well, my opinions are based on my understanding which may be flawed but not wholly incorrect.
What openings should I know?
Sort:
Victor-Servranckx wrote:
There is absolutely no value in these recommended openings. Why not petroff or scandinavian or pirc? Why french which results often in a king side attack under pressure of a pawn on e5. Why not 4 knights or whatever? The dragon? Like the kings indian this results in an asymmetrical attacking race where nobody can predict the outcome. Then aljechin defence is much easier to understand.. Or taimanov sicilian.. And i can go on about dutch, nimzo indian, slav, etc... No, just play different stuff until something catches your fancy more than the rest.
Do you really play all these stuff? Wow!
You can go on. When will you stop?
For your reference, I only know 1 or 2 openings. I just play chess.
bean_Fischer wrote:
For your reference, I only know 1 or 2 openings. I just play chess.
You play chess?! What a silly strategy...
binblaster wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
For your reference, I only know 1 or 2 openings. I just play chess.
You play chess?! What a silly strategy...
And you play openings? Boring!
Try the king's gambit
Jul 20, 2013
0
#28
know? each one has a dozen variations so if your memory is not perfect...
still knowing some e4 and d4 openings and a bit of the sicillian/english will do you well.
noleryer wrote:
Just dont play the 3.Nf3 line, it was busted by Fischer.
Fischer's line ends in a position that is fine for white - black has lots of pawn weaknesses and poor development (his king won't be too safe either).
noleryer wrote:
Tell that to Fischer
How exactly? I'm not a spirit medium 
I suggest you follow general opening principles at first, then try to understand the ideas behind how specific openings impliment those principles. In addition, don't neglect to relate how the openings lead to the middlegame.
The arguments about openings never ends. They tend to make players forget the important thing is to play chess and enjoy it.
Jul 20, 2013
0
#33
Some must-know openings are the Guicco Piano, the four knights game, and maybe the Petroff(Russian) defence. I recommend the book, Chess Openings for Kids. It is extremely simple and very helpful. I still like to use it as an introduction to a new opening.
Opening books are useful if they are used to play and enjoy chess.
Victor-Servranckx wrote:
pdve wrote:
well, my opinions are based on my understanding which may be flawed but not wholly incorrect.
What you write is wholly incorrect. The scandinavian is great and any opening that has a bronstein-larsen variation should put you on your toes. If your opponent is experienced in 4 knights, then you are in for a ball. What you say about taimanov sicilian is a joke and I would not take pirc any lighter than the dragon, kings indian, grunfeld or modern. In summary, i know no single established opening that would make a better player lose from a weaker player and in all cases the better player that knows his stuff wins. People often recommend caro-kan as a stable opening, but there are more traps in it than in italian, ...and this is just an example. I hate to bring it to you, but there is no magic solution. You can play natural chess for a while, but you will get in trouble against booked up opponents and there are few short-cuts...
victor,
im not talking of tournament games. i have seen many players who play club openings and smash opponents.
Lady-Jane wrote:
As a not very good chess player, what openings should I know? I was just wondering, because I don't really know any openings, but sometimes I play people who play some opening which I don't know how to play. So I was just wondering what openings should I know, and at my level, what kind of openings should I be playing?
Someone recently asked me about this, so I'll just post an answer here.
You already got some good answers. Opening principals are more important than memorization for example. I also tend to agree that open games are best to start with. Which are ok to learn? Nearly all named openings are acceptable.
Already having these answers I'll try to add my own twist.
A very good goal (IMO) for opening study is after about 10 moves to have reached a position where you can sum up the basic ideas for both sides in 1 or two sentences. If this sounds like studying your opening in reference to the middlegame that's because it is. The entire purpose of the opening is the middlegame and knowing your destination helps you make good judgements in the opening phase.
You can work towards this by asking questions and playing over a few master games out of the opening where you had a disaster. I'm not saying invent your own openings, but after choosing an opening to know the basic middlegame ideas and maneuvers associated with it.
Now what you were thinking of when you made this post was probably losing (or getting into a terrible position) in the first 10 moves. I think this happens mostly for two reasons, neither of which have to do with not memorizing enough. 1) The threat of the opponent's last move was missed. 2) There are imagined threats that cause the player to lose ground in the center or lose time in development. Development and the center being the two big goals in the opening.
So this is why I think you got good advice already. The principals and tactics solve the problem you were likely asking about. Once you become serious about opening study though I suggest the goal of being comfortable and knowledgeable about the position that will appear after the opening is finished.
I think many beginners get cramp position after 10 moves. Or the opponent takes him/her by surprise by sacrivicing a piece. Or in the middle game, suddenly the opponent sacrifices. Then he/ she is told that she/he doesn't play the correct opening.
I think the beginner should ask back "What is the correct opening?!"
Maybe she/he is answered back "Read this or that book. And play the correct opening next time!"
So, the beginner starts blaming his/her opening everytime she/he loses.
It's sad. The more she/he studies openings, the more .....
Everytime you lose, don't you ever ever blame your opening.
There is absolutely no value in these recommended openings. Why not petroff or scandinavian or pirc? Why french which results often in a king side attack under pressure of a pawn on e5. Why not 4 knights or whatever? The dragon? Like the kings indian this results in an asymmetrical attacking race where nobody can predict the outcome. Then aljechin defence is much easier to understand.. Or taimanov sicilian.. And i can go on about dutch, nimzo indian, slav, etc... No, just play different stuff until something catches your fancy more than the rest.
1) The Scandinavian loses.
2)The Pirc, I don't know haven't tried it much. Too abstract, white can push the h-pawn and break up black's defense and unlinke in the dragon, black does not necessarily counterattack white's king. as far as i know, black aims for queenside expansion. not necessarily something a beginner will feel interested.
3)The four knights-it is the most boring opening ever, except perhaps for the petroff.
4)Taimanov sicilian-again, boring opening, no sharp play
1) The Scandinavian does not lose (it is employed at GM level with good results).
2) In the Pirc black often does go for the queenside (although central breaks are also possible). However white will often castle queenside in the most aggressive variations so black does get counterplay against the king when white attacks black's king.
3) 4 knights is not boring although it gives no advantage to white which is why it isn't often seen at GM level.