d4 for beginners

Well I think this is one of the most misunderstood concept in chess. 

When we talk about " Not studying openings as a beginner". It gives them an image that they shouldn't even look at the Openings. 

What that statement really means is that beginners should not study openings deeply like GM's do with chessbase and stuff like that.

Beginners should definitely look at the variations and 6-7 moves of opening whichever they are playing. Key manuvers and ideas in the middlegame they get. They should have a " Loose opening repertoire" to work with. 

Tactics are the most important aspect of chess and should be done frequently. Because one tactical shot can end the game.

Jobava London. However I would also advise you to experiment with 1.e4( I generally think it's good for beginners), you have to study a bit of theory but that's okay, you'll most likely get a playable Middlegame.

This is exactly my point. As an example, I can very often set up a classic ruy Lopez opening as a beginner playing against other beginners, and those opponents almost always play the Morphy defense whether they know the name and theory or not, as it's a natural move. And because I've read just a little bit on the RL, I also now know that I can retreat or play the exchange variation, and so on.

That little bit of opening knowledge gets me through a few turns and lets me make some tactical choices and start in a decent position ready for 0-0... That's really all I'm looking for at this stage with the d4 question, to see if there's a set up that I can get used to... Though at the moment I'm not feeling the London system so might take the advice to keep on with e4 anyway...

I'm reading Emms' opening principles book at the moment as well, though he only gives a small portion of the book to d4 for what I guess are obvious reasons...

I think it is easier to play the d4 openings without theory. As someone who’s played e4 for most of their life and then recently switched to d4 I realized it’s more about playing the right moves in the pawn structure. If you know how to handle a certain pawn structure then the moves come pretty naturally.

slav or semi slav is good

Interesting, d4 always seem complex to me than e4

d4 ≠ London system

I mean, having the london, colle, barry, trompowsky, veresov, don't exactly inspire confidence in d4 without c4 openings

If you want to be a one trick pony and short term results, play the London. If you want to improve  play the queen's gambit or e4.

....

To sum up what seems to be a consensus (with a little of my own bias thrown in):

1. Learning opening principles rather than openings is the most important thing. I highly recommend the Emms book (which I'm delighted to see that you are already reading).

1a. Of course, that doesn't mean not knowing anything about openings: as you yourself mentioned in your Ruy Lopez example, knowing the first 3-4 moves of the most popular openings is a good thing.

2. 1 e4 openings (other than the tricks and gambits) are very obviously based on opening principles (e.g., principles are: control center, bring out knights, then bishops, then castle, then get rooks into play along the center files -- you an accomplish some of each of those five principles in the first five moves of Italian or Spanish game!) -- and it is for this reason that beginners are advised to start with 1 e4 openings. Further, as you surmised, that is why Emms focused so much on 1e4 examples in his book. As you know, he does has some 1d4 stuff there. Note: there's a great 1d4 game on p 142 (Kasparov-Rebelo, 1999). You simply must get out your chessboard and play it out (only 22 moves). I did that yesterday. The avalanche comes so quickly, that I had to play it a second time so that I could see how it developed. If you have time, do this one!

3. "Systems" (looking at you Mr. London) is a very easy way to get to move 6 or 7 without making a mistake (King's Indian Attack, too, and probably others), which brings a sigh of relief to many beginners, who otherwise are not able to get that far without making a mistake. *HOWEVER* it's a short cut to go up the ladder without necessarily learning/applying opening principles. Eventually you reach a level where opponents know what they're doing, and when you reach the end of the London System set, you're stuck with "now what?"

