As a beginner my favorite thing is to watch youtube videos about dubious gambits and then go play a bunch of games that turn out completely differently because no one plays the moves shown in the video.
Learn a system until you understand it, then switch to another until you understand that. Rinse and repeat until you become a well-rounded chess player who understands how to strategise and adapt.
Although you should probably stop doing this once you get to about four openings. This gives you some flexibility. After that learn a bit about endgames - e.g Silman’s book - and some tactics. And play through some well explained games collections. (But above all, enjoy yourself.) One thing you don’t want to become is an openings addict.
As a beginner I played the Colle System and later the London System. Unfortunately Magnus Carlsen started playing the London. Suddenly what used to be derided as "boring" and "a beginners' opening" was now being taken seriously and became very popular. The result of this was that everyone had to learn what to do against it, so it became much harder to be successful with it. I started playing the Queen's Gambit, but I'm too old to ever be able to learn enough theory to be able to play it reliably. I now play various d4 lines depending on what Black plays and how I feel, but my lack of theoretical knowledge means it's a bit of a lottery whether I come out of the opening with an advantage or not. I do concur with what you say, and I think it might have been better for me to have learned e4 instead, but I'm way too old to start playing that now. With Black however I've always played the Modern, and I still get good results with it. It has always made sense to me, the basic idea is incredibly easy to understand, and there are lots of different ways to play it. My games often transpose into lines from other openings such as the King's Indian, the Pirc, the Sicilian and occasionally the Grunfeld. Personally I think it's suitable for players of all levels including beginners. Hypermodern openings seek to control the centre too, just in a different way. I have noticed more people are playing hypermodern style with Black of late, possibly because of Hikaru's spectacular success rate playing that way in Titled Tuesday.
I think you're going too deep, unless you're like 1500+ you can just learn some more lines in the London, study tatics and motiffs, basic endgames and endgame concepts. I guess. Started doing that, started winning more, still pretty bad at the game.
Bro, it doesn't matter if you are 12 or in your 60's. If you are playing and enjoying chess, then why not learn it? Chess coach Andras made a good video on why you should not play the London as a beginner, but in the end just play what you like of course. Just don't let age be an excuse. I'm even convinced that playing different openings can give you a better technical understanding that will help you play the right move in other openings.
Agree, you're never too old to learn 1. e4 by jumping right in, losing to a tactic, then learning your lesson by experience and a quick post-mortem. Openings can be boring to study in a vacuum, so "what do I play against the Scotch instead of whatever I just invented and lost with" is a good way to focus your study. If you're switching openings as an experienced player, it's not like none of your chess skill carries over. Sure, you'll lose some rating in the short term but if that's such a problem, play unrated games or start a new account just for playing with fire. Also, playing 1. e4 for the first time against strong players will teach you much faster than playing against beginners who let you get away with missed tactics left and right.
@@michaelharvent7221 I don't know what age you are but learning new stuff becomes very hard from, say, 40+ or at least 50+ on (I played my first tournament only after that...). That holds for chess as well as languages, for example. Even if you have a well working brain and you are passionate about something, the brain becomes so much slower in memorizing stuff at that age... Maybe it gets better after retirement when you can dedicate more time to that stuff, but while you also to work and organize the rest of your life, home, family etc. it's hard. (I''m completely fluent in at least 3 languages and was progressing in about 10 other languages on duolingo, but only ridiculously slowly, until one day I told myself I should use the additional 5 minutes/day I spent on that also for chess! 😀)
I'm glad I tried a whole bunch of different openings before deciding on what I wanted to play. I was that guy who tried an opening for a couple weeks or months before I decided I didn't like it anymore. It took me over two years to get a repertoire I liked but I have a whole bunch of fun with it.
I can't prove you're right or that I am but I mostly agree with this advice. I have one piece of advice to add to it, which is don't play Philidor's Defense, which is a hookup opening disguised as a lifetime opening. Answer 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 with 2... Nc6 or 2... Nf6 but not 2... d6. If you play Philidor's Defense your experience might go like this. You start out optimistically thinking that this move beginners love can't be wrong, and that if it lacks "punch" you will study it thoroughly and that familiarity will make it a weapon for you. Then you find out that your simple idea of holding the center with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 doesn't work and can't be made to work. Then you find out that the more complicated idea of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 requires study because of attacks on f7 and Shirov's g4 gambit and fundamentally it doesn't work because of 4. dxe5, and grandmasters have tried to make that work for Black but it doesn't and you won't make it work either. Then, maybe two years after you started with optimism, you will be trying to make 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 work and finding that it is not quite the easy solution people say it is and you may find yourself saying ... This is stupid! I wasted years on a stupid opening. I might as well throw out all my game scores of games where I learned how to give myself a bleak position at the outset and then just grovel along. That's not how I wanted to play. That's not how I want to play now or in the future. I need to learn a proper opening. I should have learned a proper opening in the first place.
The four pawn attack is too real. I hate seeing it when I play King's Indian. But despite having played hundreds of games, I've never sat down to actually learn the opening properly, so that may be the issue.
When I was a teenager in a chess club, for about two years basically every game anyone there ever played was 1. e4 e5. I think it helped a lot in terms of building a foundation of general chess knowledge, but by the time I finished high-school I'd decided I'd be happy if I never played another Italian game, 4-knights, Ruy Lopez, or Petroff as long as I lived. That's just me though.
Interesting thoughts. When I started out, I played the Stonewall attack as White, and the Kings Indian against d4 and the French Defence against e4. I did dabble with Queen's Gambit. My 13 yr old son plays it, but he's much stronger than me 1600 at the moment I think? And it IS a very theoretical opening it seems. I think he plays the Pirc and the Grunfeld as Black? I ended up settling on the Bird for a long time and enjoyed some success with it. Lately I've been trying to move to the Trompowsky, or Letivsky depending on if Nf6 is played. I like them, they seem to suit my play style. I HAVE also moved to the Scandinavian and find it REALLY fun to play. For the other main black opening I've been looking at the Indian Game and the Benko Gambit, but yeah... Not settled on one to focus on yet.
Tbh I got to 1300 by just learning and playing the queen's gambit and playing with more space and freedom. Been a lifetime partner but because it tends to stick with the same concepts you can usually do okay without knowing detailed theory.
The beginning of your chess career is also the only time when you can play the unsound weird fun gambit openings. Benko, Budapest, Latvian, Tarrasch as most of these will just be refuted on a certain playing strength. But you are completely right. I started with the London and it didn't get boring but i fell into a different trap. The automatic nature of the system based apporaches lead to me playing the moves almost instantly without much thinking and i blundered so much. I completely switched over and i am happy playing fun gambits until i have to let them go ^^
As an "advanced" beginner, my most joyful experience with chess is to play the openings out of order and realize that you have arrived to a familiar position.
Al Horowitz said this some 3/4 of a century ago - "If you're White, play 1. e4... if you're Black, and white plays 1. e4, play e5" (well actually as a mid-twentieth century English-speaker he said 1. P-K4, but you know what I mean). His reasoning was basically the same as yours - you'll learn more about how to develop your pieces quickly. Once you become good, and develop a style, you might want to switch it up, but I agree with him and you that that's probably the best way for beginners.
