What should be the first 2 openings I analyze and learn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9iOeK_jvU&list=PLl9uuRYQ-6MBwqkmwT42l1fI7Z0bYuwwO&index=5

I´m lazy and I play for fun. Memorizing opening lines and playing the first dozen or so moves in every game by heart isn´t fun for me. More like work. So when I played more seriously (three or four decades ago)I opted for obscure and dubious openings and lines, the kind that are not thoroughly analyzed but routinely considered "bad". Often this worked (and probably works) just fine since even if your opponent "knows" that you are playing an inferior variation he does not know exactly why so both he/she and you have to think chess rather than playing memorized moves by heart.

#19 Love that Gerzadowicz quote

Yes, it´s "on the point"! Let us hear another god of the endgame:

“In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.”

Capablanca

In order to improve your game A good general method is to work on detecting the cause or causes of mistakes to eliminate or avoid their repetition over time in different games. It is not about preventing any type of mistake but the types that one makes most often.

In a broad sense, one improves in chess by seeking to be more precise in calculation and evaluation, understanding that one evaluates when one cannot calculate anymore or does not make sense to do it. But since calculation makes use of evaluation, it all starts with learning and improving on evaluation.

 Being strong in chess does not necessarily imply understanding the game better, but rather making fewer mistakes at critical moments. 

1.e4 or 1.d4?

The main difference is the type of middlegames each tends to lead to.

After 1.e4 White has better chances to lead the game into a semi-open or open game, while after 1.d4 the chances go for a semi-open or closed game. Then, the election of 1.e4 or 1.d4 has more to do with which kind of middlegame White believes that offers him better odds, regarding his and the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses.

This is the thing: There’s this idea floating around that to become a strong player you need to know about everything when in truth is more about knowing everything about the few things you do repeatedly.

Knows that particular take precedence over general.

What is a good opening for a beginner?

It’s not the rating but the individual’s weak and strong points, besides his short and long term goals in the game, which makes an opening “good” or “bad” for him.

Say an opening is extremely tactical and requires a lot of theory and skill to handle it accurately. That may be easy for some and difficult for others. Or the opening is easy to handle but leads to complex positional and strategic middlegames. That again may be easy for some and difficult for others. Or the player needs to win and his repertoire doesn’t include sharp systems…

So, there is no answer which fits everybody.

Hola

"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career

You pretty much sum up my experience when my coach and I were picking out a reportorial.

We concluded with the English as white, Sicilian and Modern-Pterodactyl lines for tournament play.

It came down to that I like imbalance, counter opportunities, tactics, middle and long term planning to keep me engaged. 

I'm watching the GothamChess youtube channel. For newbies like us, he recommends London System for white and King's Indian Defense for black. I'd also say to just know how to develop a basic Kings Pawn opening (e4 e5).

I just started using the London today and I'm seeing better results. It's not too hard to learn and you pretty much do the same thing each time. You don't have to know a ton of variations. Took me a couple hours to learn and implement it.

I would also say, learn how to defend against Scholar's Mate (and maybe Fried Liver). Even in the low 100s games, those guys seem to use those a lot. There are a few basic things you can do to fend off against 90% of those attacks.

That's helping me get started.

I like your input @Marie-AnneLiz! Thank you.

Regarding your choices @Chuck369, seems like cool ones. I wonder though, at our level, if we are best off choosing openings that "complement our strengths" or rather work on our weaknesses. For example I continue to play the Fried Liver despite I realize that the d3 Italian is objectively stronger, and I hate facing the d3 Italian more as Black... But I just feel like researching every room in the vast maze that is the Polerio Defense complex and hurting my head calculating super tense positions is better for my improvement. 

I've even heard some people say it's a good idea to choose the opposite opening of what you "like"... (if you like e4, play d4, etc...)

I'm definitely going to tailor a repertoire that will fit me better at some point with a coach... But until I'm like 1800 I think I'd rather grind stuff that actually may not suit me at all... This in order to actually avoid taking opening theory as a main study point before I'm more confident in the Middle/End.

I might be making it hard on myself unnecessarily but who knows  

Against e4, c5 is natural to me. It’s all I ever played. I was fortunate to learn the Sicilian 20 years ago from my friend’s uncle who was a strong club player. Same thing with the English.

