Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Which Openings Actually Make Sense for Beginners?

When it comes to chess improvement aka boradening one's understanding of structures, piece play, weaknesses, BvN imbalances, no opening comes close to Caro-Kann. I'm not sure what level should you start playing it, but you definitely should. You will face so many different types of positions:
Panov Attack - playing vs IQP and c4-c5 advance,
Classical - Opposite castling, or understanding doubled pawns arent bad from Tartakower,
Advance - The French structure,
Exchange - Carlsbad, or playing the IQP if you decide to go for e5,
2N - Giving up the bishop in a closed position (after 3...Bg4),
KIA/Breyer - Playing with space advantage,
Endgame - Playing the endgame, and later understanding why it's bad for Black and trying to avoid it,
Multiple Gambits - Teaches initiative and compensation
Fantasy - Playing against strong centre + learning transpositions

It's not the best "win quickly" opening, or even "win in general" opening, as it gives White so much room to do anything they want — that's kinda the point. You will be exposed to so many different stuff, which will be useful in every opening you will later switch to. For the sake of simplicity I think the Slav is a better option than the QGD, as you can play it against any sideline without problems, but playing e6-d5 against the English locks your c8 bishop for no reason (at that level). Similarly to how the French isn't that great of a choice for beginners.

I played the Caro for ~ 5 years and the experience in the French structure and the Carlsbad comes in handy in very random openings like against 1.Nf3 2.b3, against Alapin Sicilian, in the Nimzowitsch and in the Scandinavian

When it comes to chess improvement aka boradening one's understanding of structures, piece play, weaknesses, BvN imbalances, no opening comes close to Caro-Kann. I'm not sure what level should you start playing it, but you definitely should. You will face so many different types of positions: Panov Attack - playing vs IQP and c4-c5 advance, Classical - Opposite castling, or understanding doubled pawns arent bad from Tartakower, Advance - The French structure, Exchange - Carlsbad, or playing the IQP if you decide to go for e5, 2N - Giving up the bishop in a closed position (after 3...Bg4), KIA/Breyer - Playing with space advantage, Endgame - Playing the endgame, and later understanding why it's bad for Black and trying to avoid it, Multiple Gambits - Teaches initiative and compensation Fantasy - Playing against strong centre + learning transpositions It's not the best "win quickly" opening, or even "win in general" opening, as it gives White so much room to do anything they want — that's kinda the point. You will be exposed to so many different stuff, which will be useful in every opening you will later switch to. For the sake of simplicity I think the Slav is a better option than the QGD, as you can play it against any sideline without problems, but playing e6-d5 against the English locks your c8 bishop for no reason (at that level). Similarly to how the French isn't that great of a choice for beginners. I played the Caro for ~ 5 years and the experience in the French structure and the Carlsbad comes in handy in very random openings like against 1.Nf3 2.b3, against Alapin Sicilian, in the Nimzowitsch and in the Scandinavian

yes, caro kann is really solid and good opening you won't get a disadvantage at the start if you play caro kann it's a very good opening that I play too

yes, caro kann is really solid and good opening you won't get a disadvantage at the start if you play caro kann it's a very good opening that I play too

@CkickyCheck said ^

When it comes to chess improvement aka boradening one's understanding of structures, piece play, weaknesses, BvN imbalances, no opening comes close to Caro-Kann. I'm not sure what level should you start playing it, but you definitely should. You will face so many different types of positions:
Panov Attack - playing vs IQP and c4-c5 advance,
Classical - Opposite castling, or understanding doubled pawns arent bad from Tartakower,
Advance - The French structure,
Exchange - Carlsbad, or playing the IQP if you decide to go for e5,
2N - Giving up the bishop in a closed position (after 3...Bg4),
KIA/Breyer - Playing with space advantage,
Endgame - Playing the endgame, and later understanding why it's bad for Black and trying to avoid it,
Multiple Gambits - Teaches initiative and compensation
Fantasy - Playing against strong centre + learning transpositions

That's an excellent recommendation for intermediate or higher level players. Not beginners, as they haven't heard of most of these things, but someone who is ready to get involved into those stories. Definitely playing such opening helps. In comparison to playing Jobava-London (with White), for example.