You don't need to stick with any opening unless your only goal is ratings, and not improvement. I've played the Sicilian, French, and 1.e4-e5 And a dash of Alekhine's and Caro-Kann throughout my chess journey. I've learned a variety of positions, and can handle new positions better than people my skill level. There's also the case of specializing in pawn structures. If you really specialize into IQP positions, you can play 1.e4, c4, d4, or nf3. Because you can arrive at the IQP position from a large group of openings, and then play the same position.
Yet another excellent introductory lesson, Lula Robs! In particular you mentioned two openings (for beginners) that sidestep most of the advanced theory of other openings...the London System for White and the Scandinavian for Black. For example, in the Scandinavian, you said that after 1. e4 d5, 2. exd nf6! is a viable alternative to the usual 2. ... qxd because you're at least attacking White's extra pawn while developing a piece! That can lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities...even a "gambit" by Black. And if White plays 3. d4 then Black recapture the pawn with the knight instead of with the queen, leading to a much more "positional" game instead of the usual continuation where Black's queen is being harassed in the center of the board. What are your thoughts on this??? Thanks much!
I only play e4 with white and vary between Italian, Scotch and 4-Knight Scotch Variation. I used to run into some traps - but this happens rarer now. For some period I played a lot the Vienna Game with King Side Fianchetto, which was quite okay, but I came back to classical e4. With black vs d4 I go for Queens Gambit declined (or similar moves in some appropriate order). I was scared at d4, but it got better. Recently I tried Pirc Defense and literally lost (almost) every game *lol* - obviously not right for me, though many are praising it...
The video is chock full of wisdom, but I have to disagree with one thing. Magnus said in an interview that being advised not to stick to pet openings when he was young, to explore a variety, was a key part of his development. Personally, I got to 1700 Elo in my OTB days while doing the same basic thing. I looked at games, picked up a few opening moves, and made the rest up over the board. Then I'd do it again. Of course I took some quick hard beatings, but I learned from them, and overall it was much more fun than playing by routine. Ideally, fear or anxiety shouldn't be a part of what you choose to play. Until you get to a high level, when a repertoire is needed, play any opening as much as you like, and change whenever you like. Exploration is a healthy part of development, in life and in chess, and the experiences gained helps you improve naturally. You might also have more fun.
Brilliant video. You have a gift for talking about chess lines but not making it sound boring or complicated 😂... I'm proud to say I started as a e4 player years ago when I first learned the rules of chess, then when I went full on in chess in 2021, I dabbled with d4, did a little good then lost a lot. I went back to e4 about a year ago, and I did pretty good, but now I'm tilting big time, but I'm having fun playing, and when I get it right it's a zen moment for me☯ I open with the Scotch as white and with black I do some backwards ass French and Dutch opening mix up thing I'm still learning how to do right. 😂
Nice video - I agree with much of what you said! Unfortunately, beginners are often misled when it comes to chess openings. This isn’t a criticism of you personally, but of chess teaching in general. For example, we’re quick to tell beginners, “Don’t bring your Queen out early,” yet then recommend openings like the Scandinavian or the Grivas Sicilian. Or, we say, “Don’t move the same piece twice in the opening,” and then suggest the Ruy Lopez - where White often moves the light-squared Bishop four times within the first 10 moves! In my opinion, the only real truth about openings for beginners is that they don’t matter all that much. Working on other areas of the game, like tactics, is far more beneficial. The hard part is convincing beginners of that!
Because even if you simplify things, chess is still extremely complex. Increasing the complexity doesn't increase your enjoyment it just lowers your elo.
I used to play london but also got bored with it. I found NM Robert Ramirez channel where he has good lessons on the Vienna and pirc defence, which I found pretty easy to pick up and just more interesting to play. You can also play variations like the czech pirc to keep things interesting. I'm just a casual player just under 1200 elo.
Great video Lula! I think your two categories make a lot of sense, though I'm doing a bit of a middle way myself 😂I play 1.e4 e5 in daily games but the London System in rapid, when I want to play the opening very quickly to have more time to think later on
I started with e4 openings in my youth and switched to d4 as an adult. Why? Because "openings are only 1/3 of the game, and arguably the least important part of the game" and learning openings that virtually guarantee that I can get to the mid-game without falling for some stupid knowledge check trap, the more fun I have. Yes, that means playing basically either the London or Queen's Gambit as white basically exclusively, but you can still get enough variety to not die of boredom just by switching things up (Jobava London if you're feeling aggressive, as an example). Similar game plan as black. It's not difficult to put together an opening repertoire where the number of raw opening lines you need to memorize is very low. Caro + Slav have very similar ideas and are solid enough that you don't need to worry too much about unsound opening traps and gambits, and again end up often very quickly transitioning to real chess where neither player is trying to remember memorized lines. The bonus of learning a series of openings where there are very few good lines to memorize is that as soon as you run across a move you're not familiar with, you can know, for sure, that it's a bad move. It gives you the same advantage as if you had an engine beside you that only tells you one time "Okay, that move was bad" without giving you any more information. It clues you in right away and makes it much easier to punish early-game mistakes by the opponent.
I switched from the London to the Scotch and ive never looked back, the good thing about my London experience is that its a pretty good foundation for a nice line in an exchange caro kann :)
One and a half year beginner, im comfortable with italian, ruy lopez, caro kahn, scandinavian, london, jobaba and queens gambit, best way to get good: play. As a beginner youll get crushed a billion times, but you learn, and grow stronger with every loss
As a beginner I remember searching for an opening for black and later for white. I was playing sicilian and wanted to learn Najdorf which took me like a year and I was still bad at it so I switched to Alekhine. It's so surprising that I'm having good win rate with this. As white I wanted to be with Scotch or Vienna forever. Then I realized how Scotch can be boring so I just went with Vienna
Great video, well presented. I agree with everything you say. I learned chess playing 1...e5, but it became too much to handle all of White's different options, so I switched to the French Rubinstein and that works pretty well as an economical choice. I combine it with the QGD Tartakower as my defence against closed openings, another economical choice. I have experimented with the Scandi and the Colle, but i find them a bit too sterile for my taste. I am back with 1.e4 as my White opening, and am having way more fun.
I’m a e4 player with white not really much of e5 with black yes you can do the Pirc or Petrov which I have played but as beginner the French is way easier to get good positions and keep control of the center which is the most basic rule. The most troubling aspect of chess is good fundamentals in the middle game. The opening is anywhere from 3 to 5 percent so you really shouldn’t be worried about opening theory till at least 1600. Also instead of watching about traps or gambits watch games of high level masters and always do game review especially games you have lost. Puzzles are the best way to get better. I do like learning new openings and theory which isn’t always the best for your elo/ rating but really you have to play lots of games to really understand you positions of openings and the best moves and its weakness. The most part is to play with intuition. Theory can simply be learned while playing by watching the board and understanding your position and your opponent’s position.
Good advice, as a 450-ish (Lol) player I just play for fun. E4 is fine as I am used to many of the patterns as you mentioned. I get killed in the middle game 'cause I struggle with the options, which is best, which will just open more attack lines for or against me, should I respond to an attack and how.....etc.....but I am used to losing way more than winning and accept that is part of the game at the level I am at.
Can I play an online game with you? Ive been a 1800 a long while in my younger years and now starting up with chess again I would love to play some test games.
I used to play e4 a lot for about 4 years and switched to d4 as white like colle and play queens gambit .As black D5 against d4 and caro kann against e4 and some timesnimzowitsch defense too.
