The first opening to learn

I think tactics without knowing where to strike (strategy) isn't worth much. Also, I think that Knight forks can be rather easily avoided by preventing the opponents Knights from getting to an advanced support point (as Silman talks about). This to me is strategy, and I think a firm understanding of such strategic principles can "make up" for a lack in the tactics department. 

Imagine this (yes, it's hypothetical, but I hope it proves my point): We have a game with player A being a typical 1600 player, player B is a typical 1400 player. Who will win? Most likely the 1600 player. Now, imagine that player B had Karpov's positional understanding injected (as I said, this is hypothetical!). Everything else about his play is unchanged, he didn't get Karpov's tactical abilities. Now, who will win? Although player A (1600) is likely to be a better tactician than player B (1400, with Karpov's positional understanding), I'm rather certain player B will win. If this is true, then the "common wisdom" (based on anecdotes, and not empirically verified) is mistaken. 

Any thoughts?

Thanks. I appreciate this exchange of words, I really do. But I do not agree with your last remark. To me, strategy is what the generals of an army does, tactics is the job of the sergeants. The general does not need to be an extraordinary leader in the field, to know where to send the sergeant and his men. Neither does the sergeant need to know why he is send where he is send. He just needs to carry of his (tactical) job as best as he can. 

If my previous example is too fuzzy, what about this then: 

Again, it's player A (1600) against player B (1400). Player B has Karpov giving him purely strategical advice (no concrete moves or lines allowed). Karpov can only tell him things like: he was a weak square on g7, you need to restrict any advanced support points for his Knight on c6, try to open the center a bit more, and so forth. Now, who would win?

the tactical player because to defend against tactics you have to be able to play tactics 1st.  If you can't attack you really can't defend either, unless Karpov or Silman is sitting by your side. Even Silman would agree with that, chess players have to evolve over time through various stages.

Don't forget that in chess you're doing both the general and the sergeants' jobs

If your soldiers are ambushed every two moves, no strategy, however brilliant, will ever win.

However, I agree that it could be interesting for beginners to play both 'strategical' and 'tactical' openings (meaning here openings based more on understanding vs. opening based more on concrete variations), just to get a feel for both. But any teaching path which aims at avoiding tactical play will just get you stuck somewhere U1600 forever

Lol that's like if a 12-year-old thief is asking advice from a ninja on how to break in to a mid-town 36th floor penthouse??  "based on my positional understanding, I'd definitely go in through the window."

First learn Guico Piano and the Two Knights and Four Knights Games; then the Lopez.

i suggest the italian game for the begginer not the ruy lopez, most ruy lopezes are loaded in varations , i guess theres the bc5 varations for black.

I just realize we might have to define "beginner", since players below my rating are giving advice on what openings a beginner should learn. Do you define "beginner" as someone rated around 1000? I do not. I consider myself a beginner, having only played a couple of months (plus the chess I played as a kid), and I'm rated around 1600 now. Does a 1600 player not fall into the category "beginner"? And is that why people say that beginners shouldn't learn the Ruy Lopez?

Interesting topic.

In addition to the Ruy Lopez, another opening beginners are suppose to stay away from is the Sicilian, also because of the amount of theory.

It's fun to think about the opening database results in this context. If one of us beginners were to to try to play the Ruy Lopez against advice, e4 would be met by c5 by a beginner trying to play a Sicilian, also against advice.

Well the thing is simply that you're gonna run into a player of the Black pieces who has prepared a nice ruy lopez variation, and you'll soon find yourself in a lot of trouble.

The REAL problem with the lopez is how double-edged it is. It can sustain a long-lasting advantage with best play from white, and very much the opposite so if the player with the white pieces isn't as familiar with the whole theory.

sorry to be the one to tell you but the fact that your turn-based online rating is around 1600 doesnt mean you're a 1600 player. In fact, my best guess is that your real rating would be around 1250.

If you play 9.d4 instead of 9.h3 the bishop will come to g4, but if you play 10.h3 the bishop will not go to h4 but will play ...Bxf3 followed by ...exd4.  So instead of 10.h3 you must play 10.d5 releasing the pressure on Black's e5 (which is the whole point of 3.Bb5).  If you play 11.h3 the bishop will not go to ...h4 but will go back to ...c8; since the bishop did its job when you played d5.

So thunder ground what do you think your real rating is ?

First openigns I learned were the Ruy, The Italian, The KG and I liked them except for the Ruy, I was forced into learning how to play the white side of the sicillian by my computer, I later learned the English, but I had no clue what an opening was at the begining, I just placed my pieces logicaly and for the KG i just decided one day to launch my f pawn at my opponent, and I won so it became part of my inventory

You might be right. However, I'm curious to know what you base this on. My own guess is that I'm 1400-1500 OTB, based a a little play in a chess club.

Well if you choose to retreat the bishop then you can do that, but keeping it on the knight is much more troublesome for White than to release the pin, and capturing isn't as effective either. I would never release the pin if I had gotten my bishop to g4 after d5.

Err not very high. I only just started playing club about a month ago and they've got me at 1473, which is pretty disappointing.

I would have hoped that after 2 months of playing chess now I'd be at 1600 or something.

Anyway, I've looked into the Ruy Lopez quite a lot. I admit that I am personally not ready to keep up with all of black's threats once all the book moves run out, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the theory. The good thing is that people I've been playing against aren't that keen on the concept of maintaining pressure, so I can get some good play.

Player who has good positional skill and bad tactical skill will have a higher rating playing at longer time control, and with positional opening (1.d4).

It will be very difficult to tell what your OTB rating is.

One of the key point to understand whether Ruy Lopez is suitable or not for the OP is this.

Whatever the opening is, beginning players have to understand it. It's okay if the level of understanding is different than that of a master. Just don't play any opening simply by knowing the moves and move order.

There are many other considerations, but if the above can be fulfilled, I believe the Ruy Lopez is suitable for the OP. It will even be a perfect opening if there is a coach to assist.

Whatever the opening is, beginning players have to understand it

Amen

It will even be a perfect opening if there is a coach to assist.

I fully agree with that too.