22 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by moon1969Gambits force you to play actively which is important for a player's development. Far too many beginners hamper their own development as a player by playing extremely slow openings. (You know- the ones that play a3/a6 and h3/h6 every game). They lose, they can't understand why they lose and they never get better. With gambits you can't just sit back and do nothing. Gambts establish a healthy mentality in beginning players that will make them better players in the long run.
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.
Gambits also lead to more tactical games which, as any expert will tell you, is what should be the focus of beginners.
Also, the margin for error gets larger as the level play gets lower. Beginner games are rarely decided by a single pawn. Look at any game between two beginners and you will see wide swings in material with one side usually up a rook or more by the end of the game. And, even if the game does come down to a pawn, they will struggle to convert in the endgame with both sides usually making mistakes. So, in reality the pawn isn't important at all.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by savage4731True what you say that a piece or pawn normally does not make a difference with beginners.
Gambits force you to play actively which is important for a player's development. Far too many beginners hamper their own development as a player by playing extremely slow openings. (You know- the ones that play a3/a6 and h3/h6 every game). They lose, they can't understand why they lose and they never get better. With gambits you can't just sit back and d ...[text shortened]... ame with both sides usually making mistakes. So, in reality the pawn isn't important at all.
Beginners will often lose in any case, but giving away a pawn without the confidence or skill to take advantage of the tactical and positional benefits of the gambit . . .
For beginners with some experience, or medium players, I generally recommend they focus on learning the end game. So that they can trade material to reduce complexity, and to thus diffuse their inexperience somewhat. And if they become a pawn up, to trade material, and to know how to win with the extra pawn.
I like teaching to refute the gambit and win with the pawn.
With that said, you made good points. And surely gambits can teach players of all levels in complex tactical and positional issues.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarThey're not. They are, however:
Everyone I've read says that tactics are the most important aspect of the game.
- the most immediately important when they do occur;
- the most important for a beginner to learn;
- the easiest for most beginners to learn as well;
- not to forget, often the most fun for a beginner.
Strategy is just as important in the long run, and at grandmaster levels, often (but not always) more so. However, you can learn tactics without being strong in strategy and have a lot of fun playing coffee-house chess. while learning strategy without being any good at tactics leads to you building up a good position and then losing because you dropped a bishop to a blunder. I should know 😕.
Richard
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by moon1969"Good principles"
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.
What do you mean by this? Better principles than other openings?
I don't think it is good principles it is simple principles and in my experience much harder to spot opening innacuracies than in other openings. A good opening for a beginner to play so as to learn the rest of the game? Yes. A good opening to learn anything but basic opening principles? No.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by tomtom232I was thinking the Italian quiet game, which moves the center pawns, develops the minor pieces toward the center, and soon castles, before the Q or rooks are moved. In all, good simple principles for the beginner, as opposed to something more exotic. They also may get to do the most common pin of B on N, and maybe have to defend against a similar pin. Moreover, suggests development prior to moving a piece twice, except for the B dealing with the pin.
"Good principles"
What do you mean by this? Better principles than other openings?
I don't think it is good principles it is simple principles and in my experience much harder to spot opening innacuracies than in other openings. A good opening for a beginner to play so as to learn the rest of the game? Yes. A good opening to learn anything but basic opening principles? No.
26 Jul 11
Yeah well, the problem with the example you've given is that you kind of need help from your opponent.
Watch your opponent play something a bit different then you'll need to learn another 'opening' because your opponent didn't play into your opening. If you play 1.e4 then you'll need to figure out what you are going to do against the French, Sicilian as well as e5.
Of course this assumes that you run into those responses, which isn't very likely at lower levels. You'll see people play 1.e4 a5 or other stuff like that, then you are kind of screwed if you are learning an opening.
Opening priciples are fine, but it is also nice to be able to know how to respond to really bad moves too. I think that has to do with simply making good chess moves, which only comes through experience or see other games so you can copy it for yourself.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by plopzillaGood chess beats opening theory eight days a week.
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.