Definitely a d4-d5 opening! Slav is fine and very solid but it’s not the most fun for black; exchange slav is not super exciting but if you don’t mind it then nothing wrong with the opening!!
I normally don't post twice but I neglected to credit you for highlighting Daniel Naroditsky as a positive example. He truly is, and he deserves all the support he can get after Kramnik's shameful attack on his character. Kudos.
@@JustinBCopeland Vladimir Kramnik, former world champion, is on a crusade against cheating in online chess. Unfortunately, he thinks half the people he plays are cheating, and by implication he has accused several of them publicly when there is no justifiable reason for it. The most recent conspicuous case is Naroditisky, one of the best people in chess.
@bluefin.64 Ahh thank you, for some reason I read that as Cramling! But yes I do know who Naroditsky is, he is amazing and couldn't imagine him doing anything crazy!
A genuine question: Is it considered subpar to play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4? Personally, I’ve never been a fan of 1...e5. Should I still take the time to learn it as well?
Caro is genuinely a hard opening. White has really tricky main lines (mainline, tal variation, panov). French is easier than caro imo (I have played both)
You said there is no gambits or heavy theory in scandinavian defence, What is your idea about blackmar deimer gambit or leonhardt gambitor other gambits against scandi ? Most scandi players are not ready to face these lines
I said there is less chance you fall for a gambit. There are gambits in every opening. Most are bad. Once black has played against these in a couple online games I’m sure they will look at a response. The difference is it’s way fewer gambits than e5 and you can identify them quickly and no longer be afraid of them.
I actually started playing the kings Indian because no names on UA-cam told me that while the theory is super hard there’s a basic setup you can play against nearly everything. And I’m lazy…
Haha, I have been watching too much Gotham Chess clearly. 😅 Honestly, the most important opening to refute at my level (360-400 is where I bounce around) is how to punish the wayward queen attack. Which you learn by playing it and losing 😂 But yes, Gotham has me trying out the Vienna (if they play the right moves) and my next course of study was going to be the Caro Kann (or however you spell it).
Scandi it really depends but for a beginner imo it's not so good because it breaks the principle of not bringing the queen too early, and newbies very like to bring her out. Polish can give you good results if you know what you're doing and the opp isn't playing random bullshit you can't prepare for. If you prefer solid but sometimes aggresive, e4 (Danish Gambit for offensive approach), if slow and positional, d4, c4 dunno but i think it's boring, and f4 for something unique but still sound. Later you can experiment with things like Reti, but the best solution is just playing moves that don't make you lose things or move with a piece twice in the start phase. The worst thing you can do is forcing to memorize moves without knowing the idea behind them
My opponents know all the theory in the double king's pawn opening, therefore I'm looking for unusual systems. Bobby Fischer's used these unusual systems sometimes
@@DhrjMakj wait you are not trolling? Lol. To be real skandinavian is a good option. Everything Polish is too dubious imo. At some point they know at least a bit about every opening. I think benoni is an option aganst d4 to surprise and aganst 4e skandinavian. Its objektivly bad to play it but for eveyone under master level not converteble into real advantage. With white you can do english scott even kings gambit i think there are many little surpricing options
the opening NEED to be chosen according to your temperament (choleric, sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic) according to my temperament, I never play with black 1. ...e5 to 1...e4 or 1...d5 to 1.d4, but King Indian, Grunfeld, Budapest Gambit, Nimzoindian, QueenIndian, against 1.d4 and Sicilian, Caro-Kan, Scandinavian and Alekhine against 1.e4 was always an option
My first contact with chess in the early 1980s was against a dude with an opening book. He had memorized some lines in the Italian and I did not even know at that point, that there are opening books. But my instinct was right! Never play e5! Because, with e5, you cannot really play chess - instead you HAVE to memorize tons of stuff. I watch a lot of chess games at different levels and people who try to "wing" a center pawn opening most often just lose - first the e5 pawn, then the game. Some people like to memorize lines - I like to play chess and come up with ideas. So I avoid such symmetric, forced openings like 1. e4 e5 (I avoid it with black) - with white I play either Scotch or Kings Gambit or used to play Spanish exchange, which is now not as reliable, because of the Berlin defense popularity... while in past decades you would nearly always get a a6 line after Bb5. If I know I am much stronger than my opponent, I play e5 as a handicap for me. Because if they did their memorizing I will likely get a bad position... Scandinavian is not as straightforward as people make it out to be. If you pick the Nf6 lines instead of Qxd5, you have a complex enough game on your hand, where the better player wins and only few memorizer kids bother to learn those variations. In the end, if depends on your preferences. If you have learning phone books by heart as your hobby, by all means - memorize gigabytes of theory. Anyone else should play side lines, which make the other player play on their own as early as possible. Avoid symmetry, and while the memorizers learn their lines, do puzzles and study end games. In the long run, THIS will make you a stronger player. For absolute beginners (i.e. you only know the rules and how the pieces move), I would even recommend you start learning chess back to front. Learn how to mate, study pawn endgames, ... - and do not waste 1 minute of your learning time on openings! And after each game, review where you went wrong. Find the first improvement - look at 1, 2 games from masters and that is it. Yes, you will have a lot of bloopers in the opening phase - but you learn how to play chess, rather than being breathing solid state drive.
@lularobs thanks! Personally I fell in love with the queen's gambit and it's been my favourite opening since. I like the English too which us apparently meant to be for more advanced players but I have had reasonable success wuth it.
So what is the problem with learning 1. e4 e5 ? You're young, you have all the time in the world if you are serious about chess. You'll loose some games in the beginning but what you gain is certainly worth it.
My requirement for a opening is to be not mainstream and it should be aggresive. I can recommend f4 (with sturm gambit), almost no theory (it's a reversed Dutch Defense basically), surprise potential, still a sound op that takes a bite of the center, throws to the trashcan any prep and it's refreshing to get unique positions rather than the 100th caro-london-italian-french-rotation IMO, but other than that, just play moves that don't blunder or hang your stuff. Learning a opening is not to memorize the moves, but the idea behind it PS. For black someone here can try Owen's Defence, it's a niche, but legit opening, not something like Grob. I use it against e4 and gives me good results, as opps often doesn't know what to do against this and there's - like in f4 - almost no theory, the main idea is to focus on the e4 pawn
@@kobz2862 why do so many play crazy stuff. I mean bird can work ofc. I would hate to play it. you always have to care about these new f line checks. They are often followed with Nx g3 ideas. Its so unchill imo. And after kingside castle the pawn structur is a bit worse
@@grnarsch5287 Because it's nice to dig in new positions and win after using underdog openings. After castle, around the king is at least a knight holding a grip on e5 with the pawn, sometimes a bishop in fianchetto manner can strenghten king's safety, he's good for most of the game. My loses in Bird was because of just play and missing tactics, and not the King's weakness but i understand that it's not as solid as for example Italian and playing F4 on 2000+ takes balls
What speaks aganst queens gambit. I played it a lot and while im not s beginner i wouldnt say its complicated. You end up in closed possitions with slightly better structures than in london. There are not too many traps. And its maybe the most principal. Whats more about center controll than giving this pawn. I guess the most difficult thing for beginners might be the acepted version. But if you look at a few lines and concept its very clear that you always get the pawn back. So why would it be to difficult or dangerous?
Queens gambit isn’t too dangerous it’s just not super accessible. Usually games are more strategic and less open; you need to know about things like minority attack, and yes QGA stumps a lot of players. Nimzo is also a very trying response!
