Question on "Theory Heavy" Openings for Beginners?

Hey all,

  I often see ideas like, "Beginners cannot play X opening (i.e. Najdorf Sicilian) due to being too theory heavy"

Why is this? If a 600 elo wants to play the Najdorf, it's not like their 600 elo opponent is going to know 15 moves of theory.

A common idea that has continued to confuse me a bit, thanks!!

How useful is it to know 15 moves of theory in multiple variations of "theory heavy" openings if you don't understand why the key moves are important to play and how to proceed if your opponent deviates from the main line?

The reason why beginners are encouraged to avoid certain openings are because there are numerous plans to learn (English opening), a lot of memorization is required to survive the opening (Dutch via 1.d4 f5 move order), or it is easy for the opponent to avoid (Benko Gambit).

Starting off, it is better to focus on the basics first (Following opening principles, Tactical skills and basic positional understanding) so that when a player decides to implement those "theory-heavy" openings, they will be in a better position to play it well from the start and their game as a whole won't suffer.

You have it all wrong.

A 600 could beat a 600 playing 1...h5 against 1.e4. 600 players make so many blunders, like every other move, that you can beat a 600 playing any opening.

It is not about winning. It is about learning. Getting better. Certain openings follow PRINCIPLES better than others. The two at the top of the list that everyone should learn first as both Black and White are the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Ruy Lopez.

The complexity of other openings like the Najdorf or Kings Indian Defense are WAY too complex for a 600 player.

Other openings violate opening principles:

Control the Center - Sokolsky, Modern Defense, Owen's Defense, all violate this principle.

Don't move the same pieces over and over. The Two Knights Tango does this. Even when not attacked, the knight often goes b8 to c6 to e7 to g6 early on in the game.

Don't develop your queen early and get castle. The Scandinavian violates this and Black loses time moving his Queen a bunch of times for nothing in return.

The Ruy Lopez and QGD follow opening principles to the letter. You will learn a lot more that way.

Having a 600 play the Najdorf is like having a beginner ice skater do the Triple Axel.

Agree with lostpawn247.

I'd pick something that you can understand... Example, I play the Center-Counter Defense...(i.e. The Scandinavian) it's one of the easier defenses to understand. Yes, it violates an opening principle, and yes, Black loses time... but what I get in return is a practical advantage in the form of familiar positions. I also have studied the Center Counter defense enough to understand the loss in tempo and consider it like any other weakness that every defense has Example: the French with it's hemmed in Bishop... that too is a weakness.  I'm invested in Caro-Kann & QGD pawn structures and know that with the Center-Counter Defense I avoid the Caro-Kann's Advance Var, the Panov-Botvink Attack while getting an improved version of the Classical variation ... at the cost of a tempo...

It's all about understanding the ideas of the opening. The tactics and plans based around the pawn structures etc.

Today on Lichess I beat a person who was 1810 in blitz, playing the Stonewall Attack. Not because it's a great opening to use in blitz (it is of course) but because I have the "Stonewall Attack" as one of my main opening's as White. It's general principles are easy to learn, and because of this.... it's finer points (i.e it's strengths and it's weakness and how to defend Black's attempt exploit them are also easier to master. )

To me... "The Stonewall Attack" is a serious opening. Like the Center Counter Defense ... it's very rich in American Chess history. I blame GM Andrew Solitis for my love of it! ! Dang You, GM Soltis!!! I read his book on the Stonewall Attack and fell in love with the opening and the pre WWI era of Chess. No one here... that will comment after this post will ever be stronger the Pillsbury, Showalter, Mason, Marcozy, Capablanca, Marshall, Colle, The Sultan Kahn or Bryer. They all played the Stonewall Attack at the highest levels till around 1920s Like any opening... once the fields get plowed enough.. it stops producing. Obviously that field has grown over now... discovered in that field is how to deal with Black if they open the C file, when to play Bb2, the strength of the center of Black capture the LSB at d3 and I can take back with cxd3.. and all the kingside tactics against Black. etc...  Black trying to play catch up OTB... often results in a practical advantage.

It's not so much the opening but if you understand it and know the "Why's" 

Sidebar note: If you are invested in a d-pawn variant, IMO the attacking schemes of it are paramount to knowing... they can easy be adopted if you play the London, (& .... its attacking scheme is similar to the Pillsbury Attack in the Queens Gambit! Another must to know!!! .. and One of the attacking foundations of Colle (Both the Zuckertort and the Koltanowski) is the Stonewall Attack...

ThrillerFan, thank you for your response, that makes a lot of sense! If you don't mind a couple of follow up questions;

I have seen the idea The Ruy Lopez is too theory heavy for beginners, what would your response be to that? Are you saying that a beginner does not have to learn the theory due to the opening following opening principles?

