- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Best openings for beginners to improve

#1

What are the best openings that should be taught to beginners in order for them to improve fast and become strong?

Here "best" doesn't mean best to maximize their winning probability on the immediate short-term, but best for them to improve and eventually become strong players. Only the long-term improvement matters. The short-term improvement is irrelevant. I have heard that adopting a system (London, Colle, KIA, etc.) would be good on the short-term but bad on the long-term, because it would limit the range of positions that they would get exposed to.

My goal is not for them to get an advantage out of the opening, but to give them openings that will often lead them to some types of positions which will be particularly instructive to them and will make them improve faster.

The players under consideration here, the so-called "beginners", are players who are below 1100 Elo, players who do not yet know what openings to play, players who do not know anything about openings.

Should each individual beginner play openings that fit his own particular style or preferences? Or is there some particular type of openings that is best to play for all beginners regardless of their individual style and preferences?

What kind of openings should we teach them?

  • mainlines or sidelines?
  • classical or hypermodern?
  • open or closed?
  • tactical or positional?
  • sharp or quiet?

Most people say: mainlines, classical, open, tactical, sharp.

Most people say: 1.e4 e5 (the Open Game, aka the Double King's Pawn) with both colors. Okay, but what should we teach them to play on move 2 and move 3? And what should we teach them to play as Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4?

What are the best openings that should be taught to beginners in order for them to improve fast and become strong? Here "best" doesn't mean best to maximize their winning probability on the immediate short-term, but best for them to improve and eventually become strong players. Only the long-term improvement matters. The short-term improvement is irrelevant. I have heard that adopting a system (London, Colle, KIA, etc.) would be good on the short-term but bad on the long-term, because it would limit the range of positions that they would get exposed to. My goal is not for them to get an advantage out of the opening, but to give them openings that will often lead them to some types of positions which will be particularly instructive to them and will make them improve faster. The players under consideration here, the so-called "beginners", are players who are below 1100 Elo, players who do not yet know what openings to play, players who do not know anything about openings. Should each individual beginner play openings that fit his own particular style or preferences? Or is there some particular type of openings that is best to play for all beginners regardless of their individual style and preferences? What kind of openings should we teach them? - mainlines or sidelines? - classical or hypermodern? - open or closed? - tactical or positional? - sharp or quiet? Most people say: mainlines, classical, open, tactical, sharp. Most people say: 1.e4 e5 (the Open Game, aka the Double King's Pawn) with both colors. Okay, but what should we teach them to play on move 2 and move 3? And what should we teach them to play as Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4?
#2

@Alcadeias said in #1:

What are the best openings that should be taught to beginners in order for them to improve fast and become strong?

Here "best" doesn't mean best to maximize their winning probability on the immediate short-term, but best for them to improve and eventually become strong players. Only the long-term improvement matters. The short-term improvement is irrelevant. I have heard that adopting a system (London, Colle, KIA, etc.) would be good on the short-term but bad on the long-term, because it would limit the range of positions that they would get exposed to.

My goal is not for them to get an advantage out of the opening, but to give them openings that will often lead them to some types of positions which will be particularly instructive to them and will make them improve faster.

The players under consideration here, the so-called "beginners", are players who are below 1100 Elo, players who do not yet know what openings to play, players who do not know anything about openings.

Should each individual beginner play openings that fit his own particular style or preferences? Or is there some particular type of openings that is best to play for all beginners regardless of their individual style and preferences?

What kind of openings should we teach them?

  • mainlines or sidelines?
  • classical or hypermodern?
  • open or closed?
  • tactical or positional?
  • sharp or quiet?

Most people say: mainlines, classical, open, tactical, sharp.

Most people say: 1.e4 e5 (the Open Game, aka the Double King's Pawn) with both colors. Okay, but what should we teach them to play on move 2 and move 3? And what should we teach them to play as Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4?

Sorry mate, are you asking us or telling us.

@Alcadeias said in #1: > What are the best openings that should be taught to beginners in order for them to improve fast and become strong? > > Here "best" doesn't mean best to maximize their winning probability on the immediate short-term, but best for them to improve and eventually become strong players. Only the long-term improvement matters. The short-term improvement is irrelevant. I have heard that adopting a system (London, Colle, KIA, etc.) would be good on the short-term but bad on the long-term, because it would limit the range of positions that they would get exposed to. > > My goal is not for them to get an advantage out of the opening, but to give them openings that will often lead them to some types of positions which will be particularly instructive to them and will make them improve faster. > > The players under consideration here, the so-called "beginners", are players who are below 1100 Elo, players who do not yet know what openings to play, players who do not know anything about openings. > > Should each individual beginner play openings that fit his own particular style or preferences? Or is there some particular type of openings that is best to play for all beginners regardless of their individual style and preferences? > > What kind of openings should we teach them? > - mainlines or sidelines? > - classical or hypermodern? > - open or closed? > - tactical or positional? > - sharp or quiet? > > Most people say: mainlines, classical, open, tactical, sharp. > > Most people say: 1.e4 e5 (the Open Game, aka the Double King's Pawn) with both colors. Okay, but what should we teach them to play on move 2 and move 3? And what should we teach them to play as Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4? Sorry mate, are you asking us or telling us.
#3

@Alcadeias said in #1:

I have heard that adopting a system (London, Colle, KIA, etc.) would be good on the short-term but bad on the long-term, because it would limit the range of positions that they would get exposed to.