Here is what i see after 8k games. At the intermediate level, lets say 2k and around, opening repertoire is still a puzzle. Win rates are different from player to player and from opening to opening. So if you try this and that and then keep only those you are most successful with, you'd be higher rated(i assume 100 mmr is a safe bet) than a person who is stick with some openings he tried first. So, if you have time, don't be shy of trying new and dropping old if you disliked it. This process itself is quite enjoyable. Because players have different brains and you never know what will happen.
It seems to me that it would be best for beginners to play a lot of games using one opening, then learn a different opening the same way...lather, rinse, repeat. Instead of telling people what opening they should use, approach it from the perspective that the opening moves influence the type of middlegame they are likely to have. Once a beginner has experience playing with and against a range of openings, what it will lead to, and how to handle those...they will no longer be a beginner, which is the purpose of having a coach.
@domzzvipes6201 I'm playing around with the London, since it's a fairly new opening for me....mostly with bots, playingbthe occasional game with people, and working on learning the KID and Sicilian openings for black. One of the things I've come across regarding the sicilian is that there are so MANY variations, that people tend to refer to them by the names of the variations, rather than saying they're playing a sicilian. I like the flexibility and the attacking nature of those, and even though I'm still learning how to use them effectively, I've won more games playing black than white. The closed centers that often come up from 1.e4 e5 never really appealed to me, but learning how and when to close the center is valuable.
e5 is just kind of impractical, there is way too much theory to know. I would rather play the sicilian which is equally valid.. And it's not just some silly gambits, if you play e5 you better know the mieses scotch, the fegatello attack, the mackenzie ruy lopez, the dubov italian, and another 10 different mainline openings which are not dubious gambits. if you play e5 you better know well all those lines or in blitz you are going to get flagged or busted all the time also you say that as first move you should play pawn moves 2 squares... well not at all, nimzo indian is a good opening for beginners i would take the advice given in this video with a grain of salt
I'm about 2050 ECF and respectfully disagree about the KID, I think it is a good choice for beginners. You don't have to remember the first few moves (they're always the same) and can just aim for your e5 or c5 breaks. Your king will generally be safe and it's tactical nature will fit well with those looking to improve. I'd argue that less active openings like the Slav and QGD can be harder for beginners to play because Black's position can rapidly become passive if he isn't careful.
That's a perfect reason NOT to play e4 . . . e5 as a beginner. I quit chess as a teenager because I realized all the endless possibilities after e4. I liked the Spanish but even if you know the opening variations, you can't make Black play e5 and knc6, they might drag you into endless variations of the Sicilian or Catlan or endless other openings. It's just to easy to get dragged into a line you have no idea what to do, have no idea what the theory is and get buried quickly. I might have continued chess if I had learned the London and Scandinavian back then.
Lula, playing a system based opening will eventually ruin your love of the game. Better to play standard openings mixing between the mainlines and sidelines.
I think she’s wrong. The truth is that chess is hard. Instead of crying about the countless hours learning new openings… just enjoy learning. Openings transpose. Opponents have weaknesses in one opening or another. Magnus said my take which is that you should never stop learning. You’re gonna be so much better if you learn why plans work in some openings and play and play more games. So many people are like ugh… now I gotta go learn more of this (bad/good/tricky/boring) opening. Take it slow but just keep improving. Play bad openings against bad players and play good openings against good ones. But analyze your games, understand the ideas, the moves and plans. Years later nobody will be able to stop you, because you didn’t give up.
As a beginner you don’t need any openings. Don’t blunder your pieces and you will win. Openings are not relevant until you reach 1800+ (and I am not there myself). Not a single game I lost ( and I have a vast collection of those) was due to poor opening prep. It was a blunder every time.
Not only that, you swap to e4 now you have to be aware of sicilian shenanigans too. Which is highly theoretical and you are basically buttnaked against someone that has been playing 1.e4 c5 forever. Good luck. Ps: recomlending learning the ruy lopez for beginners is crazy stuff. As happy as it makes me as a spanish person, you have to ask yourself why tf am i learning the fucking mount Everest of chess. Am i mad? And youll find your answer to that question
It's an opinion, but that's not really the same as a truth. Lots of GMs disagree, and not because they don't remember what it was like to be a beginner. (They were advanced as beginners, so different things were true for them anyway) The thing is, a lot of those GMs are teachers, some of them good teachers, and they have more experience with beginner chess than a recent beginner. As opinions, they're fine. Wrong, but that's subjective. As "truths" they're mostly easily refuted simply by establishing that a reasonable counter-argument exists.
QG systems are pretty straightforward. French sicilians (taimanov) are also pretty easy and you only need to play something different against the alapin.
It's not that grandmasters forgot how it was when they were beginners. It's just that an adult improver learns chess in a different way than children and it's not just being older, there are also time constraints, other priorities and there's nobody stopping you from looking at some UA-cam videos about the London system because all you care about is getting into the middlegame. No chess coach worth their salt would encourage you to play the London because chances are you'll run into the same tactics time and time again, or play the Stafford gambit because at your level few people know it and you might get some very easy wins.
As a beginner my favorite thing is to watch youtube videos about dubious gambits and then go play a bunch of games that turn out completely differently because no one plays the moves shown in the video.
so so true!!
Exactly! 😅
Thats why ure weak
FF 5:17(drivel until then)
amazing video!!! i really appreciate it :)
Loved the line, "You won't be so easily taken out of your comfort zone because you won't have one." 🙂 Precious statement.
Learn a system until you understand it, then switch to another until you understand that. Rinse and repeat until you become a well-rounded chess player who understands how to strategise and adapt.
Although you should probably stop doing this once you get to about four openings. This gives you some flexibility. After that learn a bit about endgames - e.g Silman’s book - and some tactics. And play through some well explained games collections. (But above all, enjoy yourself.)
One thing you don’t want to become is an openings addict.
i just found my chess opening style: Avoident
Catalan setup as white and Caro kann against e4. I just dislike the idea of playing e4 as white. Love the slow positional nature of 1.d4
Same I used to play Italian all the time and just got bored with it
I’m an “old” beginner and keeping it simple and focusing on tactics is where I need to be. 👍🏼
I love how well you explain things . TY
As a beginner I played the Colle System and later the London System. Unfortunately Magnus Carlsen started playing the London. Suddenly what used to be derided as "boring" and "a beginners' opening" was now being taken seriously and became very popular. The result of this was that everyone had to learn what to do against it, so it became much harder to be successful with it. I started playing the Queen's Gambit, but I'm too old to ever be able to learn enough theory to be able to play it reliably. I now play various d4 lines depending on what Black plays and how I feel, but my lack of theoretical knowledge means it's a bit of a lottery whether I come out of the opening with an advantage or not. I do concur with what you say, and I think it might have been better for me to have learned e4 instead, but I'm way too old to start playing that now.
With Black however I've always played the Modern, and I still get good results with it. It has always made sense to me, the basic idea is incredibly easy to understand, and there are lots of different ways to play it. My games often transpose into lines from other openings such as the King's Indian, the Pirc, the Sicilian and occasionally the Grunfeld. Personally I think it's suitable for players of all levels including beginners. Hypermodern openings seek to control the centre too, just in a different way. I have noticed more people are playing hypermodern style with Black of late, possibly because of Hikaru's spectacular success rate playing that way in Titled Tuesday.
