Which openings to learn

I am new to chess and seem to have played the Sicilian Defence a whole heap of times now. I like it but I guess I need to experiment more. I want an opening to be a tactical choice rather than just a habit.

For those who are just beginning, I say just play! Learn to hold on to your pieces and check to make sure squares are safe before moving your pawns and pieces to the squares.

See the board. Be the board. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nahhhhhhhh.

Originally posted by moon1969
1.e4

Yes "Best by test" was what Bobby Fischer said of 1.e4 when annotating one of his games.
After that it gets a little harder.

Originally posted by AussieDave
Hello, I'm new to RHP. My opening repotoir is extremely limited and I wanted to know which were some of the more common and useful openings to learn first.

Hope somebody will help

Giving some more thought to learning "common and useful" openings, I would recommend getting an annotated copy of Capablanca's best games.

All of his openings were common and useful, he played them with tremendous logic and skill, and he dealt with unusual play in a calm practical, and logical manner.

You will see kingpawn games, queenpawn games, and hypermodern games, and his opponents were also good players, so the games have great learning value from the first move to the last.

There are other World Champions who would serve as good examples, but Capablanca fits the "common and useful" mold better than any, in my opinion.

My favorite endgame is KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP vs. PPPPPPPPNNBBRRQK

I suggest you try "the glob". It worked once against my older brother. He refused to touch his queen after I drooled on it.

Originally posted by ElmoreB
I suggest you try "the glob". It worked once against my older brother. He refused to touch his queen after I drooled on it.

Thanks for the advice. I'm no longer welcome at the local chess club. On the up side they let me keep the queen.

The opening rep I've been recomending is:

With white play 1.e4. Pick one of the openings you like. The vienna gambit is what I've been recommending lately. Other good openings include the Italian, Goring, Evans, king's gambit etc.

The Ruy Lopez is probably not a good choice until you are ready for it (and if you're asking this board for advice on what to play you're a long way from being ready)

With black :
Against e4 the center counter (with 3..Qa5) is a good starter opening. You can get a playable game without having to learn much theory at all. Once you feel comfortable pick one of the defenses to the Ruy that DON'T play 3...a6. Those are the easiest to learn and some can be very good at the sub- 2000 level. The rest of the e4 openings are fairly easy to play. Stick with 1..e5 for a long time. It will make you a better player in the long run.

Against d4 I've been recommending the Tarrasch defense for years. Its simple to learn and gives you an open and very active game and the moves are very sound. It can also be played against everything but 1.e4 so it cuts down on study time. Another good opening might be the slav. Hyper-modern openings like the king's indian are probably bad choices. You really have to have a solid understanding of the center and positional play to be able to play them well plus the KID in particular is very theory heavy.

Against everything else focus on building a big classical center and developing your pieces and you should be okay.

I don't agree with much of the advice here. If you don't learn some theory you'll just get punished.

Also, to begin with, why not just choose English or 1.d4? You can play mostly natural moves and at least you won't get smashed in the opening with kamakazie tactical cheapos like the Latvian/BDG etc.

Originally posted by plopzilla
at least you won't get smashed in the opening with kamakazie tactical cheapos like the Latvian/BDG etc.

but those attacks are why people recommend beginners play 1.e4

You're thinking results,not education.

Originally posted by torten
but those attacks [b]are why people recommend beginners play 1.e4

You're thinking results,not education.[/b]

No i'm thinking learn positional Chess first which is a proper education.

Originally posted by plopzilla
No i'm thinking learn positional Chess first which is a proper education.

Everyone I've read says that tactics are the most important aspect of the game.

Originally posted by plopzilla
I don't agree with much of the advice here. If you don't learn some theory you'll just get punished.

Also, to begin with, why not just choose English or 1.d4? You can play mostly natural moves and at least you won't get smashed in the opening with kamakazie tactical cheapos like the Latvian/BDG etc.

I don't agree with much of the advice here. If you don't learn some theory you'll just get punished

Only if you are playing in circles where your opponents know theory and are strong enough to take advantage of reasonable moves that are not "theory". You should only be punished if you make mistakes or weak moves, not because you don't follow theory to the current, right up to date, letter.

