The Openings Are Not Important for Beginners – Fact

The Openings Are Not Important for Beginners – Fact

By Darko Polimac, Chess Coach

Most new players waste ages learning start-game sequences, thinking it’ll boost their skills. Here’s the reality - early moves aren’t crucial when you’re just starting out. What counts instead? Getting how chess works.
Most games at beginner stages come down to blunders, not deeper knowledge. Mess up a single fork or leave a piece undefended - suddenly you’re losing, no matter how sharp your opening was.

Practice beats memory when you're just starting out
Start simply - get your pieces moving, grab space in the middle, or tuck the king away soon.
Tactics: doing puzzles every day helps you see the board better.
Final stages: figuring out how to seal a win builds focus.

Middlegame thinking: figuring out how to build then stick with a basic strategy.
Learning set moves might actually hold you back. If your rival makes a surprise move, you could feel stuck. New players should focus on grasping concepts instead of repeating lines.
One kid I teach hit 1000 on Chess.com under ten weeks - zero opening prep. He made it by drilling tactics, learning simple endings, plus sticking to a clear routine every single day instead of rote sequences.

If you want to get it the smart way - by actually getting how things work instead of just cramming facts - grab a no-cost intro session with me right over here:
https://scheduler.zoom.us/darko-polimac/coaching-with-darko-

Lets build your chess skills step by step - slowly but surely, through smart choices that add up.
- FIDE Trainer Darko Polimac

Coach of chess students from the USA and Europe

Sorry, there, Coach .... but I have to disagree. To some degree.

In my case, I often get in trouble when I try to play basic opening concepts and meet a similarly rated opponent who knows a bit of an opening or two. His knowledge and play put me on my back foot and I'm struggling at the beginning. Getting out of the opening alive is a major victory for me.

However, if I can get three or four or five moves into a familiar opening, I do much better. I certainly don't know any opening beyond about move five.

I completely agree about tactics, as I am the blunder king of North America. It could be that it is not my opening play that is causing me issues, but my opening play combined with my poor tactical play, I can concede that.

With my coaching method and just one hour of focused training per day, you can confidently reach a 1000 rapid rating within six months — guaranteed progress, step by step, together with me as your coach.

Carlsen would agree with me https://youtu.be/MhWxsq_dBdE?si=_PmBhOBArDg-51Fx

https://youtu.be/MhWxsq_dBdE?si=_PmBhOBArDg-51Fx

Opinions are not facts. <= Opinion.

Having said that... I do agree that

1. A lot of players spend WAY too much effort memorizing sequences of moves.
2. The same amount of effort spent on learning concepts instead would benefit them far more.
3. Practice beats memorization hands down.
4. Learning how to come up with a reasonable game-plan is far more important than learning what Sznapik played against Ljangov back in 1976 in Sandomeirtz.

Personally, I believe knowing opening principles is generally more important than knowing theory. I got to my current 1050 or so rating with a combination of learning how to play well (such as opening principles and tactics, as mentioned by others in this forum), and only more recently (at around 900) learned more opening theory/ideas. Before this, I'd always play something solid like the Italian game, which offered a simple game at lower ratings. Now I play more offbeat openings (Vienna, Hartlaub-Charlick, and Rousseau Gambits) to give myself the advantage of knowing the opening better that my opponent. Again, I would not recommend diving in to theory significantly until at least being 600 or so. From my experience, people decide to play sidelines slightly more then, and you may want to put the opening on your own terms before they do.

Obviously this is what worked for me, and every person learns and plays differently, so please take this with a grain of salt. I definitely agree with Chess_Polimac in that a majority of your time as a beginner should be spent on the basics and general strategy of chess.

Spot on

Could you please share the link to the game as I am not aware of this one , thanks in advance

You mean Sznapik vs Ljangov, Sandomeirth 1976?

This game of mine (playing Black) from the Malaysia vs Canada rated team match followed Sznapik vs Ljangov for the first 27 moves. I played a prepared novelty on move 28, improving on Ljangov's defense.

A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home!

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/200865884

And here is the original master game (Sznapik vs Ljangov) from 1976 in Poland:

Aleksander Sznapik vs Petar Ljangov (1976)

When it comes to the question of forming a plan, GM Larry Evans wrote the book on the topic.

GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis - Chess Forums - Chess.com

Read my posts number 4, 7-to-10 and 12.Then play over the three sample games.

Glad to help.

I think you'll find most of that in Evans' old 1972 book "New ideas in Chess".