I think you're going too deep, unless you're like 1500+ you can just learn some more lines in the London, study tatics and motiffs, basic endgames and endgame concepts.
I guess. Started doing that, started winning more, still pretty bad at the game.
Bro, it doesn't matter if you are 12 or in your 60's. If you are playing and enjoying chess, then why not learn it? Chess coach Andras made a good video on why you should not play the London as a beginner, but in the end just play what you like of course. Just don't let age be an excuse. I'm even convinced that playing different openings can give you a better technical understanding that will help you play the right move in other openings.
1500 onlinestill weak af
Agree, you're never too old to learn 1. e4 by jumping right in, losing to a tactic, then learning your lesson by experience and a quick post-mortem. Openings can be boring to study in a vacuum, so "what do I play against the Scotch instead of whatever I just invented and lost with" is a good way to focus your study.
If you're switching openings as an experienced player, it's not like none of your chess skill carries over. Sure, you'll lose some rating in the short term but if that's such a problem, play unrated games or start a new account just for playing with fire. Also, playing 1. e4 for the first time against strong players will teach you much faster than playing against beginners who let you get away with missed tactics left and right.
@@michaelharvent7221 I don't know what age you are but learning new stuff becomes very hard from, say, 40+ or at least 50+ on (I played my first tournament only after that...). That holds for chess as well as languages, for example. Even if you have a well working brain and you are passionate about something, the brain becomes so much slower in memorizing stuff at that age... Maybe it gets better after retirement when you can dedicate more time to that stuff, but while you also to work and organize the rest of your life, home, family etc. it's hard. (I''m completely fluent in at least 3 languages and was progressing in about 10 other languages on duolingo, but only ridiculously slowly, until one day I told myself I should use the additional 5 minutes/day I spent on that also for chess! 😀)
I'm glad I tried a whole bunch of different openings before deciding on what I wanted to play. I was that guy who tried an opening for a couple weeks or months before I decided I didn't like it anymore. It took me over two years to get a repertoire I liked but I have a whole bunch of fun with it.
I can't prove you're right or that I am but I mostly agree with this advice. I have one piece of advice to add to it, which is don't play Philidor's Defense, which is a hookup opening disguised as a lifetime opening. Answer 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 with 2... Nc6 or 2... Nf6 but not 2... d6.
If you play Philidor's Defense your experience might go like this. You start out optimistically thinking that this move beginners love can't be wrong, and that if it lacks "punch" you will study it thoroughly and that familiarity will make it a weapon for you. Then you find out that your simple idea of holding the center with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 doesn't work and can't be made to work. Then you find out that the more complicated idea of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 requires study because of attacks on f7 and Shirov's g4 gambit and fundamentally it doesn't work because of 4. dxe5, and grandmasters have tried to make that work for Black but it doesn't and you won't make it work either. Then, maybe two years after you started with optimism, you will be trying to make 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 work and finding that it is not quite the easy solution people say it is and you may find yourself saying ...
This is stupid! I wasted years on a stupid opening. I might as well throw out all my game scores of games where I learned how to give myself a bleak position at the outset and then just grovel along. That's not how I wanted to play. That's not how I want to play now or in the future. I need to learn a proper opening. I should have learned a proper opening in the first place.
Lol, this was my exact experience with the Philador defense! Luckily I only wasted like 6 months on it.
The four pawn attack is too real. I hate seeing it when I play King's Indian. But despite having played hundreds of games, I've never sat down to actually learn the opening properly, so that may be the issue.
Eye makeup is on point.
Lol, I thought the same but totally not relevant 😂
When I was a teenager in a chess club, for about two years basically every game anyone there ever played was 1. e4 e5. I think it helped a lot in terms of building a foundation of general chess knowledge, but by the time I finished high-school I'd decided I'd be happy if I never played another Italian game, 4-knights, Ruy Lopez, or Petroff as long as I lived. That's just me though.
Damn, you'd think with that much e4 e5 y'all would explore the romantic 1800s gambits. Where are the KG? The bishop openings?
Thanks for summing it up! Good advise and not just quick fun!
just discovered your channel through this video. love hearing a fresh perspective, thank you!!!!
Interesting thoughts. When I started out, I played the Stonewall attack as White, and the Kings Indian against d4 and the French Defence against e4. I did dabble with Queen's Gambit. My 13 yr old son plays it, but he's much stronger than me 1600 at the moment I think? And it IS a very theoretical opening it seems. I think he plays the Pirc and the Grunfeld as Black? I ended up settling on the Bird for a long time and enjoyed some success with it. Lately I've been trying to move to the Trompowsky, or Letivsky depending on if Nf6 is played. I like them, they seem to suit my play style. I HAVE also moved to the Scandinavian and find it REALLY fun to play. For the other main black opening I've been looking at the Indian Game and the Benko Gambit, but yeah... Not settled on one to focus on yet.
Tbh I got to 1300 by just learning and playing the queen's gambit and playing with more space and freedom. Been a lifetime partner but because it tends to stick with the same concepts you can usually do okay without knowing detailed theory.
Plus people tend to accept the gambit without preparing for it smh
The beginning of your chess career is also the only time when you can play the unsound weird fun gambit openings. Benko, Budapest, Latvian, Tarrasch as most of these will just be refuted on a certain playing strength. But you are completely right. I started with the London and it didn't get boring but i fell into a different trap. The automatic nature of the system based apporaches lead to me playing the moves almost instantly without much thinking and i blundered so much. I completely switched over and i am happy playing fun gambits until i have to let them go ^^
As an "advanced" beginner, my most joyful experience with chess is to play the openings out of order and realize that you have arrived to a familiar position.
Al Horowitz said this some 3/4 of a century ago - "If you're White, play 1. e4... if you're Black, and white plays 1. e4, play e5" (well actually as a mid-twentieth century English-speaker he said 1. P-K4, but you know what I mean). His reasoning was basically the same as yours - you'll learn more about how to develop your pieces quickly. Once you become good, and develop a style, you might want to switch it up, but I agree with him and you that that's probably the best way for beginners.
You don't need to stick with any opening unless your only goal is ratings, and not improvement. I've played the Sicilian, French, and 1.e4-e5 And a dash of Alekhine's and Caro-Kann throughout my chess journey. I've learned a variety of positions, and can handle new positions better than people my skill level. There's also the case of specializing in pawn structures. If you really specialize into IQP positions, you can play 1.e4, c4, d4, or nf3. Because you can arrive at the IQP position from a large group of openings, and then play the same position.
Yet another excellent introductory lesson, Lula Robs! In particular you mentioned two openings (for beginners) that sidestep most of the advanced theory of other openings...the London System for White and the Scandinavian for Black. For example, in the Scandinavian, you said that after 1. e4 d5, 2. exd nf6! is a viable alternative to the usual 2. ... qxd because you're at least attacking White's extra pawn while developing a piece! That can lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities...even a "gambit" by Black. And if White plays 3. d4 then Black recapture the pawn with the knight instead of with the queen, leading to a much more "positional" game instead of the usual continuation where Black's queen is being harassed in the center of the board. What are your thoughts on this??? Thanks much!
As a big believer in 1.e4 e5, I'm glad it gets your approval :')
I only play e4 with white and vary between Italian, Scotch and 4-Knight Scotch Variation. I used to run into some traps - but this happens rarer now. For some period I played a lot the Vienna Game with King Side Fianchetto, which was quite okay, but I came back to classical e4.