Exactly. That doesn't just apply to systems like London, Colle and KIA, but it applies to every opening. This is why beginners should either learn every opening a bit or no opening at all. It can be useful to learn a bit of London or Italian to get a better feel for piece placement, but other than that, beginners should learn about endgames, mating patterns, middlegame tactics, piece placement and the golden rules.

So if you ask me, what opening should we teach beginners, you are simply asking the wrong question. The right question would be: "What should we teach beginners?" - because openings is certainly nothing that we should teach them. They should start by understanding the game, positional feel and tactics and not by learning moves by heart. This is what everybody is doing non-stop, because most want to "win fast, quick, simple" and the fascination for "traps" is big. So youtubers usually create opening videos, because they are easy to make and get a lot of clicks. This leads to the misconception openings would be the most important part of the game, because suggested and shown my masters and strong players there all the time. But the reason for them showing it is simply: MONEY.

Now the right question "What should we teach beginners" is something I think about a lot. I am a little bit surprised why it would concern you as an let's say intermediate player at the start of his journey? Do you want to show a friend the game that doesn't know anything or just generally curious?

@Alcadeias said in #1: > I have heard that adopting a system (London, Colle, KIA, etc.) would be good on the short-term but bad on the long-term, because it would limit the range of positions that they would get exposed to. Exactly. That doesn't just apply to systems like London, Colle and KIA, but it applies to every opening. This is why beginners should either learn every opening a bit or no opening at all. It can be useful to learn a bit of London or Italian to get a better feel for piece placement, but other than that, beginners should learn about endgames, mating patterns, middlegame tactics, piece placement and the golden rules. So if you ask me, what opening should we teach beginners, you are simply asking the wrong question. The right question would be: "What should we teach beginners?" - because openings is certainly nothing that we should teach them. They should start by understanding the game, positional feel and tactics and not by learning moves by heart. This is what everybody is doing non-stop, because most want to "win fast, quick, simple" and the fascination for "traps" is big. So youtubers usually create opening videos, because they are easy to make and get a lot of clicks. This leads to the misconception openings would be the most important part of the game, because suggested and shown my masters and strong players there all the time. But the reason for them showing it is simply: MONEY. Now the right question "What should we teach beginners" is something I think about a lot. I am a little bit surprised why it would concern you as an let's say intermediate player at the start of his journey? Do you want to show a friend the game that doesn't know anything or just generally curious?
#4

"... the situations in which trainers work vary enormously. ... Some trainers work with large groups of students and others individually; with average low-category players or with bright and highly talented potential stars. ...

That is why I am skeptical about any attempt to introduce a rigid methodology, rigid rules telling us what to do and how and in what order to do this or that. What should one begin with? Openings or endgames? Should he play open or closed openings, should he concentrate on main lines or 'subsidiary' variations? What is more important: a tactical mastery or a positional one?

Opinions of respected specialists, grandmasters and world champions differ greatly. Some claim that chess is 95% tactics, while others hold that the basis of chess is positional play. We should not take such statements seriously; they are worthless and only disorient people because each one reflects only a single facet of the problem. In fact, when we think over a dilemma, be it the one I have just mentioned or another one - for example, should we work to develop strong qualities of a player or to liquidate his weaknesses? - any unambiguous answer like 'we do either this or that' will be a wrong one. The truth lies in skillful combination of the opposite approaches, in search for an optimal proportion between them. And this proportion is individual for every particular case. ..." - IM Mark Dvoretsky (~2003)

"... the situations in which trainers work vary enormously. ... Some trainers work with large groups of students and others individually; with average low-category players or with bright and highly talented potential stars. ... That is why I am skeptical about any attempt to introduce a rigid methodology, rigid rules telling us what to do and how and in what order to do this or that. What should one begin with? Openings or endgames? Should he play open or closed openings, should he concentrate on main lines or 'subsidiary' variations? What is more important: a tactical mastery or a positional one? Opinions of respected specialists, grandmasters and world champions differ greatly. Some claim that chess is 95% tactics, while others hold that the basis of chess is positional play. We should not take such statements seriously; they are worthless and only disorient people because each one reflects only a single facet of the problem. In fact, when we think over a dilemma, be it the one I have just mentioned or another one - for example, should we work to develop strong qualities of a player or to liquidate his weaknesses? - any unambiguous answer like 'we do either this or that' will be a wrong one. The truth lies in skillful combination of the opposite approaches, in search for an optimal proportion between them. And this proportion is individual for every particular case. ..." - IM Mark Dvoretsky (~2003)
#5

@Alcadeias said in #1:

... to beginners in order for them to improve fast and become strong?
...