Everybody will argue beginners shouldn’t learn the Sicilian and I would not bat an eye. I play off ideas rather than theory, opening principles and fundamentals.

Getting back to the game, I’ve expanded from the Old Variation  to the Najdorf, Dragon and O’Kelly lines to spice things up. The results are better than a coin flip for the win so I’ll run it all day.

My sparring partners (1600-2300 range) and I get a good laugh because I don’t know 1.e4, e5 theory, or the French or Caro-Kann stuff, which is fine. I actually do not know any e4 and d4 theory either.

With the English, it’s the reversed Sicilian with two tempi up, so again it felt natural and very freeing to play. 

The big kicker is that I equalize out of the opening and get a playable or enjoyable position which is all I want.

Well, as an e4 player I'll tell you Sicilian is what I hate playing against the most, probably.

I also really admire English, and the rich tactics it brings...

If there are any two openings I'd switch from e4 e5 to it's those two... Just curious what is the best timing to do it... And in general learning new openings is kindof a milestone, as it's generally thought to be good to stick to one opening as an intermediate player... 

For example, Wesley So played e4 exclusively until he was a GM (!).

Like I said the reason I'm sticking to e4-e5 is because it's what I know (or rather get away with not knowing), but I'm wondering when is a good time to actually learn new openings.

Definitely English and Sicilian are the most appealing. Also ditching the Fried Liver for more mature d3 Italian stuff... 

Ultimately it’s your call because I asked a handful of titled and strong players who all differ in opinions. I’ve heard 1600, 1800, 2000 and plus, but life is too short.

For me, it came down to enjoyment. I wasn’t enjoying certain positions and also had weaknesses. I also didn’t like running into book worms who would hit you with heavy theory.

When I crossed 1200 was when I switched from e4 to c4. I wouldn’t argue it was premature but I’m enjoying chess again. 

I forgot to mentioned that I like a reportorial with transpositional opportunities. I like being flexible and versatile to spice things up. For example, the Modern-Pterodactyl can transpose to Sicilian Dragon or KID and I am totally happy. Against the Caro-Kann after opening up with c4, I’ll sideline with 2.e4 and transpose to the accelerated Panov Attack to switch gears.

With the Sicilian, I just expanded it. I looked at my database and see which lines I was strong and weak at then firmed up my replies.

Replying to d4 with d5 was a major losing cause for me. I would only win 1/3 of the time so I switched over to the Englund Gambit to shut down the London System, work on tactics and a band aid to learn the Modern-Pterodactyl as a side line. Both were next to no theory and took 5 minutes to learn.

Since then, it’s a coin flip for the win and I don’t get dry games.

From my personal interactions with sparring partners:

1. Went from 800 to 1200 with the Sicilian and English. It was very rewarding to see the kid flourish and it amazes me how well he navigates in sharp lines like Swiss cheese. It’s also fun watching him beat stronger players.

2. Learned the Dragon and English at 1600 and is currently 1800+. Personally, I would not pick the Dragon as my main Sicilian. He plays the traditional English where as I prefer the reversed dragon. So it’s funny we both play the English and Sicilian but have different tastes and playing style but we complement one another when we analyze games together.

3. 2300 plays the English and Taimanov since 1200. To be fair, this guy can play anything and does a good job of creating pressure and exploiting weaknesses.

4. 1900 plays e4, Scandinavian and semi Slav her whole life.

Sorry to dominate the thread lol.

To answer one of your other questions, I spoke to a veteran chess player yesterday and he assumed d4 players could shift to c4 but not e4 players.

It was an interesting conversation because I believe e4/Sicilian players make the best candidates for the the English game because it’s the Sicilian reversed with two tempi up and carry over the experience, ideas, rich positions and tactics to where you know to keep it in English/Sicilian territory or transpose. 

For example, the engine always scream d4 to transpose into a Catalan but a Sicilian players has experience in delaying d4 with d3, expand with a3, b4 and fianchetto the bishop ideas.

So my conclusion to you is learn the Sicilian before the English because then it will be a natural migration. Then you won’t have to learn any d4 theory either but you get to pick and choose your favourite transpositions.

I think Fischer used the English as a transpositional tool to win a world championship?