what are the best openings ? • page 1/4 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I am looking for an ideal opening repertoire for both white and black
Please give me your suggestions
I am open to all responses :)

I am looking for an ideal opening repertoire for both white and black Please give me your suggestions I am open to all responses :)

tpr

#2

Simplest and best is to defend 1 e4 e5 and 1 d4 d5 as black and to open 1 e4 as white.

PrOfEsSiOnAlChEs

#3

most of main lines are good but no openings are called best openings because if there would be an opening which is the best everyone would play it also by your ratings I see ur a beginner so I recommend you to play e4

Shadow1414

#4

#1: The ones which score the best at OTB master level. Against 1. e4, the Sicilian is the best.
—
#3: There’s no rule which states that everyone must play the best openings. In every game, there’s a best strategy. Coin flips aren’t 50/50. 1. d4 Beats 1. e4.

There are many reasons why someone might choose to not play the best openings. The simplest reason is that they prefer other openings.

#1: The ones which score the best at OTB master level. Against 1. e4, the Sicilian is the best. — #3: There’s no rule which states that everyone must play the best openings. In every game, there’s a best strategy. Coin flips aren’t 50/50. 1. d4 Beats 1. e4. There are many reasons why someone might choose to not play the best openings. The simplest reason is that they prefer other openings.

kindaspongey

#5

"... A move frequently seen at the start of the game is 1.e4. Other openings lead to a more slow-moving game. Beginners should be advised to give preference to 1.e4 for a long time, to familiarize themselves with the character of the struggle in the so-called 'open games' and acquire certain essential skills. ...
A good answer to 1.e4 is 1...e5. ...
... There is an abundance of openings, a multitude of tempting continuations. Which of them do you select, to which ones should you grant preference?
It would be wrong if you let your choice be dictated by what our leading players play most often. Bear in mind the great importance of playing in just the way that suits you, the way that is to your liking. This is the true key to success in tournament play.
All players have their own tastes in chess. Some like to attack, to sacrifice, to play combinations. Well then, it makes sense for these players to exercise their powers in gambit openings. But then again there are those lovers of chess who like a manoeuvring game, who are not averse to defending. They too can select openings to suit their taste.
In general, for players who don't yet possess much tournament experience, settling on open games is more suitable. The strategic ideas of these systems are clearer and simpler than those of half-open and closed games. ..." - The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis

"... A move frequently seen at the start of the game is 1.e4. Other openings lead to a more slow-moving game. Beginners should be advised to give preference to 1.e4 for a long time, to familiarize themselves with the character of the struggle in the so-called 'open games' and acquire certain essential skills. ... A good answer to 1.e4 is 1...e5. ... ... There is an abundance of openings, a multitude of tempting continuations. Which of them do you select, to which ones should you grant preference? It would be wrong if you let your choice be dictated by what our leading players play most often. Bear in mind the great importance of playing in just the way that suits you, the way that is to your liking. This is the true key to success in tournament play. All players have their own tastes in chess. Some like to attack, to sacrifice, to play combinations. Well then, it makes sense for these players to exercise their powers in gambit openings. But then again there are those lovers of chess who like a manoeuvring game, who are not averse to defending. They too can select openings to suit their taste. In general, for players who don't yet possess much tournament experience, settling on open games is more suitable. The strategic ideas of these systems are clearer and simpler than those of half-open and closed games. ..." - The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis

kindaspongey

#6

Imagine that there are red boxes and blue boxes. Both have a button and a screen that either reacts with "prime" or "nonprime". One type of box has a die with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Pushing the button internally rolls the die and the screen says "prime" if 2, 3, or 5 is the result. The other type of box is similar except that, inside, it has a dodecahedron with the numbers from 1 to 12. "Prime" is displayed if the result of a roll is 2, 3, 5, 7, or 11.
Suppose that you really like to see "prime" after pushing the button, and have found that, after many experiments, your particular box reacts with "prime" approximately 5 twelfths of the time. The other type of box is known to react with "prime" about half the time. In this sort of situation, it seems VERY rational to switch to the other type of box and get "prime" more often.
Educators often spend a fair amount of time on this sort of issue, and it is very tempting to try to think of any decision in terms of considering appropriate probabilities. It is as if they want us to reduce decisions to being like the Brad Pitt character in Se7en. ("What's in the box?")
However, is that really necessarily rational? Consider another example:
You wake up on a stretcher in an ambulance. You have no memory of how you got there. For the moment, the ambulance is blocked in traffic, and everyone in the ambulance (except you) is occupied with shouting at nearby cars to make an open path for the ambulance. For the moment, nobody is paying attention to you as you pick up an unattended phone and submit the question:
"Of those on a stretcher in an ambulance, what is the percentage who have a serious medical problem?"
The answer comes up: 70%
Then you ask:
"Percentage of people in general who have a serious medical problem"
and the result is: 10%.
Would it be rational to take advantage of the opportunity to stagger to the exit, open it, and jump out?
The thing about a die is that it is carefully engineered to simplify what is relevant. It generally doesn't matter who rolls a die, when it is rolled, where it is rolled, etc. Most real-world situations are not like that.
For most openings, the truth (to the extent that there is truth) is that, as far as we know, neither side has a forced win. Everything else is a matter of human psychology, who is playing, what is known at the time, etc. A discussion of an opening is unlikely to properly consider the circumstances relevant to an opening decision for a particular individual at a specific time.