4. I would add: don't get hung up too much on digging deep into the theory of a particular opening. The plain fact of the matter is, after you get a handle on opening principles, you will find that what's holding you back is the entire rest of the game. Even after you get past accidentally leaving a piece hanging, there's the entire area of tactics (which, after opening principles, is recommended to learn next). If you fail to see them in your game (either for you or your opponent) then it doesn't matter a whole lot what your opening was. And then, even after you have a handle on opening principles and tactics, there's strategy: pawn structure, outposts, weak v strong bishops/colors, etc. And even if you get through all then, there's the endgame, which is a whole different kettle of fish. And so, I think that's why so many experienced folks tell lesser experienced folks not to learn openings (which, again, as someone pointed out, does not mean "don't learn the first few moves of the popular openings")

5. All that said -- this is not to discourage you from playing 1 d4 if you want. It's just that there are a couple of oddities and differences that make those openings "off the beaten trail", so to speak, of strict basic opening principles. (For example, the huge importance of the c pawn doesn't really have a corollary to 1 e4 openings). I would strongly recommend this great introduction to 1d4 openings to understand the practical differences between d4 and e4 -- it's from chesspathways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEK8vPRlt2g I'm a big believer in: play what you enjoy. Even if it's over your head. After all, most often, you're going to be playing folks rated at approximately your level. Then, after a short while, reassess if that opening is working for you. What do you like or dislike? Etc. (My own quick story: when I was in middle school I got heavily into chess, playing exclusively 1e4 e5, on both sides -- I stopped playing when I got to high school. Now, nearly 50 years later, I'm returned to the game, and I desperately wanted something fresh: and so I decided to start over again with 1d4. I like it. Will it slow down my improvement because it's a bit more complicated? Yeah, probably, but I don't care, so long as I am improving, I'm ok with improving slowly. If I stick to it, I think I'll come out better at the end, because I find it so interesting and new, that's it keeps my brain on fire (in a good way)).

Hope that gives food for thought! (That video is a must if you want to play 1d4 but don't know much about it yet)

(Edit/addendum: another basic difference (adding slightly to the complications) between d4 and e4 openings is that the former has many positions that will transpose from one to another, and so players who are trying to learn a few openings has to be aware of that.  It's pretty common with 1d4; otoh it's much less common with 1e4 openings).

Really interesting post, thank you! I'll definitely check out that Kasparov 99 game and the video...

I think reading all these posts though, sticking with e4 sounds like the better approach for a while (50 years maybe...)

     1.e4 is most often recommended for beginners as many standard attacks (mostly sacs on f7 or h7) and ways to force d4, essentials everyone needs to learn, are integral features of open games. If you have been using 1.e4 you've notice that many players like to avoid this with the French, Caro-Kann, Pirc or other semi-open defences.

     While 1.d4 is usually thought of as more solid and positional than 1.e4, there are defenses that are based on unbalancing the position and counter-attacking (King's Indian, Dutch, Benoni, etc). The bottom line is that whatever you do as white, black can choose to upset the apple cart and initiate a complicated, sharp, tactical free-for-all if he so chooses. you can't come up with a "safe" system you can play in any circumstances. That's one of the things that makes chess such an interesting game.

Ginger GM's "killer d4" series.

Will set you back £30.

Don't think there's a better way to get the basic gist of some openings to use than those dvds, and I've checked out the highly praised books of John Emms. I think his books are more suitable if you are looking for a serious long-term chess education. If you are looking for a more casual game to play at an intermediate level with a very reasonable workload, go with the Ginger GM stuff.

When I was looking at what opening I should play I came across the same advice over and over.

At under 1500 you only need to know the opening principles and you don't actually need to know any theory. You just need your first few moves to be solid enough that you don't blunder and after that tactics will likely win you the game. 1 e4 is supposed to be where you will find the most tactical possibilities. Basically, play a reasonable e4 and out tactics your opponent. Some high-level teachers even suggest that you can read 2000 with the bare minimum opening theory.

When you are better and can start recognising structures and weaknesses, then it's time to start worrying about specific openings.

I myself have stopped learning openings completely. I'm playing my games and "learning openings" by looking at my game analysis, then trying to understand why a particular opening move was bad. In the meantime, I'm studying "Chess Tactics for Students". I don't have a lot of games yet, but I've been steadily climbing and I'm touching 1000 now.

I could be wrong but I don't think he was bad talking beginners. He's saying for beginners opening principles are far more important than specific openings.