he was absolutely familiar with the opening (QGD Taratakower). For some odd reason he did not apply a very strong move shown to him by his seconds just months before the game... and the rest is history.
In fact Spassky had some great statistic too like he hadn't lost a QGD Tartakower in 10 year or something like this. Spassky would have been 100% comfortable, but yes, he played an inaccuracy in the opening.
"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
"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-perfect-opening-for-the-lazy-student
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings
Yeah Bobby Fischer always ALWAYS played e4....that is why Spassky was sooo surprised in game 6 when he played d4. Spassky was totally taken aback psychologically and Fischer played a brilliant game.
It was here when Fischer realized that chess was quickly becoming ALL about preparation. It bothered him greatly.
Ummm... Fisher did NOT play 1.d4 in game 6.
Spassky was not surprised, or something in that game- he was absolutely familiar with the opening (QGD Taratakower). For some odd reason he did not apply a very strong move shown to him by his seconds just months before the game... and the rest is history.
Heyy, nice to see another great player in this topic, it is an honor, sir.
But yes, it was game 6 of the championship: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044366
Spassky was surprised not because of his familiarity with the Tarkatower, BUT because Fischer NEVER played d4 AND Spassky never lost against it. *****Fischer began with c4, not d4, but eventually transposed...... So Spassky was taken aback. Fischer was quite a psychological player. He was a bit crazy, but a genius. At least this is what I think, sir. I could be quite mistaken haha 
Playing easy safe games is not conducive to the beginner. Let the beginner get burned until they learn not to put their hand in the fire. Easy system opening have less opportunities for learning and so should be avoided by beginners.
The London System has plenty of tactics, like Ne5 for example. This can lead to a swift kingside attack against another beginner . Besides, the beginner can study also Fred Reinfield's 1001 checkmates for tactics practice. It is better than the tactics trainer found here on chess.com.
I appreciate your feedback sir.
Thank you for your long, insightful remark. I agree with you. However, one opening that is taught to beginners VERY early is the KIA as white. It is a good opening, but a beginner will not understand the subtleties needed to win a game with it, in my opinion of course
Again, thanks for your feedback, sir.
Opinions differ on the suitability of the KIA for beginners. GM Seirawan seemed sympathetic to the idea in his Winning Chess Openings book.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf
The IM Watson quote struck me as disapproving, but not adamantly opposed.
Opinions differ on the suitability of the KIA for beginners. Seirawan seemed sympathetic to the idea in his Winning Chess Openings book. The IM Watson quote struck me as disapproving, but not adamantly opposed.
completely agree
No
beginner must start with moves like 1.b3, 1.g3, 1.Nf3 or even 1.Na3. It's very useful to play side-openings to which you opponent can't be prepared properly. e4 and all these Sicilian defense variations prolonging to move 50 are boring and all these moves worth remembering if you play e4. d4 is much better, but irregular openings are the best!!!
No
beginner must start with moves like 1.b3, 1.g3, 1.Nf3 or even 1.Na3. It's very useful to play side-openings to which you opponent can't be prepared properly. e4 and all these Sicilian defense variations prolonging to move 50 are boring and all these moves worth remembering if you play e4. d4 is much better, but irregular openings are the best!!!
Agreed! Play the Icelandic gambit as black (part of the scandinavian defense). It is very tricky and very few opponents will be ready for it.
I would say e4 is better. Many chess coaches insist on playing e4 first because it gives the player a chance to control the centre by moving d4 next. e4 is easier to learn, though.
I would say e4 is better. Many chess coaches insist on playing e4 first because it gives the player a chance to control the centre by moving d4 next. e4 is easier to learn, though.
e4 is not too easy to learn in my opinion. White has to deal with numerous tricky defenses (such as the sicilian). On the other hand, the London System is very safe but can easily lead to a kingside attack if black isn't careful.
Too defensive.You need to play tactical games first.not some illuminati pawn structure
Is there a system called the Mexican?
i mean, there is Sicilian, London, Scandinavian, Icelandic gambit......
Playing easy safe games is not conducive to the beginner. Let the beginner get burned until they learn not to put their hand in the fire. Easy system opening have less opportunities for learning and so should be avoided by beginners.
Agreed.
Is there a system called the Mexican?
i mean, there is Sicilian, London, Scandinavian, Icelandic gambit......
The Mexican Reshevsky Attack is as follows below, it has been played by GM Reshevsky numerous times. He called it the Mexican attack because he won a LOT of games in a simul in Juarez, Mexico with it. The opening sequence is below:
so D4 instead of E4...
That truly goes against everything i've learned in this game of chess! I feel I must learn this system tho, due to well, you know...i'm a taco lovin nacho dippin mexican beaner.
so D4 instead of E4...
That truly goes against everything i've learned in this game of chess! I feel I must learn this system tho, due to well, you know...i'm a taco lovin nacho dippin mexican beaner.
haha you are funny
Leon, thread back on track, I'm learning the Mexican, you think I'm funny, and I'm currently eating tacos.
Ahhhh can this day get any better??
Yeah Bobby Fischer always ALWAYS played e4....that is why Spassky was sooo surprised in game 6 when he played d4. Spassky was totally taken aback psychologically and Fischer played a brilliant game.
It was here when Fischer realized that chess was quickly becoming ALL about preparation. It bothered him greatly.
Ummm... Fisher did NOT play 1.d4 in game 6.
Spassky was not surprised, or something in that game- he was absolutely familiar with the opening (QGD Taratakower). For some odd reason he did not apply a very strong move shown to him by his seconds just months before the game... and the rest is history.