Can you explain why Kings Indian Defense (basics of Nf6, g6, Bg7, O-O) is not good for a beginner to play? It seems like it protects your king quickly which is always recommended to beginners.

Would it be a justified long term approach for a beginner to start playing the sharp complex openings right away so by the time they are playing better opponents and can better understand the complexity they already have a lot of experience playing the opening (although not always playing it well)? Why not?

Thanks!

lostpawn247, thank you for your reply! If you don't mind a follow up on this;

To stick with the idea of a 600 elo playing the Najdorf. Would it be worthwhile to learn up through 5...a6, and the basic principles of the Sicilian? Is that only worthwhile if the person just wants to play the Sicilian and not if their main goal is to get better? If someone wants to get better and does not care what opening they play, what would you recommend in response to 1. e4?

Thanks!

I think beginners can play the Najdorf Sicilian. I did. And I am glad that I did.

too many people think that learning an opening means memorizing long sequences of moves. The emphasis should be on understanding the ideas.

In the Najdorf, Black’s development and queenside counterplay will be about the same, regardless of the line White plays. In my view, this actually makes it easier for a beginner to learn.

Will a beginner get crushed by higher rated players who also know the theory? Of course. But the beginner would likely lose to those players in any opening. And by getting crushed, the player will learn.

my advice to beginners: play actively. Do not choose an opening because you are afraid of losing quickly. Focus on the ideas (strong points, weak points, avenues of counterplay) rather than trying to memorize long sequences of moves.

At the level of 600, when I say you should be playing the Ruy Lopez, that does not mean you should be getting bogged down in lines and theory. Thing about it from a principles perspective:

1.e4 - Control central squares (d5 and f5) and gain space

1...e5 - Black grabs his share of the center, controlling d4 and f4.

2.Nf3 - The e-pawn is unprotected, and Black cannot advance it attacking my knight, unlike say, the Alekhine.

2...Nc6 - I cannot move the pawn, and so I protect it.

3.Bb5 - I attack the defender

3...a6 - Not so fast White - If 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5?, the 5...Qd4 forks the knight and pawn and Black gets the pawn back with a better position.

4.Ba4 - My bishop is attacked, so I must move it.

4...Nf6 - I attack the White e-pawn.

5.O-O - I put my king in safety

5...Be7 - I could play 5...Nxe4, but do I really want to open up lines against my King before I am castle.

6.Re1 - Protect the pawn - Now Bxc6 and Nxe5 really is a threat.

6...b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 (To set up d4)

8...O-O 9.h3 (9.d4 is possible here, but then 9...Bg4 is annoying for White.)

Etc etc - all moves can be easily explained with concepts. Now try to explain all the differences in White's various 6th moves in the Najdorf. Explain the reasoning behind 6.Rg1, 6.h3, 6.Be3, 6.Bc4, 6.Be2, 6.Bg5, etc, and all the major differences between them.

As far as the Kings Indian, Black does not immediately fight for the center, and too many sacrifices are necessary. For a super-closed position, that is counter-intuiative.

well part of the problem is exactly what you said, will you even get the positions you studied to play?

things can be different now but when i was an unrated scholastic player playing 600-1000 rated players , i would have been hardpressed to find anyone who would even play 1.d4 2.c4, imagine a player at that level trying to pull of a grunfeld agaisnt someone just following basic opening principles lol. 
sure, you can try to play a a najdorf, but when your opponent plays 2.bc4, or plays e4-e5 to your nf6 only to lose it to qa5 and qxe4, you will quickly find out its mostly a waste of time. At that level chess is so primitive that to trying to play a complex opening is pointless.
play something logical whose basic formation is fairly easy to memorize , your play will make a lot more sense than your opponents, there is plenty of time to get booked up on fancy openings when you get better.

Forgive me if I'm interpreting your question incorrectly. If you can get your hands onto well-annotated games, there is value in playing through and learning from them. You will be able to utilize the concepts that you learn in games that you play in the future.

When it comes to opening suggestions, I do feel that you should have some sense of enjoyment in what you play while you are working to improve as a player. Responding to 1.e4 with 1...e5 is always a good choice and when you get comfortable enough, you can always move onto implementing an alternative defense to 1.e4 (e.g. the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann or whatever interests you the most).

in what universe does a 600 rated player benefit from annotated game? they blunder once every 5 moves lol at that level they violate even the most basic of principles on a regular basis to benefit from anything like that

Instead of being overly dismissive of my comment, please ask clarifying questions that give me a chance to explain my logic next time. I will try to explain myself without being rude or insulting and if I fail, I do apologize.

To start off, when I'm talking about annotated games, I'm thinking of books like "Logical Chess: Move by Move", "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" or any resource that clearly explains games (I do believe that variation-heavy monstrosities only hold good value for advanced players). I believe that these types of books and resources are a fantastic way to teach beginners opening principles rather than giving them a list and having them learn by trial and error.