28 Jul 11
OK. My advice: wait a minute. Before thinking about an opening repertoire do this:
Imagine the "ideal centre" that you could have if your opponent neglected development. Thus put the white pawns at e4 and d4, white knights at f3 and c3, and the white bishops at e3 and d3. [this is one way of having an ideal centre; there are others!] Imagine that black did something silly. Put the black e and d pawns at e6 and d6 and put the black knights st d7 and e7. Imagine it is white to move. How would you exploit that advantage? Play it against yourself. Get a chess computer and play both sides, even a free chess engine like Crafty. Once you understand the basics here: centre control, development and piece coordination, you are ready to think about openings.
I would probably recommend 1.e4 and to respond with ...e5 to 1.e4 or ..d5 to 1.d4. Then see how things go. A more sophisticated opening repertoire can come later.
In my opinion I believe in the "Russian school" of chess to start with endgames first. But that's a whole other discussion...
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarOpening principles ARE how you respond to bad moves. What do you think "principles" means?
Yeah well, the problem with the example you've given is that you kind of need help from your opponent.
Watch your opponent play something a bit different then you'll need to learn another 'opening' because your opponent didn't play into your opening. If you play 1.e4 then you'll need to figure out what you are going to do against the French, Sicilian as w ...[text shortened]... which only comes through experience or see other games so you can copy it for yourself.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by moon1969That's a good opening if you want to bore someone to death. What will happen is they'll keeping getting crushed in kingside attacks (the attack against that position is pretty formulaic). So, they'll start playing h3 to prevent the pin (because thats whats starts the attack. ) Then, they'll play a3 because h3 "worked" so well. Then Nd2 to prevent a pin if black gets around h3. And what they'll end up with is a hopelessly lost position. They'll lose most of the time but won't understand why. They'll think they must be the reason why because it couldn't be the opening (after all, the strong players told them to play it). So, they give up chess.
I was thinking the Italian quiet game, which moves the center pawns, develops the minor pieces toward the center, and soon castles, before the Q or rooks are moved. In all, good simple principles for the beginner, as opposed to something more exotic. They also may get to do the most common pin of B on N, and maybe have to defend against a similar pin. M ...[text shortened]... g with the pin.
[fen]r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/2np1n2/2b1p1B1/2B1P3/2NP1N2/PPP2PPP/R2QK2R b KQkq[/fen]
No, I was thinking more of something along the lines of the 4.c3 lines. Beginners should learn to play in the center to the point of it being second nature. That's one the main reason I picked the Vienna gambit. White challenges black's center on move 3.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by AussieDaveIt kind of depends on your style or what type of struggle you enjoy the most. I would not worry to much about having a limited repertoire but about playing something that will provide me with decent middlegame positions
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
Originally posted by savage4731My point was that opening principles should not shut down your thinking. If your opponent has created a weakness, then abandon your routine of developing your pieces and punish the mistake!
Opening principles ARE how you respond to bad moves. What do you think "principles" means?
Never shut down your mind and play the board.
I remember when I first started that wing pawn storms used to kick my butt. I tried just doing what I was supposed to do and then I'd get in trouble. When someone suggested to simply fianchetto my opposite flank to attack my opponent's weak pawn structure, all of a sudden I started winning against those guys.
I was out of my routine and simply played chess with a better position. Since my opponent's basic chess skills were no better than mine, I was able to win! I won because I attacked the weakness instead of following a routine, even the opening principles routine.
28 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarAnd now you always play 1.b3...?
My point was that opening principles should not shut down your thinking. If your opponent has created a weakness, then abandon your routine of developing your pieces and punish the mistake!
Never shut down your mind and play the board.
I remember when I first started that wing pawn storms used to kick my butt. I tried just doing what I was supposed to I attacked the weakness instead of following a routine, even the opening principles routine.
28 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Nope! Now I'm starting to play 1.f4!
And now you always play 1.b3...?
Eventually I'll move over to 1.e4, but for now I'm giving the old Polar Bear a shot.
Here are a couple of my 1.f4 games:
8576079
8541299
I started playing 1.b3 because I believed it to be better than the Colle Zukertort which I played earlier. The b2 bishop is much more useful when the diagonal isn't clogged.