Novices and the opening

Firstly, hello everyone. :)

The question I had is when do you think novices should start studying the opening of chess (and what should they start studying), I've been told to hold back on analysing the start but everytime I seem to struggle through it and come out a few points down.

 Opinions? Thanks you.

~ Jordan 

Edit: This is probably more suited to the opening forum, sorry.

3 Simple Opening Systems

My opinion, for what it's worth, has nothing to do with the technical aspects of learning, but with the human factor.  I've always heard one should study endgame theory first and concentrate secondly on tactics, then onto positional aspects and finally opening theory.  To me, nothing matters without motivation and with the right motivation, almost anything's possible.  So, I wonder... why study endgames if you can't even make it to the endgame?  Why worry about positional considerations when you're pieces are in disarray from a poor opening?

I think one must study openings to some degree right off the bat (and really, every does that informally with each game they play)  to gain confidence as well as knowledge. I don't recommend memorizing lines - but I do recommend exploring lines so as not to be totally in the dark.  If you can steer an opening into some area where you feel at least competent, you'll get to a decent middlegame. You may not win, but you were at least in the game.  If I go from getting creamed in the opening to generally arriving to midgame unscathed, I would feel motivated to continue trying to improve and confident that my time wouldn't be wasted.  With enough tactical practice and some positional understanding, getting to the endgame would then become a rerasonable expectation.... and now, I might would spend some time with Lucena's postion or whatever.  

I'd have to agree with batgirl.  I tried the "studying the end game" thing for a long time, and it's frustrating as heck when you can't ever seem to get a game to middle much less end-game play.  Knowing a basic opening or two is essential to the game and all a part of "getting to" the later parts of it.  I'd say study what you feel the most comfortable with.  If you're playing the game for the fun of it, there's shouldn't be any real rush, and every lesson that sticks with you throughout your play time will be a benefit no matter when you learned it.

Thanks everyone for the unhumanly fast answers so far!

I think I'll let my curiosity guide me, when I'm reviewing a game I'll go straight into the online opening databases, explore, and play around with some different lines of play. Batgirl, I was tempted to explore an opening midgame on chess.com like you said, but I thought it might be considered cheating (and kinda' still do) so I'll leave it until the reviews. :D

Erik: Thanks for the great article! I've read it through and played through all the diagrams - and it really reinforced that I know the opneing fundamentals.

~ Jordan 

Hi,

A novice Chess player must study the endgame above else he must study the middle game and the openings in relation to the endgame without a sound knowledge of the endgame and the middle game first a novice who studies openings will be stumbling in the dark he'll memorize openings he heard Gary Kasparov and Vladimar Kraminak like to play without knowing the true meaning and intent of the moves and how they fit in the middle game and the endgame the only result will be bad Chess.

Alec
 

"Batgirl, I was tempted to explore an opening midgame on chess.com like you said, but I thought it might be considered cheating .."

In regular correspondence chess, referring to manuals and games would be acceptable, but I'm not sure those same guidelines hold in turn-based games.

I wasn't suggesting using the MCO to explore openings, but rather to set up the position on a board, or in a viewer, and physically move the pieces rather than just visualizing the new positions.