With black vs d4 I go for Queens Gambit declined (or similar moves in some appropriate order). I was scared at d4, but it got better. Recently I tried Pirc Defense and literally lost (almost) every game *lol* - obviously not right for me, though many are praising it...
The video is chock full of wisdom, but I have to disagree with one thing. Magnus said in an interview that being advised not to stick to pet openings when he was young, to explore a variety, was a key part of his development. Personally, I got to 1700 Elo in my OTB days while doing the same basic thing. I looked at games, picked up a few opening moves, and made the rest up over the board. Then I'd do it again. Of course I took some quick hard beatings, but I learned from them, and overall it was much more fun than playing by routine.
Ideally, fear or anxiety shouldn't be a part of what you choose to play. Until you get to a high level, when a repertoire is needed, play any opening as much as you like, and change whenever you like. Exploration is a healthy part of development, in life and in chess, and the experiences gained helps you improve naturally. You might also have more fun.
Brilliant video. You have a gift for talking about chess lines but not making it sound boring or complicated 😂... I'm proud to say I started as a e4 player years ago when I first learned the rules of chess, then when I went full on in chess in 2021, I dabbled with d4, did a little good then lost a lot. I went back to e4 about a year ago, and I did pretty good, but now I'm tilting big time, but I'm having fun playing, and when I get it right it's a zen moment for me☯ I open with the Scotch as white and with black I do some backwards ass French and Dutch opening mix up thing I'm still learning how to do right. 😂
Nice video - I agree with much of what you said! Unfortunately, beginners are often misled when it comes to chess openings. This isn’t a criticism of you personally, but of chess teaching in general. For example, we’re quick to tell beginners, “Don’t bring your Queen out early,” yet then recommend openings like the Scandinavian or the Grivas Sicilian. Or, we say, “Don’t move the same piece twice in the opening,” and then suggest the Ruy Lopez - where White often moves the light-squared Bishop four times within the first 10 moves!
In my opinion, the only real truth about openings for beginners is that they don’t matter all that much. Working on other areas of the game, like tactics, is far more beneficial. The hard part is convincing beginners of that!
What does sharp mean exactly?
If chess is the game you like, why would you want to avoid complexity?
Because even if you simplify things, chess is still extremely complex. Increasing the complexity doesn't increase your enjoyment it just lowers your elo.
I used to play london but also got bored with it. I found NM Robert Ramirez channel where he has good lessons on the Vienna and pirc defence, which I found pretty easy to pick up and just more interesting to play. You can also play variations like the czech pirc to keep things interesting. I'm just a casual player just under 1200 elo.
Great video Lula! I think your two categories make a lot of sense, though I'm doing a bit of a middle way myself 😂I play 1.e4 e5 in daily games but the London System in rapid, when I want to play the opening very quickly to have more time to think later on
Ironically, my first studied chess opening was the king’s Indian but I learnt it not from Danny but an IM who made the opening easier for a beginner.
I think King's Indian defense is totally fine for beginners against d4 like Caro Kann defense is fine against e4
@@rperrellaI agree I think the KID is easier to play against beginners than people who have actually studied the opening.
I am 1562 USCF and I have never played e4, always d4 or Nf3.
I started with e4 openings in my youth and switched to d4 as an adult. Why? Because "openings are only 1/3 of the game, and arguably the least important part of the game" and learning openings that virtually guarantee that I can get to the mid-game without falling for some stupid knowledge check trap, the more fun I have. Yes, that means playing basically either the London or Queen's Gambit as white basically exclusively, but you can still get enough variety to not die of boredom just by switching things up (Jobava London if you're feeling aggressive, as an example).
Similar game plan as black. It's not difficult to put together an opening repertoire where the number of raw opening lines you need to memorize is very low. Caro + Slav have very similar ideas and are solid enough that you don't need to worry too much about unsound opening traps and gambits, and again end up often very quickly transitioning to real chess where neither player is trying to remember memorized lines.
The bonus of learning a series of openings where there are very few good lines to memorize is that as soon as you run across a move you're not familiar with, you can know, for sure, that it's a bad move. It gives you the same advantage as if you had an engine beside you that only tells you one time "Okay, that move was bad" without giving you any more information. It clues you in right away and makes it much easier to punish early-game mistakes by the opponent.
I switched from the London to the Scotch and ive never looked back, the good thing about my London experience is that its a pretty good foundation for a nice line in an exchange caro kann :)
This is exactly the advice i needed
I've never watched one of your videos but I am sure you are right
How long have you been playing?
One and a half year beginner, im comfortable with italian, ruy lopez, caro kahn, scandinavian, london, jobaba and queens gambit, best way to get good: play. As a beginner youll get crushed a billion times, but you learn, and grow stronger with every loss
As a beginner I remember searching for an opening for black and later for white. I was playing sicilian and wanted to learn Najdorf which took me like a year and I was still bad at it so I switched to Alekhine. It's so surprising that I'm having good win rate with this. As white I wanted to be with Scotch or Vienna forever. Then I realized how Scotch can be boring so I just went with Vienna
Great video, well presented. I agree with everything you say. I learned chess playing 1...e5, but it became too much to handle all of White's different options, so I switched to the French Rubinstein and that works pretty well as an economical choice. I combine it with the QGD Tartakower as my defence against closed openings, another economical choice. I have experimented with the Scandi and the Colle, but i find them a bit too sterile for my taste. I am back with 1.e4 as my White opening, and am having way more fun.
I’m a e4 player with white not really much of e5 with black yes you can do the Pirc or Petrov which I have played but as beginner the French is way easier to get good positions and keep control of the center which is the most basic rule. The most troubling aspect of chess is good fundamentals in the middle game. The opening is anywhere from 3 to 5 percent so you really shouldn’t be worried about opening theory till at least 1600. Also instead of watching about traps or gambits watch games of high level masters and always do game review especially games you have lost. Puzzles are the best way to get better. I do like learning new openings and theory which isn’t always the best for your elo/ rating but really you have to play lots of games to really understand you positions of openings and the best moves and its weakness. The most part is to play with intuition. Theory can simply be learned while playing by watching the board and understanding your position and your opponent’s position.
If you learn e4 e5 surely you then also have to learn the Sicilian, French etc?
Good advice, as a 450-ish (Lol) player I just play for fun. E4 is fine as I am used to many of the patterns as you mentioned. I get killed in the middle game 'cause I struggle with the options, which is best, which will just open more attack lines for or against me, should I respond to an attack and how.....etc.....but I am used to losing way more than winning and accept that is part of the game at the level I am at.
Can I play an online game with you? Ive been a 1800 a long while in my younger years and now starting up with chess again I would love to play some test games.
I used to play e4 a lot for about 4 years and switched to d4 as white like colle and play queens gambit .As black D5 against d4 and caro kann against e4 and some timesnimzowitsch defense too.
What would you recommend against non-e4 openings as black ? Is Slav a good choice as a lifetime partner ?
Definitely a d4-d5 opening! Slav is fine and very solid but it’s not the most fun for black; exchange slav is not super exciting but if you don’t mind it then nothing wrong with the opening!!
I normally don't post twice but I neglected to credit you for highlighting Daniel Naroditsky as a positive example. He truly is, and he deserves all the support he can get after Kramnik's shameful attack on his character. Kudos.
I love Naroditsky!!
