A beginners guide to chess improvement (from a relative beginner)

I'm already subscribed  

@dsdeckard Great post! It really shows that you don't have to be high rated player to offer excellent advice and sharing useful insights! I found it easy to relate to your post since i am not that far from your rating level. 

Its funny that you mention french defense - for some reason i find it very hard playing against it. I think i've lost 75% of the time when facing the french! I usually play the advance but i will try something else since i have such a high losing rate with it. Perhaps the exchange variation, since i usually score better in open positions.

I also agree on your standpoint in knight vs bishops debate. It is enough to know the basics regarding what kind of positions favor the knights resp bishops. 

Btw, one of the most misguiding advice that you can give to a beginners is to play "theoretically sound" or "sharp" openings and talk about long opening lines/variations where one side is having a "small edge". That is relevant at top level but completely irrelevant at beginner level. 

I disagree in part. I do think you should teach people theoretically sound lines. It's just better practice to learn to play correctly early on. No need for long lines, but playing lines like e4, d4 and c4 (no h4) and not going for lines like e4 e5 Qh5 is good practice at any level.

You should be playing sound openings at any level.

This looks good on paper but doesn't take into account the reality. Review some of the lower rated players games. Do you think they lost because they chose to play an "inferior variation of the botvinnik-panov attack" or some other slight opening inaccuracy? 

Beginners don't play like engines, they don't play like masters or experts. Having a theoretical edge in the opening means absolutely nothing. As soon as i understood this simple fact, i started to experiment more freely with my openings and my rating started to soar.

My advice to beginners regarding the openings: Chose some simple openings with ideas & middle game plans that you can easily understand. Once you get enough experience to feel comfortable with the positions you typically get you will do great against similar rated opponents. 

I think you're straw-manning my argument. A sideline even if it's not the best remains theoretically sound as long as it doesn't have a huge drawback. Their is a huge difference in between playing side lines and lines that aren't "theoretically sound".

Avoid Blundering pieces at least .

When beginners teach beginners, they do not progress. I applaud your journey and your efforts to balance conflicting advice. 

NM @Reb is also a great resource.

My advice for beginners: start by learning checkmates and elementary pawn endings. Then focus on tactics. Learn some basic opening principles, study some miniatures. Then, cycle back through from the end to the beginning. Play through Greco’s games, which will teach you several checkmate ideas with tactics. Then go through Morphy’s games to develop an appreciation of the concept of development. Keep the cycle going as you improve: endgames, tactics and middlegame planning, then refining your opening and studying whole games. 

Why listen to me? I’ve taught more than 1000 children how to play. My students are often the top players in their age group in my city. Some of them have been state champions.

This is excellent advice.

There are 12 and 16 year old NMs and FMs who occasionally give basic (and poor but not terrible) advice, but people who have been around for decades not only know chess, but know how learning and teaching works.

This is a quality post... most of you wont know the difference, so I'm here to say so

:love