Imagine that there are red boxes and blue boxes. Both have a button and a screen that either reacts with "prime" or "nonprime". One type of box has a die with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Pushing the button internally rolls the die and the screen says "prime" if 2, 3, or 5 is the result. The other type of box is similar except that, inside, it has a dodecahedron with the numbers from 1 to 12. "Prime" is displayed if the result of a roll is 2, 3, 5, 7, or 11. Suppose that you really like to see "prime" after pushing the button, and have found that, after many experiments, your particular box reacts with "prime" approximately 5 twelfths of the time. The other type of box is known to react with "prime" about half the time. In this sort of situation, it seems VERY rational to switch to the other type of box and get "prime" more often. Educators often spend a fair amount of time on this sort of issue, and it is very tempting to try to think of any decision in terms of considering appropriate probabilities. It is as if they want us to reduce decisions to being like the Brad Pitt character in Se7en. ("What's in the box?") However, is that really necessarily rational? Consider another example: You wake up on a stretcher in an ambulance. You have no memory of how you got there. For the moment, the ambulance is blocked in traffic, and everyone in the ambulance (except you) is occupied with shouting at nearby cars to make an open path for the ambulance. For the moment, nobody is paying attention to you as you pick up an unattended phone and submit the question: "Of those on a stretcher in an ambulance, what is the percentage who have a serious medical problem?" The answer comes up: 70% Then you ask: "Percentage of people in general who have a serious medical problem" and the result is: 10%. Would it be rational to take advantage of the opportunity to stagger to the exit, open it, and jump out? The thing about a die is that it is carefully engineered to simplify what is relevant. It generally doesn't matter who rolls a die, when it is rolled, where it is rolled, etc. Most real-world situations are not like that. For most openings, the truth (to the extent that there is truth) is that, as far as we know, neither side has a forced win. Everything else is a matter of human psychology, who is playing, what is known at the time, etc. A discussion of an opening is unlikely to properly consider the circumstances relevant to an opening decision for a particular individual at a specific time.

Benedictine

#7

Ah, another one of my second favourite forum posts! Lovely!

Just a hint, when you ask for complete opening repertoire advice on an open forum when nobody knows you, it is useful to share such things as:

Age
Experience
Taste/style
Current Repertoire
Chess expectations

All of these things are important if not essential if strangers are going to give you opening advice. Otherwise you might as well ask:

Can you recommend me a holiday?
What vehicle should I drive?
What career should I undertake?
Etc, etc.

Ah, another one of my second favourite forum posts! Lovely! Just a hint, when you ask for complete opening repertoire advice on an open forum when nobody knows you, it is useful to share such things as: * Age * Experience * Taste/style * Current Repertoire * Chess expectations All of these things are important if not essential if strangers are going to give you opening advice. Otherwise you might as well ask: Can you recommend me a holiday? What vehicle should I drive? What career should I undertake? Etc, etc.

Albinsajan

#8

As White:
Italian Game
Moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Easy and classic. Develops fast and prepares to castle.

Queen’s Gambit
Moves: 1.d4 d5 2.c4
Very popular. Offers a pawn to control the center.

London System
Moves: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4
Solid and simple. Same setup every time, good for beginners.

As Black:
Sicilian Defense (vs 1.e4)
Moves: 1.e4 c5
Aggressive counterplay, many variations.

French Defense (vs 1.e4)
Moves: 1.e4 e6
Solid and defensive. Good for strategic players.

King's Indian Defense (vs 1.d4)
Moves: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6
Dynamic and sharp, for players who like attacking

As White: Italian Game Moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Easy and classic. Develops fast and prepares to castle. Queen’s Gambit Moves: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Very popular. Offers a pawn to control the center. London System Moves: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Solid and simple. Same setup every time, good for beginners. As Black: Sicilian Defense (vs 1.e4) Moves: 1.e4 c5 Aggressive counterplay, many variations. French Defense (vs 1.e4) Moves: 1.e4 e6 Solid and defensive. Good for strategic players. King's Indian Defense (vs 1.d4) Moves: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 Dynamic and sharp, for players who like attacking

BattIe_Chess

#9

@tpr, I disagree that 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 are 'simple' to defend as they are very theory-heavy and there are many risky lines as well as those where if you play wrong, you get positionally crushed. I would advise an initial opening avoiding theory, but if willing to study lines then play the French for black a similar setup against d4 maybe with e6.

kindaspongey

#10

"... 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)