What did Cramling (I'm guessing Anna and not Pia) say about Naro?
@@JustinBCopeland Vladimir Kramnik, former world champion, is on a crusade against cheating in online chess. Unfortunately, he thinks half the people he plays are cheating, and by implication he has accused several of them publicly when there is no justifiable reason for it. The most recent conspicuous case is Naroditisky, one of the best people in chess.
@bluefin.64 Ahh thank you, for some reason I read that as Cramling! But yes I do know who Naroditsky is, he is amazing and couldn't imagine him doing anything crazy!
whats your rating?
around 1700 FIDE
I'm only 1625 USCF but have had success with the English (1. c4) Very few players prepare for it. 🙂
A genuine question: Is it considered subpar to play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4? Personally, I’ve never been a fan of 1...e5. Should I still take the time to learn it as well?
Caro is genuinely a hard opening. White has really tricky main lines (mainline, tal variation, panov). French is easier than caro imo (I have played both)
You said there is no gambits or heavy theory in scandinavian defence, What is your idea about blackmar deimer gambit or leonhardt gambitor other gambits against scandi ?
Most scandi players are not ready to face these lines
I said there is less chance you fall for a gambit. There are gambits in every opening. Most are bad. Once black has played against these in a couple online games I’m sure they will look at a response. The difference is it’s way fewer gambits than e5 and you can identify them quickly and no longer be afraid of them.
I actually started playing the kings Indian because no names on UA-cam told me that while the theory is super hard there’s a basic setup you can play against nearly everything. And I’m lazy…
Haha, I have been watching too much Gotham Chess clearly. 😅
Honestly, the most important opening to refute at my level (360-400 is where I bounce around) is how to punish the wayward queen attack. Which you learn by playing it and losing 😂
But yes, Gotham has me trying out the Vienna (if they play the right moves) and my next course of study was going to be the Caro Kann (or however you spell it).
hey, the K'sID is my fav opening 😂😅
Great Video.
I dont know whether its good or bad, but u looking in camera, feels like u r looking in my soul lol
It’s because I am
Are the Polish Attack (1. b4), the Scandinavian Defense (3. .., Qd8) and the Polish Defense (1. d4, b5) good for a chess beginner?
No they are very bad but as beginner maybe try the stafford or halloween gambit
Scandi it really depends but for a beginner imo it's not so good because it breaks the principle of not bringing the queen too early, and newbies very like to bring her out. Polish can give you good results if you know what you're doing and the opp isn't playing random bullshit you can't prepare for. If you prefer solid but sometimes aggresive, e4 (Danish Gambit for offensive approach), if slow and positional, d4, c4 dunno but i think it's boring, and f4 for something unique but still sound. Later you can experiment with things like Reti, but the best solution is just playing moves that don't make you lose things or move with a piece twice in the start phase. The worst thing you can do is forcing to memorize moves without knowing the idea behind them
My opponents know all the theory in the double king's pawn opening, therefore I'm looking for unusual systems. Bobby Fischer's used these unusual systems sometimes
@@DhrjMakj wait you are not trolling? Lol. To be real skandinavian is a good option. Everything Polish is too dubious imo. At some point they know at least a bit about every opening. I think benoni is an option aganst d4 to surprise and aganst 4e skandinavian. Its objektivly bad to play it but for eveyone under master level not converteble into real advantage. With white you can do english scott even kings gambit i think there are many little surpricing options
I'll try out the Old Benoni instead of Benoni
the opening NEED to be chosen according to your temperament (choleric, sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic)
according to my temperament, I never play with black 1. ...e5 to 1...e4 or 1...d5 to 1.d4, but King Indian, Grunfeld, Budapest Gambit, Nimzoindian, QueenIndian, against 1.d4 and Sicilian, Caro-Kan, Scandinavian and Alekhine against 1.e4 was always an option
please make a video on which of the four humours each chess opening represents
My first contact with chess in the early 1980s was against a dude with an opening book. He had memorized some lines in the Italian and I did not even know at that point, that there are opening books. But my instinct was right! Never play e5! Because, with e5, you cannot really play chess - instead you HAVE to memorize tons of stuff. I watch a lot of chess games at different levels and people who try to "wing" a center pawn opening most often just lose - first the e5 pawn, then the game. Some people like to memorize lines - I like to play chess and come up with ideas. So I avoid such symmetric, forced openings like 1. e4 e5 (I avoid it with black) - with white I play either Scotch or Kings Gambit or used to play Spanish exchange, which is now not as reliable, because of the Berlin defense popularity... while in past decades you would nearly always get a a6 line after Bb5.
If I know I am much stronger than my opponent, I play e5 as a handicap for me. Because if they did their memorizing I will likely get a bad position...
Scandinavian is not as straightforward as people make it out to be. If you pick the Nf6 lines instead of Qxd5, you have a complex enough game on your hand, where the better player wins and only few memorizer kids bother to learn those variations.
In the end, if depends on your preferences. If you have learning phone books by heart as your hobby, by all means - memorize gigabytes of theory. Anyone else should play side lines, which make the other player play on their own as early as possible. Avoid symmetry, and while the memorizers learn their lines, do puzzles and study end games. In the long run, THIS will make you a stronger player.
For absolute beginners (i.e. you only know the rules and how the pieces move), I would even recommend you start learning chess back to front. Learn how to mate, study pawn endgames, ... - and do not waste 1 minute of your learning time on openings! And after each game, review where you went wrong. Find the first improvement - look at 1, 2 games from masters and that is it. Yes, you will have a lot of bloopers in the opening phase - but you learn how to play chess, rather than being breathing solid state drive.
I actually fiund the London hard to play because I didn't know what to do after completing the set up
honestly fair criticism. take a look at some model games in this opening from your favourite top level players! can help with ideas in any opening :)
@lularobs thanks! Personally I fell in love with the queen's gambit and it's been my favourite opening since.
I like the English too which us apparently meant to be for more advanced players but I have had reasonable success wuth it.
thank you!
So what is the problem with learning 1. e4 e5 ? You're young, you have all the time in the world if you are serious about chess. You'll loose some games in the beginning but what you gain is certainly worth it.
this is exactly what I said in the video
I prefer e4 to control the center ofc
Dude I didn't study actual openings till I was 1500. now I know 5-6 ish and im 1700.
My requirement for a opening is to be not mainstream and it should be aggresive. I can recommend f4 (with sturm gambit), almost no theory (it's a reversed Dutch Defense basically), surprise potential, still a sound op that takes a bite of the center, throws to the trashcan any prep and it's refreshing to get unique positions rather than the 100th caro-london-italian-french-rotation IMO, but other than that, just play moves that don't blunder or hang your stuff. Learning a opening is not to memorize the moves, but the idea behind it
PS. For black someone here can try Owen's Defence, it's a niche, but legit opening, not something like Grob. I use it against e4 and gives me good results, as opps often doesn't know what to do against this and there's - like in f4 - almost no theory, the main idea is to focus on the e4 pawn
@@kobz2862 why do so many play crazy stuff. I mean bird can work ofc. I would hate to play it. you always have to care about these new f line checks. They are often followed with Nx g3 ideas. Its so unchill imo. And after kingside castle the pawn structur is a bit worse
@@grnarsch5287 Because it's nice to dig in new positions and win after using underdog openings. After castle, around the king is at least a knight holding a grip on e5 with the pawn, sometimes a bishop in fianchetto manner can strenghten king's safety, he's good for most of the game. My loses in Bird was because of just play and missing tactics, and not the King's weakness but i understand that it's not as solid as for example Italian and playing F4 on 2000+ takes balls
What speaks aganst queens gambit. I played it a lot and while im not s beginner i wouldnt say its complicated. You end up in closed possitions with slightly better structures than in london. There are not too many traps. And its maybe the most principal. Whats more about center controll than giving this pawn. I guess the most difficult thing for beginners might be the acepted version. But if you look at a few lines and concept its very clear that you always get the pawn back.