  • mainlines or sidelines?
  • classical or hypermodern?
  • open or closed?
  • tactical or positional?
  • sharp or quiet? ...
    Does every beginner want the same degree of "fast" and "strong"? Like it or not, beginners vary greatly in terms of what they want, what they are capable of, and what they are willing to do. I would expect a teacher to have a lot of frustration while trying to stear all beginners into one path.
@Alcadeias said in #1: > ... to beginners in order for them to improve fast and become strong? > ... > - mainlines or sidelines? > - classical or hypermodern? > - open or closed? > - tactical or positional? > - sharp or quiet? ... Does every beginner want the same degree of "fast" and "strong"? Like it or not, beginners vary greatly in terms of what they want, what they are capable of, and what they are willing to do. I would expect a teacher to have a lot of frustration while trying to stear all beginners into one path.
#7

"... For players with a brilliant memory ... it makes sense to include in their opening repertoire complicated modern opening systems, where there is a great deal of theory, you have to know an enormous number of games, and remember various subtleties. ...

... players with a good memory ... can permit themselves to vary their opening repertoire and employ different openings, ...

For players with a less good memory it is dangerous to embark on such a course. .... It is better to aim for 'opening schemes' -- logical systems with less theory, in which what is more important is an understanding of position and a knowledge of typical ideas and methods, rather than specific details or precise move orders. ..." - IM Mark Dvoretsky

"... For players with a brilliant memory ... it makes sense to include in their opening repertoire complicated modern opening systems, where there is a great deal of theory, you have to know an enormous number of games, and remember various subtleties. ... ... players with a good memory ... can permit themselves to vary their opening repertoire and employ different openings, ... For players with a less good memory it is dangerous to embark on such a course. .... It is better to aim for 'opening schemes' -- logical systems with less theory, in which what is more important is an understanding of position and a knowledge of typical ideas and methods, rather than specific details or precise move orders. ..." - IM Mark Dvoretsky
#8

Now that there are AI's doing the search, common question in forums seem obsolete.
Their results come the internet. A simple subject question like this one has been answered on the internet so the AI answer is clear enough for me.

Chess openings made for beginners to be able to improve ...
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/5b1049e3-80c8-4416-a19d-f62f596ec313?s=u

Now that there are AI's doing the search, common question in forums seem obsolete. Their results come the internet. A simple subject question like this one has been answered on the internet so the AI answer is clear enough for me. Chess openings made for beginners to be able to improve ... https://www.perplexity.ai/search/5b1049e3-80c8-4416-a19d-f62f596ec313?s=u
#9

"... the former Soviet Champion Lev Psakhis once explained to me that an extensive grounding in the Ruy Lopez was essential if you want to develop your game. He added that in Russia it was said that the one failing of Lev Polugaevsky was that he never received this education. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627031152/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/ebcafe10.pdf
Is that even still true?
"... Now jump ahead sixty years to 2020. ... the Berlin Defense to the Spanish ([1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6]), which was considered a dubious sideline in Fischer’s day, is now considered to be very close to equal. Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. Due to the success of these two defenses, many strong players have switched from the Spanish to the Italian (3.Bc4 instead of 3.Bb5), which was considered to be a harmless sideline last century. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman (2020)
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9092.pdf
In any event, for how many beginners does it make sense to think in terms of being another Lev Polugaevsky or whoever?
"Alekhine advised beginners not to play the Spanish game. We also recommend you get some experience first by playing relatively simple openings - the Scotch and Italian games - and only then move on to the Spanish one." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

"... the former Soviet Champion Lev Psakhis once explained to me that an extensive grounding in the Ruy Lopez was essential if you want to develop your game. He added that in Russia it was said that the one failing of Lev Polugaevsky was that he never received this education. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2005) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627031152/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/ebcafe10.pdf Is that even still true? "... Now jump ahead sixty years to 2020. ... the Berlin Defense to the Spanish ([1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6]), which was considered a dubious sideline in Fischer’s day, is now considered to be very close to equal. Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. Due to the success of these two defenses, many strong players have switched from the Spanish to the Italian (3.Bc4 instead of 3.Bb5), which was considered to be a harmless sideline last century. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman (2020) https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9092.pdf In any event, for how many beginners does it make sense to think in terms of being another Lev Polugaevsky or whoever? "Alekhine advised beginners not to play the Spanish game. We also recommend you get some experience first by playing relatively simple openings - the Scotch and Italian games - and only then move on to the Spanish one." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
#10

@Toscani said in #8:

... A simple subject question like this one has been answered
on the internet so the AI answer is clear enough for me.
Chess openings made for beginners to be able to improve ...
I do not have much confidence in an AI's ability to understand human beginners and how their needs can vary from one individual to another.

@Toscani said in #8: > ... A simple subject question like this one has been answered > on the internet so the AI answer is clear enough for me. > Chess openings made for beginners to be able to improve ... I do not have much confidence in an AI's ability to understand human beginners and how their needs can vary from one individual to another.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.