On-line is different to OTB because you can just look it up as you play if that is what you want to do. Whether you understand what you are doing is another matter. OTB you have to be able to remember the lines or be able to work it out. In my OTB experience most under 2000 opponents wander out of the book around move 10 or I have.

Also, to begin with, why not just choose English or 1.d4? You can play mostly natural moves and at least you won't get smashed in the opening with kamakazie tactical cheapos like the Latvian/BDG etc.

Frankly I see little point in recommending a specific opening. As far as I am concerned every one of them has at least one hundred years of master play behind them and the idea that "there is not much theory to learn" in any of them is a load of old rubbish. The whole point of GM theory is that they have researched answers to the the "natural moves" that you can play in most openings that give them their edge fifteen moves down the line. Playing correspondence chess seriously, doing the research, checking over the master games, reading the message boards, evaluating the current state of theory can give you a taste of the Super GM world as an Amateur in the comfort of the living room but can lead to the kind of paranoia I described in my previous post. Over the board you have to be able to maintain any advantage your "superior" opening knowledge gives you and that to me is where the efforts to improve should be concentrated. (Tactics, Tactics, Tactics: Strategy Strategy Strategy!!)

At the level of most players the GM theory doesn't matter. What matters is what you can see and understand about the moves you are playing. It is easier to see that something is under threat and has to be defended than the moves you play are creating some notional endgame advantage 30 moves away. Miniatures occur in every opening. Just look at Bill Wall's website collection or in the Polgar 5334 brick.

You first have to learn to combine before you can play positionally. (That's a quote - forgotten who - Tartakover maybe?)

The second thing to consider is your character. If you are not a natural risk taker there is no point taking risks. If you are, then you will naturally begin to be guided into the openings that provide the opportunities to play that way, whether you start with 1. e4, d4, c4 or Nf3. I don't believe learning the Danish Gambit because some buccaneer on a website says so is the right idea at all. Find your repertoire yourself or let it find you as GP says. That does not mean you should not play 1.e4 though. There are as many dry and boring ways to play after that move as there are exciting ways to play after 1. d4. Look in any one volume opening book and see.

If you do not work out how to form plans, find and follow ideas, you are going to undermine your confidence in your own ability to play a vital phase of the game relying on your own resources as and when your opponent, or you, deviates from "the books." Work on that - at least you will know why you are making the moves. At the end of the game, if your opponent has exposed some weakness in your thinking then you will be in a stronger position to deal with it than if you say "Oh, the book says I should play 9. Bd3 here" or whatever.

But, strangely enough, it is possible to have a perfectly viable game of chess, free of gross error, without ever looking in a chess opening book or other resource. All you have to do is look at the function of the pieces as you place them on the square, and realize what your opponent is doing as they develop, Yes, it is quite likely that your game will follow lines more common in master chess 110 or more years ago, when "theory" was far less advanced than it is now. Agreed you won't win your national championship that way but baby steps. Look at any of the 1200 guys on here playing without the millstone of theory round their necks and admire. God knows I long for those days back. . .

Originally posted by savage4731
The opening rep I've been recomending is:

With white play 1.e4. Pick one of the openings you like. The vienna gambit is what I've been recommending lately. Other good openings include the Italian, Goring, Evans, king's gambit etc.

So with 1.e4 as white for beginners, you recommend primarily gambits. Might be fun, but giving up material in an effort to establish an attack may not be the best way to start for beginners.

The non-Evans Italian game you mention seems good, but be prepared for the Two Knights defense. I like the 1.e4 Italian game for beginners. Good principles.

Originally posted by plopzilla
No i'm thinking learn positional Chess first which is a proper education.

Well,I don't think that's possible without a sound tactical grounding.And I think with 1.e4 you'll see more tactical slugfests and thus learn faster.Although 1.d4 is just as good.I'm mainly opposed to 1.c4 for beginners.
But I'm willing to agree we disagree.

Ragwort's right anyway.It doesn't matter much which first move you pick,but rather the intention you play it with.