Why are some openings considered "for beginners"?

But Samuel, who would you recommend?

It can depend on which line of the Vienna you play. Overall, the Vienna is a decent opening. It's not white's most active choice though and doesn't put so much pressure on the opponent compared to the Italian or Spanish.

The Scandinavian is very dubious. There is no refutation but if you don't know what you're doing you can get into trouble as you are moving your queen around a lot in the opening and allow white perfect development for no real compensation.

It's more the silly gambits and sidelines that he teaches like a3 and b3 sicilians. These lines are somewhat playable but they are also not very good. They are basically just meant for bullying lower rated players lol.

ChessCoach Andras. He teaches a brilliant combination of good principles and beautiful, exciting, attacking chess.

non sense, all openings have detractors and pros and cons, haven't they?

I will let him speak for himself

https://youtu.be/LlPHVLfFH3I

https://youtu.be/P7ig6AFXB00

But some openings have way more cons than pros and those cons can be exploited.

Indeed. Development, attacks, and overall longevity of play (very underrated principle by lower rated players that advanced opponents should understand) all should be considered relevant. 1. e4 clearly is the better option for all three than 1. f2 for example. 

Good stuff. He looks a lot like Shahade!

I actually didn't know he suggested what I assume you're saying are 3. a3 or 3. b3 but I am certainly not a fan of those as they both seem rather passive for white (like what does a3 hardly accomplish when opponent decides to route knight away?) Your analysis of the Vienna is fair and I play it knowing it's passivity but I like to surprise my opponents with something still solid so that's why I do it.

Well there are Opening Principles, which are much easier to digest and learn and take alot less time to study, those should be practiced as opposed to wasting time trying to learn the ins and out of any particular Opening.  Research tells us that unless a player hopes to reach expert and above, Opening study will be less useful then focusing on other things such as tactics, and Opening Principles will help one reach a playable middle game. 

His idea with a3 is to play Bc4-Ba2, d3, Nc3, Nge2. It's basically like a Bowdler Attack where the bishop can't be trapped on b3.

Some people want to play a3-b4 which is even worse.

b3 is very passive. It's not automatically losing but black is normally slightly better. Black can play d6-e5 to block the bishop. The idea for white is that they want to play Bb5 and f4 to weaken e5 but the plan just isn't actually that good.

The Vienna is solid. It just kind of allows black a free hand with their development and central control. The Vienna Gambit is the most active way to play this, I would say it's basically an improved King's Gambit.

coz they ez to learn and op for that level

:/

If both players are beginners it doesn´t really matter which opening they play. If a beginner plays against an intermediate (or better) player it doesn´t matter. The important thing is that he beginner plays. A lot. That´s te only way to figure this game out.

True, some people say "this opening is too theoretical for beginners". This statement makes zero sense. By definition a theoretical opening is one that is very well analysed and known. So if two people play it who haven't analysed and don't know it so well then it simply can't be too theoretical.

I started early and was mavbe six years old when my father learned me the moves and basic rules of the game. Then I played happily along, blissfully unaware that different openings had names. When I was around ten one of my uncles, who played competitive chess, taught me the most common opening lines and their different names. In my teens I started reading chess columns in the newspapers, chess books etc. My point is that when I really became conscious of opening theory I was no longer a beginner.

To me, as a kid, chess was just another board game. I played against my dad (when he had the time) and with other kids just for fun. I guess if one starts as an adult it´s easy to be overwhelmed by the complexity but it is what you make it to be. Even adults can play for fun and don´t have to try and immediately grasp the finer nuances of the games played att the GM level.

As golfers use to say: "It´s not your life, it´s not your wife, it´s only a game." So, lighten up and enjoy the fun!

wasn't capablanca  an intuitive chess master not a master on opening theory?

A six year old played the Petroff against me. I thought it was a beginner opening so I looked it up. Turns out it's not a beginner's opening. I read the Semi-Slav is hard then a streamer on Youtube tells me it's not so hard. I guess you just have to play it and decide for yourself.