5.Ne2? If you cannot explain that and just say "I dunno", then you don't understand the French Defense. You just memorized a few lines.
At the lower levels, many don't know reams of lines. They will play an odd move as early as move 3, and you need to understand why it is weaker than the main line.
By playing games without knowing what specific openings exist, you are purely playing what comes naturally via concepts. There is a very good chance that whatever you are playing likely is a well known opening. But it came to you naturally because you weren't shown it in some lousy video. Only then, after you determine what openings you should be playing based on what came to you naturally, only then do you study whatever opening that happened to be and then expand knowledge.
Again, don't go fishing for openings. Let the opening come to you.
I recently started playing chess and noticed that there are many different openings available. I try to stick with one opening, but my opponent—whether it's a friend or a bot—often changes their strategy. Despite my efforts to win, I keep losing. In your opinion, what is the best opening to use to win a chess game?