Should Beginners Study Openings?

A sentiment that pervades the chess community and chess.com forums is that beginner and even intermediate chess players shouldn’t study openings. I constantly hear advanced players, especially older ones, repeating the presumption that at -2000 level it is worthless to study opening lines, and that one should instead focus only on tactics and strategy and just not hanging pieces if they wish to improve at the game.

However, I disagree. In my experience climbing the rating ladder in chess, openings are a significant factor from 900 level and upward. I think this is the misconception:


These people often say that a game under 2k will never be decided by the opening. But this is a tricky statement to make. I believe that even though the OBJECTIVE value of an opening won’t decide games at this level, the SUBJECTIVE value very often does. Some openings have plans and strategies that are more intuitive to certain players, and some work better for others. If you play an opening you are more comfortable with, you will win more at lower levels, even if it isn’t objectively better. This works on the reverse as well. If you feel uncomfortable in closed positions, you might want to play the Slav to challenge yourself and gain some experience.

Therefore I’d recommend beginners and intermediates to study multiple openings and acquire a repertoire for both colors. What are your thoughts on this topic?

Tactics, than openings.

Openings only lead to the chance to demonstrate tactical abilities.

Yes, but playing in a position you are more comfortable with makes it easier to spot tactics.

Beginners can learn enough about an opening in about 15 minutes.

 

If the opponent plays basically normally, the opening knowledge may be useful

 

If you study openings extremely deeply you’ll learn a lot about the middle game as well. Even memorising lines is beneficial, say for the memory improvement

I like the stability and reliability of knowing you have a good position on move 15 Y’know? But you probably don’t need need them…

Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond…https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

I'm 470 and I've been sticking to Queen's Gambit openings in order to develop vision through repetition and have a directional goal I can sort of follow.

At my ELO, I see more QG: Accepted or some other non-center pawn responses rather than bread-and-butter QG: Declined or other declined type openings. Sometimes they will just give me full center and add pressure to e4 and I have to decide how I respond.

Either way, in like 50-100 games of similar ideas, I am nowhere near using QG to my full advantage and I lack the knowledge of purpose when "forced" into another d4 opening by move 2. My repertoire is non-existent.

---

On one hand, I love the opportunity to develop patterns I have seen before and the ability to have a game plan for my pieces...

But on the other hand, that can be quickly taken away if my opponent plays something novel or not really responding to me (or so I may be wrongly assuming).

Trying to remember my "lines" (which may not even be accurate when played perfectly) can be overwhelming as a beginner, and it's going to require a much deeper understanding and intuition if I decide to learn any other openings.

---

Also, my black openings (having to be the one to respond) are lackluster and scuffed. Trying to just get the Caro Kann purpose drilled into my head so I can at least have something.

TL;DR: I'd certainly study them to understand what it is any opening is trying to accomplish as it may inspire purpose.. but I wouldn't try and develop recollection without forethought.

Forethought is definitely the bottleneck for beginners. at least for me.

My understanding is that it is better for me to study Tactics and Pawn structures (reading Kmoch, good or bad for a beginner, it has already helped me), then Endgames, then openings. It's a matter of priorities and time management. Again, from my understanding, "studying opening theory" means a lot of rote learning, and also taking an opening and then studying how you should develop for the rest of the game. It sounds like months of hard work with each opening. You have to know how to capitalize off your opening in the middle, thus the tactics you all mentioned, and then know how to play it out to get the endgame. I can already get through most openings pretty easily, even though I can only name a few. One reason I went with Diamond was for the analyses. My openings come in at 90% and better. My mid and endgames are only in the 60s. What should I study? Homer? Doh!

I've Drawn with http://ShredderChess.com

Twice on it's most difficult mode, using the Bird's - 1) f4

The other piece of advice I picked up here, in my quest to understand exactly what "studying opening theory" meant, is that, there's no problem with us doing it, just take it a little at a time. Which I think you sort of have to do, anyway. Pick an opening and then start reading everything you can find about the theory behind it and how to develop it. After you study Tactics for the day.

There's the rub. If they don't, how should a beginner react?

If he blindly continues on his normally played lines, he could just be handing over advantage to his opponent.

If a beginner is forced to pump the brakes and think, "Well that wasn't what I was expecting... what do I do now?" he is left to his own devices from an abandoned opening position in which he didn't develop naturally. Certainly some openings are more versatile than others, but I'd argue that other openings require one to be very careful and aware.. something a beginner is going to lack.

yes...

I tried a new gambit and my opponent didn't bite and I was left with my Black Bishop taking his Knight, what do you call the Black version of the Spanish, which I hate. Didn't even get a doubled pawn out of it. I scrambled for awhile, but eventually won. 80% of players take the gambit. I got a 20%er.  This is one reason I argue that, if someone in Daily is using books for their moves, as some seem to think, once I start making moves that aren't the moves that the masters played he isn't going to know what to do and will lose. Plus, I'm simply playing tougher competition and that makes me better.

Tactics are definitely the backbone to gameplay at any level, but openings are a good way to dictate the type of game you would like to play (Aggressive, Defensive, Etc.) and can also open up some traps that beginners will struggle to see. Obviously actually knowing how to play chess at a high level is more important in the long run than simply knowing some openings, but that does not mean they shouldn't be studied.

People who  start chess early in life are clueless about beginner chess.

"Study openings"  and "beginner" have so many different interpretations ...

Certainly beginners should learn opening principals (center control, development [usually minor pieces before major], and king safety).

Not too much later, there's some utility--and certainly no harm--in learning the first few moves (and common variants) of a few openings. And learning common traps and blunders to avoid in those openings.

But definitely looking 10-15 moves deep into opening theory to build a repertoire is a waste of time for beginners.

And of course tactics and endgames should get far more study time than openings.

 

Sure, knowing something about openings is good for any level... it's just that openings are a very common place to waste time.

So for example, I think it's good, after every game, to compare your game to a database to see who made a very uncommon move first, and then look at what the most common moves are... pick a move you like from the list and try to remember for next game (just that one extra move).

That's a pretty good way to go about it as a beginner... especially if you pick a good opening (not some gambit trash that no GMs play).

But what beginners usually do is buy some course on an opening, and spend, let's say 20-50 hours, memorizing dozens of lines they're never going to see in their games. That's a waste of time.

The question is which is more important?  Is it tactics and end game or openings?

Pretty sure 99% of players would say that tactics are what helped the most during the early stages of their chess journey.