No Openings for Beginners

@20

No, only above 2500 rating.

LOL. I think you added one too many zeros there.

It seems you've been slightly exaggerated the ranking))

project home page

@22

Here is proof:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2265965 

You are not losing your games because of the opening. You are blundering easy tactics. Check to make sure the move you're about to play isn't a blunder.

I don't want to upset anyone, but I would tell you to ignore what openings need what ratings. Play what you like and study it. Your efforts will help improve. It's just that some openings take more experience to understand, but learning a medium-difficult opening will set you up to learn other openings. 

Personally, I learned Sicilian at 700. After going over double my rating, I had no problems learning openings like Alekhine. Yes, I had to learn a lot of theory, but understanding how to evaluate positions can save you so much memorization. That is what my coach taught me.

That sort of thing might work a few times till other folks study how to refute it. In the pre-engine era, sure, someone might play a dubious opening and be able to get away with it.  I suspect  nowadays that's not going to work the way it did 30 years ago, especially if your opponent has any idea you might play such an opening.  (that's not likely at the OPs rating though).   

But sure, with millions upon millions of games to draw from, no doubt anything can be found to support any point of view.  I can pull up games where Magnus won after being out of theory by move 3. Per Agadmator, "and already on move 3 we have a completely new game!" .  But that's not proof that you can ignore openings till you're a gm. 

A lot of this is semantics.  What does "Study Openings" mean to different people.  Once that's resolved, the discussion can (or might not be able to) continue. 

I have watched all of his YouTube videos...and I do not recall that him ever instructing a <1000 student on video.  I doubt he even has any <1000 rated students...why pay a GM to train a <1000 student?  That's a ridiculous move only an Elon Musk would make, like buying a company with no physical assets for $44B dollars.

He does recommend openings for beginners (Danish Gambit for <1000, for example)...but he does not recommend that beginners do any training on the opening, i.e. memorization of a bunch of lines.  He talks about an opening for 5-10 minutes and then it's off to the races, and half that talk is just telling the audience why the opening is good on general principles.  If you know that d5 is a common defense to the Danish Gambit for black, that's not "training".

Well, you clearly didn't watch them all or you'd have caught it. It's been a while, and I've posted it here before but I don't know where I posted it nor which video it was.  I want to say it was "moistcritical" (spelling wrong) in his early days as a student of Danya.  I just pulled up the first "Streamer Lesson" video and his student (Yep, that's who it is) is 881.  So if you indeed have watched "all his videos", your memory sucks.  

I'm not positive it was the same person who's lesson video has the part where Danya talks about learning "some" openings to get started with. It might have been a female student, but they were quite low rated. And while my memory for picking out the precise video might not be so great, (I have not watched all those videos) I am not mistaken about who it was advocating it. 

@28

"That sort of thing might work a few times till other folks study how to refute it." ++ You can refute a gambit, but you cannot refute a loss of 2 tempi. White can afford to lose 2 tempi.

"especially if your opponent has any idea you might play such an opening"
++ Basman consistently played that way in all his games, so his opponents were free to prepare.

"I can pull up games where Magnus won after being out of theory by move 3."
++ Yes Magnus plays weird stuff too in rapid and blitz games and against lesser grandmasters.

"But that's not proof that you can ignore openings till you're a gm."
++ It is. Basman was IM and played weird openings successfully against masters and grandmasters. Magnus does it too.

"What does "Study Openings" mean to different people." 
++ For most people it means buying a book and reading it, or watching a video.

I have never understood the "do not study openings as a beginner" (unless they mean first 100 games).

What are you supposed to do, only principles and puzzles?

I think all three are good especially after 100 games.

If you're still blundering basic tactics, it doesn't matter if you get a small advantage out of the opening. 

some basic opening knowledge will bring you a long way, simply understanding the reasons behind the moves will help you a lot when trying to determine what to play if the opponent goes out of book. Gothamchess's bacic opening videos are really good and kind of shows the need to know of the opening (minus that 30 minute long video on the vienna, tad much imo)

of course i am not saying to neglect other aspects of the game, as they will be far more important. for example hikaru's speedruns, hikaru gets to really high ratings using trash openings, which is just proof that openings truly dont matter, skill in the middle/endgame is more important. 

I agree.  I just don't think it hurts you to get a basic framework of an opening plan together.  Might even help someone blunder less pieces.

Anyone can catch anyone in a simple trick. It happens every day.  That's not 'proof' that players should not learn openings properly.  

For me, "Study Openings" means set up an account on Chessable and take a course.  Contrary to what people who enjoy losing say, I learn just as much from games I win as games I lose. So, I prefer to win a few. Therefore, I make an effort to use some of my chess time so I'm less likely to  lose on move 5.   So far, that works for me.  I guess that's proof that opening study is good, yes?  I mean if all we need is one example of one player to offer proof, I've done it.  

PS: The site can be used for free, and there's about a zillion short-n-sweet opening courses that are also free.  Complete with move-trainer and full explanation of theory and failing lines as well. 

So rather than us debating at what point in a person's chess journey they should address their various weaknesses, I want you to keep the above study avenue in mind at 0 money, and please provide me a reason why a person should intentionally avoid improving a weakness in their game?  Maybe that will bring us to a better understanding.  All I know is, people who advocate not learning any openings have lost me with their reasoning. 

I guess I am just wondering if someone shouldn't study openings, what should they spend their time doing? 

Just puzzles, and principles?

If that is the case, then why would spending 90% of their time of puzzles and principles, and 10% of their time on openings make them a worse chess player?

10% would be fine. However, it seems that beginners like to spend 60% of their time on openings, and often just memorize moves without understanding why those moves are played.

you're also at that point in your chess career where you need to start looking at positional play too.