is there a way to remember the openings????

Yeah, I agree with the "understand the principles first" approach. For two reasons, firstly because it's a lot easier to remember the "best" move if you can automatically narrow it down to three (or even one) "reasonable" moves given basic opening principles and an idea of what your plan ought to be in this position, and secondly because understanding that stuff also means that you can still play sound moves and hopefully get an advantage if your opponent does something that "theory" deems too rubbish to be worth considering.

The classic - maybe hackneyed - example of the latter is the Scandinavian. After 1. e4 d4 2. exd4 Qxd4 3. Nf3, if you learn lots of theory you might know lines against Qa5 and maybe Qd6 or Qd8, and if you check a database of master chess then that's approximately all that you'll see, but against lower rated opponents on Lichess you'll quite often get hit with Qe5+, Qe6+, Qf5 etc. If you know opening principles you'll find that against this sort of play you should be able to get a better position by developing naturally and grabbing the centre while gaining tempo with threats to the queen and keeping an eye out for checkmate threats and tricks on b2 and g2. If literally all you've done is memorize a bunch of main lines then you'll have a much harder time of it.

Memorization is important but only on master level. On lower levels you are good to go when you know a couple of moves just to get to your desired opening and then take it from there.

What openings you should play?
There is a nice quote by reti about this topic:

"A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen's Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game"- RICHARD RETI

Many people go the lazy route and play opening-systems like the London or the Philidor where you just memorize your setup (my experience is that many people really don't understand opening moves) and play them on auto-pilot.
Play open games and loose a lot of games + analyze them is the way to go if you want to improve.

If you just want to play the game then do whatever you want. It always depends what your goal is.

@EdenG08
It is not clear to me exactly what you want to remember about openings from your #1 post. The names? The moves? The plans?

Regardless, I think the best way to remember these is by associating them with other things as much as possible. I think rote memorization of them is not fruitful. As you read more chess literature, go over your own and master games, have conversations on the openings with people, you will effortlessly begin to remember the openings. You will be doing these things on the openings that you find interesting. There are many resources you can use to get a quick survey of the openings to see which ones interest you. It is a long journey, have fun.

wow --------- gotta love love love this thread.... op comes on with a plea for help --------- and it was a plea............ help me!!!!!!!! then he goes away as people bend over backwards with various ideas................... just disappears.

whatever!

@TacTicIsTicTac #22:

"... just memorize your setup ..."

What is wrong with this?

If you play a "Non-System" you need to memorize your basic setup as well.

Let’s compare this with learning how to improvise (jazz):

Everybody needs a starting point: A melody AKA standard or head, a lick, a mode/scale, some progression, a rhythm a.s.o.

You NEED to memorize this essential stuff. Else you can forget it.

Understanding what goes on "Under The Hood" is the logical next step.

That means: Play. See what happens. Analysis comes later. Next step.

Back to chess.

What should be bad with memorizing just a few moves?

Isn’t it a good exercise?

Best regards

@Makropoulos
I'm not saying that you don't need memorization. But you can get decent positions without memorizing a lot in open games. Also I'm talking about beginners here. It is absolutely wrong to play the London System as a beginner.

My experience is just that people who play the london tend to play the moves on auto-pilot and don't change that for years. There is for example a bad habit of playing h3 in every position (to allow a retreat for the bishop on f4). It's not always the best move.

My point is that in playing the open games you will be confronted with tactics early on and the opening principles can be much easier applied then in closed games. This is good for players who are new to the game.

In closed positions you have to sometimes make some positional moves which aren't easy to find with general principles when you're a beginner. Some of the moves might appear unintuitive to a beginner.

Open games let's you practice tactics a lot more, you will be more likely to be exposed to tactical positions. Tactics, calculation and attacking play is what a beginner should practice.
I would only recommend the London System once a player has a solid foundation in tactics, attacking play and calculation.
As Reti states in his book tactics are the foundation of positional play not the other way round.

@TacTicIsTicTac #26

Thanks for the fastest reply ever.

I’ll think about it.

Best regards

@Makropoulos #25 you said "What should be bad with memorizing just a few moves?"

My $0.02. Nothing, if you later add on understanding and connect it to other things.

A novice memorizes that he should play 1.e4 or 1.d4 as the first move. He may have heard something about the pros/cons of those moves. He tries them in games. He reads about them. He reads annotated master games with those moves. He discusses them with people. He examines other choices in the same way. In doing these activities he gains understanding of those choices. The same applies as more moves are made. Connections also occur between the opening choices. The pawn structures that occur and the associated plans for them are learned. Masters are aware also that the sequence of moves is made for various reasons.

@jomega #28

Thank you very much for the kind and profound reply.

It sounds very good. Common sense.

And probably it will motivate me not to abandon all hope.

And I’m glad to see that a real discussion on Lichess is possible.

Best regards

This video from Andras Toth is interesting - he doesn't hold back from giving his opinion, but he makes some interesting points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRgJ_rX9bCI&list=PL4WTyEhy_sF5wQ8o7O2X8WyPdrIIA4asC&index=11&t=0s

His basic position is that as a beginner / intermediate player who actually wants to improve in the long run rather than winning a few games quickly, you should aim to play openings that a) expose you to a variety of structures and positions and b) embody classical opening principles like logical development, central control and king safety. So a) means he's against his students learning thing like the London System, Colle System, Kings Indian Attack etc, because they'll just get used to banging out the same setup and playing the same sort of position every game and never learn anything else, and b) means he recommends avoiding (eg) the French and the Kings Indian until you're a lot more advanced, because they're counterintuitive setups that somehow work and you don't want to train your mind into thinking that that's normal. He's happier with the Queen's Gambit than Reti, though. I'm not sure whether that's a fundamental difference or just that we see QP games differently these days...