What is the most traditional opening ?

Hi,

I started playing chess 4 years ago and have always played the King’s Indian Defense as Black and the King’s Indian Attack as White.

Why? I don’t really know. I guess I had to start somewhere.

I thought that if I learned only one opening, I would develop as a player much faster since I would both understand the plan behind the opening and be acquainted with the tactics specific to that opening.

It is pretty much what happened.

I am now a « not so bad » King’s Indian player, meaning that I understand the general ideas behind it and try to accomplish them in every single game.

I still have many tactical issues due to the fact that I’m just starting to practice with chess puzzles (never really enjoyed them) and also I must admit that I play way too much Bullet and Blitz.

I’m aware of that and I’m trying to work on playing longer time controls.

But these days I feel that I’m hitting a plateau and that I have become something of a « one trick pony » with my King’s Indian. I don’t know anything else.

The more I read and watch videos on strategic principles, the more I find that the King’s Indian is kind of weird.

Many of its moves don’t follow traditionnal strategic principles.

Don’t get me wrong, they do make sense in the « hypermodern » perspective, but I feel that if I want to broaden my understanding of chess, I should learn another opening, this time a little bit more traditionnal.

I also feel that it would be nice to vary a little. After all, I’m not a tournament player and I’m just playing on the internet for fun.

So here is my question : what is the most traditionnal opening?

I’m looking for one that is sound and basic. One that’s in line with the most basic strategic principles.

I would like to learn it.

And if possible could you advise me on the best book or ressource available for that opening?

Thanks for your time.

I knew a teen thet always played KID because the first moves were automatic regardless of what the other player did and it worked for him up to a point. I told him he'd never get any better if he stuck with it and he didn't.

Don't look for another magic opening to add to your repertoire, get Modern Chess Openings and look at a lot of openings, learn a few that appeal to you but also don't go nuts trying to learn an opening 15 moves deep, just look at the key positions of the first 3 or 4 moves and play from there.

That's just my advice for what it's worth.

Most traditional is either Italian Game or Ruy Lopez.

Spanish, for both sides.

Or something like QGD maybe

If you don't start with the Italian and then work into the Spanish, you will seriously retard your own potential in the long run.

Spanish - but what is played today at the top level is anything but "traditional".

Consider this book: http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Morphy-Botwinnik-Imre-Konig/dp/0486235033/

It's old and in descriptive notation, however it is described as follows: "Taking critical openings as his standpoint - the Ruy Lopez - Queens Gambit - English Opening and Kings Gambit - König shows how chess technique advanced and became more sophisticated from the days of Morphy to the time of Botwinnik"

I disagree @Ziryab. When I was starting out, my coach told me to play whatever I wanted, because I was young (not even that young: this was about two or three years ago, when I was 14), and what was important was to play around and get interesting positions. The only thing he told me was to use a database to look after the game to perfect my moves, and, if I really liked an opening, to look for videos and articles about it online. And I did all that. This was when I was around 1000. And I went from a rating of 1045 at the start of December 2013 to a rating of 1793 at the end of December 2014. 

The point? I don't think it matters much what a beginner is playing, and I think that anyone who gives the advice to start with certain openings while avoiding others is not really correct. The only thing I will say is that some openings are too theoretical for beginners, but even then, their opponents will proabably not know the theory either.

Also, I want to note that for most, but not all, of that growth period, I played 1. d4, in spite of the fact that a lot of other people told me that, as a beginner, I should have been playing 1. e4. 

The main opening that I like to perform is the Guaco Piano (Not sure if spelled right). It basically puts the bishop in a position to block the other player's queen and knight, making the opponent's best option to castle. A knight and a rook are then pinned, allowing the knight to be taken. This is followed by a pawn storm to break the opposing castle and achieve mid-game advantage.  

traditionnal => just develop quickly and control centre.

So 1.e4 e5 is logical, with Giuoco Piano : why Giuoco Piano, u take the best diagonal for your f1 bishop on c4, attacking f7 (the weakest square at the beginning), and then u want to obtain good centre with c3-c4.

Black will answer with Bc5, Nf6, etc... For example white will continue with the Moller attack which is not so good (well, at high level...) but it was historically the first thing the masters wanted to do.

And 1.d4 d5 with queen's gambit declined : see Alekhine-Capablanca 1927 match.