So why would it be to difficult or dangerous?
Queens gambit isn’t too dangerous it’s just not super accessible. Usually games are more strategic and less open; you need to know about things like minority attack, and yes QGA stumps a lot of players. Nimzo is also a very trying response!
Here is what i see after 8k games. At the intermediate level, lets say 2k and around, opening repertoire is still a puzzle. Win rates are different from player to player and from opening to opening. So if you try this and that and then keep only those you are most successful with, you'd be higher rated(i assume 100 mmr is a safe bet) than a person who is stick with some openings he tried first. So, if you have time, don't be shy of trying new and dropping old if you disliked it. This process itself is quite enjoyable. Because players have different brains and you never know what will happen.
It seems to me that it would be best for beginners to play a lot of games using one opening, then learn a different opening the same way...lather, rinse, repeat.
Instead of telling people what opening they should use, approach it from the perspective that the opening moves influence the type of middlegame they are likely to have.
Once a beginner has experience playing with and against a range of openings, what it will lead to, and how to handle those...they will no longer be a beginner, which is the purpose of having a coach.
Exactly. I still only play 3 openings. One for white, 2 for black. I’m 1000+ elo now and will start experimenting new openings at 1500.
@domzzvipes6201 I'm playing around with the London, since it's a fairly new opening for me....mostly with bots, playingbthe occasional game with people, and working on learning the KID and Sicilian openings for black.
One of the things I've come across regarding the sicilian is that there are so MANY variations, that people tend to refer to them by the names of the variations, rather than saying they're playing a sicilian.
I like the flexibility and the attacking nature of those, and even though I'm still learning how to use them effectively, I've won more games playing black than white.
The closed centers that often come up from 1.e4 e5 never really appealed to me, but learning how and when to close the center is valuable.
e5 is just kind of impractical, there is way too much theory to know. I would rather play the sicilian which is equally valid.. And it's not just some silly gambits, if you play e5 you better know the mieses scotch, the fegatello attack, the mackenzie ruy lopez, the dubov italian, and another 10 different mainline openings which are not dubious gambits.
if you play e5 you better know well all those lines or in blitz you are going to get flagged or busted all the time
also you say that as first move you should play pawn moves 2 squares... well not at all, nimzo indian is a good opening for beginners
i would take the advice given in this video with a grain of salt
yeah famously the Sicilian has no theory at all
e4 e5 is easier to play because you can often just play d5 if white doesnt go for the ruy or italian.
I'm about 2050 ECF and respectfully disagree about the KID, I think it is a good choice for beginners. You don't have to remember the first few moves (they're always the same) and can just aim for your e5 or c5 breaks. Your king will generally be safe and it's tactical nature will fit well with those looking to improve. I'd argue that less active openings like the Slav and QGD can be harder for beginners to play because Black's position can rapidly become passive if he isn't careful.
I think you’re right about Slav and qgd
That's a perfect reason NOT to play e4 . . . e5 as a beginner. I quit chess as a teenager because I realized all the endless possibilities after e4. I liked the Spanish but even if you know the opening variations, you can't make Black play e5 and knc6, they might drag you into endless variations of the Sicilian or Catlan or endless other openings. It's just to easy to get dragged into a line you have no idea what to do, have no idea what the theory is and get buried quickly. I might have continued chess if I had learned the London and Scandinavian back then.
Lula, playing a system based opening will eventually ruin your love of the game. Better to play standard openings mixing between the mainlines and sidelines.
I think she’s wrong. The truth is that chess is hard. Instead of crying about the countless hours learning new openings… just enjoy learning. Openings transpose. Opponents have weaknesses in one opening or another. Magnus said my take which is that you should never stop learning. You’re gonna be so much better if you learn why plans work in some openings and play and play more games.
So many people are like ugh… now I gotta go learn more of this (bad/good/tricky/boring) opening. Take it slow but just keep improving. Play bad openings against bad players and play good openings against good ones. But analyze your games, understand the ideas, the moves and plans.
Years later nobody will be able to stop you, because you didn’t give up.
As a beginner you don’t need any openings. Don’t blunder your pieces and you will win. Openings are not relevant until you reach 1800+ (and I am not there myself). Not a single game I lost ( and I have a vast collection of those) was due to poor opening prep. It was a blunder every time.
And to counter this I play advanced scandy
"openings don't matter at all" B. Finegold
I hate the carokann for black, if white plays in the most critical ways black usually asphyxiates.
totally agree
HIPPO for the win! Play it as white, too! 🤪
As an 1100 I take pride in my kings indian
I've spent way too much time on the caro to switch to e5 lol
sunk-cost fallacy
@lularobs ok but what if I told you the caro is too comfy to switch?
a3. It's the only opening you need.
i play the king's gambit cuz it's fun :)
I stopped playing e5 because I got bored of the Italian and fried liver. As white I have no interest in facing the Sicilian.
The truth is you should play opening you enjoy.
Ignore what she said. Always play g6 as black
Not only that, you swap to e4 now you have to be aware of sicilian shenanigans too. Which is highly theoretical and you are basically buttnaked against someone that has been playing 1.e4 c5 forever. Good luck.
Ps: recomlending learning the ruy lopez for beginners is crazy stuff. As happy as it makes me as a spanish person, you have to ask yourself why tf am i learning the fucking mount Everest of chess. Am i mad? And youll find your answer to that question
It's an opinion, but that's not really the same as a truth. Lots of GMs disagree, and not because they don't remember what it was like to be a beginner. (They were advanced as beginners, so different things were true for them anyway) The thing is, a lot of those GMs are teachers, some of them good teachers, and they have more experience with beginner chess than a recent beginner.
As opinions, they're fine. Wrong, but that's subjective. As "truths" they're mostly easily refuted simply by establishing that a reasonable counter-argument exists.
Your makeup is epic
The londen system does not teach much. To learn chess, you should learn flexibility. I changed to e4 and went up 300 points .
I agree
I am 600elo and I play Caro Khan. 😅
No you're complicated! 😇
Nonsense! Play whatever you like!
I think it's fun to try to win after Pawn E3 > King E2
cheat 💻 cheat
diz
QG systems are pretty straightforward. French sicilians (taimanov) are also pretty easy and you only need to play something different against the alapin.
Its so hard to concentrate with such biutiful face in front of you ♥️♥️♥️ godnes me she is 5/5 ❤❤❤
I think I'm in love with those light brown eyes ❤
It's not that grandmasters forgot how it was when they were beginners. It's just that an adult improver learns chess in a different way than children and it's not just being older, there are also time constraints, other priorities and there's nobody stopping you from looking at some UA-cam videos about the London system because all you care about is getting into the middlegame. No chess coach worth their salt would encourage you to play the London because chances are you'll run into the same tactics time and time again, or play the Stafford gambit because at your level few people know it and you might get some very easy wins.