Even if a beginner isn't experienced enough to understand why certain moves are played, they can at the very least gain an idea of where pieces typically belong and have an idea of what types of positions that they could encounter. The idea is similar to the suggestion of playing through games of GM's who are an expert of an opening a player is trying to learn.

While playing through games won't cut down on the number of blunders made by poor calculation and tactical errors, the exercise does have a chance of helping players avoid bad conceptual ideas.

Okay. Cards on the table. @Darkunorthodox and @ThrillerFan and @mikeweir are all better players than I am or ever was. If in doubt prefer their advice over mine. But I was some good once so here's my four penn'orth.

There is a sense in which "heavy theory" openings are not for the lower-graded. That sense is in part to do with not [yet] having the experience, tactical ability, and strategic vision to really get on with them. Not to mention learning lines twenty-something moves deep which no-one graded under 2100 will ever know or play. But there is also a sense in which one can say, "why not?". They're theory-heavy because the positions are sharp and challenging and at the heart of them some good. To the extent that top players play them. And if you're a 600 grade you'll be paired with other 600 grades as often as not. And they'll be in no shape to exploit your weaknesses.

My own testimony is that I now (aged over 50) regret some of the omissions of my youth. I never learned from the ground up how to play the Sicilian well as Black. I never practiced critical IQP positions. Because I thought I didn't know enough about them to do well. So I dobbed about with the Centre Counter and (Lord help us) the Albin. Did they help me to grow in overall understanding of position types? Not one whit. My grade would likely have been lower for longer if I'd blundered about in the good stuff, but so what? As I recall saying to at least one player I coached, "Grade doesn't really matter as long as you know your understanding is improving".

So. My thought is: go for it if you want to. Don't be like Ralph. Don't shun stuff for an easy life. But if you do play "heavy theory" lines at a low grade for heaven's sake start by learning to understand what strategy you should be following not trying to learn thirty moves of sharp theory by rote.

Okay, @mike_ox6942 I'll bite. What does that have to do with the St George as per Basman which usually goes 1. e4, a6; 2. d4, b5; 3. [usually] Bd3, e6; 4. c3, c5?

@mike_ox6942 I am not certain but think that what you have there is a reversed Swansea River Defence (1. e4, h5 with play like yours for Black is the Swansea River).

PS: these are rather thread-irrelevant. The Swansea River and whateveritis are not "heavy duty theoretical". Anything without at least thirty columns in something like MCO or BCO or NCO or ECO is not by definition heavy-duty theoretical.

I don't see why you can't play the Najdorf as a beginner. As long as you know some main ideas (pressure against e4, pawn storm against 0-0-0, getting ...d5 in) you probably will be fine without knowing any theory beyond move 5. And if someone punishes you for playing a losing move, you will have learnt something new. The only problem I see is when you play complicated openings without having a clue what the opening is all about, and, for example, playing a3 and a6 automatically in all sorts of openings. Therefore, it makes sense to play classical openings first, but if you like the Sicilian go for it.

until you reach at least a 1000, all this advice is almost worthless. You dont understand just how weak a 600 player is. They have no positional understanding whatsover and struggle even to implement the very basics of opening principles , at that level your primary goal is to to not blunder. 
if going over annotated games help at all, its because these players are so fresh just staring at a board long enough is bound to improve your play.

best thing you could do at at that level is literally play 1000 games ,you need to get used to staring at the 64 squares to develop basic intuition, and try to learn something from each game even if its a simple as dont hang that piece.

It's actually a good question. But in addition to what some others have said in this thread about what a 600 players priority should be, I would point out the following:

- The amount of theory needed is not equal for both sides. Since a6 doesn't control the center or put any immediate pressure on white, white is free to play 10+ different viable lines against the Najdorf. Hence black has a much greater burden on learning theory than white, and more than in other sicilian lines. I don't even recommend the Najdorf to anyone below masters.

- Since d6 / a6 are not very developing moves / don't make much attempt to claim the center you lack the ability to punish mistakes in the opening the same way you do in many other sicilians. For example, in the Four Knights sicilian if white plays virtually any line other than Nb5 or Nxc6 black can equalize or almost equalize immediately. The Najdorf isn't like that. So all this "prep" you do doesn't really pay off the same way as it would in an opening that's more fighting.

- the Najdorf is also the most common sicilian, so if white knows any sicilian theory at all you'll probably run into it.

Now, this isn't just an argument directed at 600s, but for anyone who doesn't plan on playing chess OTB in tournaments / isn't aspiring to reach masters. If you're in an online setting... choose an opening where you can punish the opponent hard early on when they screw up.