Starting with e/d pawn moves, u can develop "normaly" your pieces toward centre, and going for castle.

We can't tell the same for king's indian which is not a all a natural opening.

I said, "in the long run".

You are too young to be any where near your potential unless your coach was far worse than anyone can imagine.

Your coach's general idea that it does not matter what a beginner plays is true in some respects. Openings should not be a priority in study until you are at the level where opening novelties are essential to competitive survival. Tactics and endings are vastly more important.

Nonetheless, playing open games is much preferred over attempting to play positional lines in the beginning. The consequences of neglecting this early practical experience will only reveal themselves much later.

Start with 1.e4 as White. As Black, meet 1.e4 with 1...e5. Meet 1.d4 with 1...d5. Et cetera.

There are some great introductory books that look at openings in a broad spectrum, like Fine's "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" and Collins' "Understanding the Chess Openings". You might find a lot of ideas by reading one or both of those.

There are so many traditional (classic) openings and defenses to choose from—it's really a matter of personal taste.

P.S. I've taken the opposite route: I played only classical openings in the beginning. Now I'm moving toward the hypermodern ones. :D

Both Max Euwe and Richard Reti wrote books emphasizing the historical development of chess ideas as the model for an individual player's development. A developing player has all he or she needs with these books plus Jose Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals. The structure of Capablanca's book is the pattern for training: endings, tactics, openings, endings, middle games, openings, ...

@Ziryab I think a lot of people have said this about the necessity of starting with the Open Games, but I haven't seen proof of this assertion. I have several other friends who played 1. d4 when they were young, and they are much stronger than I am. Actually one is 2300- he never played 1. e4, and he never played 1...e5 in response to e4 either.

I played 1. d4 as white from the time I was 1000 until I was close to 1800, after which I played both e4 and d4 (although, as Ben Finegold might say, not at the same time). Nowadays I only play 1. d4 if I have specific preparation on the opponent, and usually lean towards 1. e4.

When I was under 1000, I usually played the Pirc as black, but I also went through a phase of playing 1...e5, for the Petroff. However, the defense I was playing when I finally started making progress in chess was not 1...e5 but rather the Caro. I played 1...c6 against 1. e4 from the time I was around 1000 until I was about 1500. Once I reached 1500, I tried out 1...e5 for a while, and it brought me okay results, but ultimately I settled on 1...c5 as my main move against e4, and it has been ever since. 

For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site. Perhaps konkomlalun would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM Johm Emms (2006).

"If you find an opening here that appeals to you and you wish to find out more about it, the next step would be to obtain an introductory text devoted entirely to that subject." - GM John Emms in his 2006 introduction to basic opening principles, Discovering Chess Openings

"Throughout the book Emms uses excellently chosen examples to expand the readers understanding of both openings and chess in general. Thus equipped the student can carry this knowledge forward to study individual openings and build an opening repertoire. ... For beginning players, this book will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board." - FM Carsten Hansen, reviewing the 2006 Emms book

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

"Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.

For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ... The third volume will treat mainly of the openings. ..." - J. R. Capablanca in A Primer of Chess, a book that devotes about 50 pages to endings and about 50 pages to an introduction to the Ruy Lopez, the King's Gambit, the Centre Game, the Danish Gambit, and the Queen's Gambit

  Most traditional opening?  I would hazard to guess the Ruy Lopez but what does our resident chess researcher, batgirl, have to say about it?   

@dpnorman. It's hard to prove. How would you design an experiment that could control for that variable given all the different factors that may or may not contribute to a person's ultimate potential? The former US Women's Champion, GM Irena Krush, has always played 1.d4 (with an occasional 1.Nf3 or 1.c4). I asked her after a lecture about playing 1.e4. She said, at this point, she would have too much to learn. She said players who start out with 1. e4 often switch later, but that switching the other way is much more difficult.

Well yeah, it would be hard to prove, but even so, I'm not convinced it's true anyway. I think whatever people are excited about playing is good for them to play. I do think that when people play lame openings simply to avoid theory or because they're scared of entering tactical skirmishes against sharper opponents, that's a bit counter-productive, but playing 1. d4 when you're low rated (as I did when I was 1100) and non-symmetrical defenses against 1. e4 and 1. d4 is certainly not in itself counter-productive for chess development IMO