Openings for beginners to study
Sort:
Queen's gambit.
Thanks for your quick response. Why do you recommend it?
Queen's gambit opening is used by GMs in tournaments. So learning queen's pawn openings such as queen's gambit is essential for becoming a better player. It seems less complex and easier to learn as compared to Sicilian or Ruy Lopez (which are also used widely by GMs). (That's my personal opinion. I'm a beginner. Not an expert though)
intermediatedinoz wrote:
Sorry, I am not making the connection between your comment and openings to study.
The sole fact something is good for your heart doesn't necessarily mean it is good for your brain.
Evans Gambit
As a novice player you shouldn't devote too much time to opening study. You will reap greater benefit from eliminating blunders, improving your board vision and studying tactics. Your goal should be to get out of the opening with a playable, relatively equal position.
All you really need to learn are 3 openings. One to play as white and two as black; one against e4 and another for d4 (or anything else). I play the London as white, the French against e4 and Purdy's All Purpose Opening (or sometimes the Kings Indian) against d4.
A book you may find helpful is: Action Chess: Purdy's 24 Hours Opening Repertoire, which covers the Colle, French and Purdy's All Purpose Opening.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Purdy' all purpose opening?What the hell is that?
Sorry to say that but sounds like an utter nonsense to me.
It's just the name C.J. Purdy gave his d4 opening defense. "All Purpose" doesn't sound any more ridiculous to me than Hippopotamus or Black Lion or Fried Liver Attack. I suspect he named it All Purpose since it's playable against, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 and even 1.e4 (though not as strong as other choices). It's a solid defense. The basic moves (though there are several variations for different lines that white might play) are:
1. d4, d5
2. c4, e6
3. Nc3, Nf6
4. Bg5, Be7
5. Nf3, O-O
DeirdreSkye wrote:
So Purdy claims that it's better to learn Colle than learn to play 1.e4 e5.
Purdy chooses the easy way , as many did before him and many will do after him.
His system is better than wandering aimlessly in the jungle of openings , still it's dubious to claim that a beginner must start from Colle or he must simply repeat some mechanical moves against everything Black plays.Many trainers claim that learning to play 1.e4 e5 is very important for the improvement of a player.Maybe they are wrong , who knows?
It doesn't sound like you have read the book. Purdy doesn't claim that 1.d4 is superior to e4. Nor that beginners should start with the Colle. Nothing of the sort. His repertoire choices are aimed at players that don't want to (or can't) invest significant time studying openings. Since 1.e4 opens the door to the Sicilian and tons of other responses that require study, he chose the Colle because it can be learned quickly and it's harder for a novice to get into trouble - even against booked-up opponents.
I played the Colle for a time, but moved on to the London, which is similar but suits my style better. I always had difficulty freeing the bishop. Still, I learned a lot from playing it and still do occasionally.
What I like about Purdy's approach is that a novice can learn 3 very playable openings in a couple of days and then focus attention on more important areas of chess improvement. While it's true that many coaches recommend 1.e4 because it tends to lead to tactical lines faster than 1.d4, almost everyone agrees that until a player reaches 1800+. there is little benefit to studying openings deeply and memorizing long lines of variations. That time is better spent on tactics, board visualization, etc. In my experience, 1.e4 requires more effort to learn than 1.d4.
I don't think it matters that much what openings a player chooses to learn as long is it's sound and suits their style and study commitments.
my first chess opening book was How to think ahead in chess..I discussed a single opening for white (the Stonewall) and two defenses for black ( Sicilian to respond to a PK4 move and Lasker's Defense(to respond to PQ4)...I just studied and experimented with those openings for a long time...Another good book was PIRC Alert for responding to Pk4...Good Luck Have fun
For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf
Perhaps jjupiter6 would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006).
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
"There is no such thing as a 'best opening.' Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate
https://www.chess.com/article/view/picking-the-correct-opening-repertoire
http://chess-teacher.com/best-chess-openings/
https://www.chess.com/blog/TigerLilov/build-your-opening-repertoire
https://www.chess.com/blog/CraiggoryC/how-to-build-an-opening-repertoire
https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-an-opening-to-memorize-or-understand
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-perfect-opening-for-the-lazy-student
https://www.chess.com/article/view/3-ways-to-learn-new-openings
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9035.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627110453/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen169.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9029.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/has-the-king-s-indian-attack-been-forgotten
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7277.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9050.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627104938/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen159.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627022042/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen153.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... A book you may find helpful is: Action Chess: Purdy's 24 Hours Opening Repertoire, which covers the Colle, French and Purdy's All Purpose Opening." - rickr705
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... So Purdy claims that it's better to learn Colle than learn to play 1.e4 e5.
Purdy chooses the easy way , as many did before him and many will do after him.
His system is better than wandering aimlessly in the jungle of openings , still it's dubious to claim that a beginner must start from Colle or he must simply repeat some mechanical moves against everything Black plays.Many trainers claim that learning to play 1.e4 e5 is very important for the improvement of a player.Maybe they are wrong , who knows?
Purdy died somewhere around four decades ago. The book was subsequently compiled from his writings. I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I never read it, but I did browse through it many years ago. From what I can remember, my impression is that Purdy was attempting to give a helpful suggestion to readers who felt overwhelmed by the traditional 1 e4 e5 approach. I suspect that part of the idea was to help them to pay more attention to other aspects of chess and avoid getting bogged down in too much opening study. The thing about trainers is that they can be accustomed to working with players who want a trainer. Not everyone has that kind of time and dedication.
Hello all,
I am a beginner. I have been studying the Italian Opening and want to commence studying another opening. What would you all recommend as the next one to look at?
Thanks in advance.