Best openings for beginners to improve

It's not the AI that does the moves. It only does a search on the internet and the info comes from other chess sites, not the AI's thoughts. The AI search is like a google search. It's a filter of the internet. So the AI strainer does it's job well enough for me. I'd rather want an opinion from many websites than from one person. The AI get's the info from many websites and it tell you the source. @kindaspongey

The way I see it, if we do a web search using a search engine, then that's basically the same result but quoted out in a different format.

The Chapters have a few linked games played by humans. Look at the way the pieces are developed. Don't try to memorize the lines. Flip the chessboard around and look at the game from the other side.
https://lichess.org/study/LHi8zlRZ

@Toscani said in #11:

... the AI ... only does a search on the internet
and the info comes from other chess sites, ...
How well does any of that stuff know YOU? Your abilities? Your goals? Your preferences? What you are willing to do? How you are going to progress?
"... How should we lay the foundations of our opening repertoire? It is hard to come up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will have different objectives in the opening, as well as different playing strengths. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
“... Building a repertoire ... we will take the idealized situation of someone starting from square one ... The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? Next, look at the various openings available, and see which ones fit in with your personal style. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)

A chess player that is starting to play a new chess opening for the first time is actually learning a new opening, which leads to improvement. So the best openings for a beginner is an opening they have never played before.

Now let's define the term beginner. They obviously lack experience and so are still improving the fundamentals of chess.
If a chess player needs supervision, then they are a novice.

To really clear the air, we need to define the terms novice, beginner and intermediate player by rating.
Then you also have to define the depth a player can see at a rating. This will tell which openings they will succeed in understanding.

Maybe Depth of one:
B21 Sicilian Defense: Morphy Gambit
A00 Van't Kruijs Opening
C47 Four Knights Game: Scotch Variation Accepted
A46 Yusupov-Rubinstein System

I think a beginner should try them all.

That said, I think playing gambits with the white pieces, such as the King’s Gambit, is a fantastic idea because it will teach the player how to use the initiative... that mercurial thing that so many newer players struggle with.

@Le_Patzer83 said in #15:

I think a beginner should try them all.

That said, I think playing gambits with the white pieces, such as the King’s Gambit, is a fantastic idea because it will teach the player how to use the initiative... that mercurial thing that so many newer players struggle with.

Interesting take....

Would you say the king's gambit (the line where you sac the knight to castle and get your rook to the open semi-open f file) is better for this or the danish gambit (the line where you double gambit and sac two whole pawns to get a lead in development)? The danish seems like an extremely aggressive weapon..

I won't play them always but in rapid I might try one if you suggest and if it works maybe even in classical

Real talk, I've heard a fairly respected player / coach support basically every possible opinion. Do play the London, don't play the London, play sidelines, play mainlines, always play the same opening, play all the different openings. There's always some plausible argument for why this is the right approach and some anecdotal evidence to back it up. So I tend to take it all with a pinch of salt.

(Ironically the one thing that I've never heard a good player recommend is buying a big Chessable course and memorizing it by brute force, which is the thing that everyone seems to want to do...)

One thing I would say is that "teaching a beginner an opening" shouldn't be a big thing. If you're getting them to memorize loads of variations then you're probably doing it wrong, but if you're saying "don't teach beginners openings because that would mean memorizing loads of variations" then you're probably doing it wrong as well. If I wanted to teach a beginner something like the Scotch or the Four Knights or the Caro I'd basically just show them one or two main lines to maybe six or eight moves depth, explain ideas behind the moves and point out any obvious traps and pitfalls. I'd expect it to take an hour or so at most, and a lot of that would be spent talking about how the moves follow opening principles and not just trying to cram in variations.

@Toscani said in #11:

It's not the AI that does the moves. It only does a search on the internet and the info comes from other chess sites, not the AI's thoughts. The AI search is like a google search. It's a filter of the internet. So the AI strainer does it's job well enough for me. I'd rather want an opinion from many websites than from one person. The AI get's the info from many websites and it tell you the source. @kindaspongey

The way I see it, if we do a web search using a search engine, then that's basically the same result but quoted out in a different format.

I strongly advise against replacing a google search with asking AI, for the time being at least. A google search lets you choose between all the hits you get, both (1) looking for the source sites which are likely to be reliable while ignoring others, and (2) reading different source sites and looking for corroboration between them. If you ask AI, on the other hand, it just presents a single potted response whose source is not revealed to you and whose reliability is completely unknown.

A few months ago I asked ChatGPT a question about a historical chess game and I was appalled at the sheer nonsense it dished up. In case you're interested I copied the output here in posting #9 of this thread: https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/gpt-fail

@Toscani said in #14:

A chess player that is starting to play a new chess opening for the first time
is actually learning a new opening, which leads to improvement. So the
best openings for a beginner is an opening they have never played before. ...
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
@Le_Patzer83 said in #15:
I think a beginner should try them all.
There are REALLY a lot of them. Some beginner books give this sort of advice:
"... You should play the simpler and more adventurous openings, from which you will learn how to use the pieces. Much later on you can go on to the more difficult openings - if you play them now you won't understand what you are doing ... Play the openings beginning [1 e4 e5]. ... if you haven't learnt how to play the open game you won't be able to use positional advantage even if you are able to get it. ..." - C. H. O'D. Alexander and T. J. Beach (1963)
@Le_Patzer83 said in #15:
That said, I think playing gambits with the white pieces,
such as the King’s Gambit, is a fantastic idea because ...
@SD_2709 said in #16:
Interesting take....
Would you say the king's gambit (the line where you sac the knight to
castle and get your rook to the open semi-open f file) is better for this
Perhaps, SD_2709 is referring to the famous line 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 O-O gxf3 etc., but neither side can be confident that that position will arise.
"... White should not play 4.Bc4 ..." - GM John Shaw (2013)
"... I recommend the move-order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 (!) 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3, ... Black should develop by 4...Nf6 ..." - GM Larry Kaufman (2011)
@SD_2709 said in #16:
or the danish gambit (the line where you double gambit
and sac two whole pawns to get a lead in development)? ...
"... [After 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3,] Black has a very simple and solid defence in 3...d5. ..." - GM Paul van der Sterren (2009)
In First Steps: 1 e4 e5, GM Emms calls reader attention to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 and 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4.
@Toscani said in #14:
... you also have to define the depth a player can see at a rating.
This will tell which openings they will succeed in understanding. ...
"... 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. ... 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. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

@SD_2709 said in #16:

Interesting take....

Would you say the king's gambit (the line where you sac the knight to castle and get your rook to the open semi-open f file) is better for this or the danish gambit (the line where you double gambit and sac two whole pawns to get a lead in development)? The danish seems like an extremely aggressive weapon..

I won't play them always but in rapid I might try one if you suggest and if it works maybe even in classical

In terms of a player’s long term development, I find it much easier to take a player who has learned how to use the initiative to attack and move them forward as opposed to a timid player who always tries to stay solid. The attacking player will probably have become a swashbuckler of sorts and might need to be reigned in a bit and taught not to be reckless, but it is much much easier to do that as opposed to teaching that timid player how to attack. So yeah... a new player I’d encourage them to try different openings... but I’d probably show them the kings gambit and smith morra with white, the Albin or Benko with black against d4... and probably Sicilian with Black against e4. Plus they would probably have fun scoring quick wins and be encouraged to play more. Also I wouldn’t neglect the endgame. I want my new player to have a solid understanding of that relative to their level.