@CkickyCheck said [^](/forum/redirect/post/O04tiQ8J) > When it comes to chess improvement aka boradening one's understanding of structures, piece play, weaknesses, BvN imbalances, no opening comes close to Caro-Kann. I'm not sure what level should you start playing it, but you definitely should. You will face so many different types of positions: > Panov Attack - playing vs IQP and c4-c5 advance, > Classical - Opposite castling, or understanding doubled pawns arent bad from Tartakower, > Advance - The French structure, > Exchange - Carlsbad, or playing the IQP if you decide to go for e5, > 2N - Giving up the bishop in a closed position (after 3...Bg4), > KIA/Breyer - Playing with space advantage, > Endgame - Playing the endgame, and later understanding why it's bad for Black and trying to avoid it, > Multiple Gambits - Teaches initiative and compensation > Fantasy - Playing against strong centre + learning transpositions That's an excellent recommendation for intermediate or higher level players. Not beginners, as they haven't heard of most of these things, but someone who is ready to get involved into those stories. Definitely playing such opening helps. In comparison to playing Jobava-London (with White), for example.

I'm so glad someone with a title is finally saying these things. Watched the video, too, and it's S-tier.

I usually agree with Toth but sometimes he gives off the impression that he thinks that beginners should be playing stuff like the Sicilian from day one.

I do still hold to the classical philosophy, though, that beginners should play at least one gambit as white. I recommend either the Evans' or King's Gambits.

I'm so glad someone with a title is finally saying these things. Watched the video, too, and it's S-tier. I usually agree with Toth but sometimes he gives off the impression that he thinks that beginners should be playing stuff like the Sicilian from day one. I do still hold to the classical philosophy, though, that beginners should play at least one gambit as white. I recommend either the Evans' or King's Gambits.

I think a caveat to make though with 1.e4 e5 and the QGD is that while the theoretical moves are natural and easy to understand, they aren't necessarily obvious to a beginner at the board—so they need to do some appropriate study. I believe most beginners get frustrated with these systems because they default to the 'obvious' variations like the Steinitz in the Ruy Lopez, giving White a lot of pressure early, and either never bother to research the opening to see whether there is better than the Steinitz or don't know how. We really need to revitalize education in the RL and QGD and make it more accessible to a 21st century audience.

I think a caveat to make though with 1.e4 e5 and the QGD is that while the theoretical moves are natural and easy to understand, they aren't necessarily _obvious_ to a beginner at the board—so they need to do some appropriate study. I believe most beginners get frustrated with these systems because they default to the 'obvious' variations like the Steinitz in the Ruy Lopez, giving White a lot of pressure early, and either never bother to research the opening to see whether there is better than the Steinitz or don't know how. We really need to revitalize education in the RL and QGD and make it more accessible to a 21st century audience.

@forsoothplays said ^

I think a caveat to make though with 1.e4 e5 and the QGD is that while the theoretical moves are natural and easy to understand, they aren't necessarily obvious to a beginner at the board—so they need to do some appropriate study. I believe most beginners get frustrated with these systems because they default to the 'obvious' variations like the Steinitz in the Ruy Lopez, giving White a lot of pressure early, and either never bother to research the opening to see whether there is better than the Steinitz or don't know how. We really need to revitalize education in the RL and QGD and make it more accessible to a 21st century audience.

Interesting thinking.

I believe we should picture two players of similar rating or level - when discussing what could possibly happen on the board. So, if Steinitz Spanish is the opening, and our guy has Black, should we assume that White not only knows how to play that line with White (memorized book moves), but also understands "why"? If they are capable to understand all that, and have had time to explore that specific line, I'd assume they are far ahead of the beginner level. So, overall, our guy has nothing to worry about.

I agree with the statement on gambits. Positions with some obvious compensation are good for beginners to practise how to attack and keep their chess exciting.

@forsoothplays said [^](/forum/redirect/post/7bVZlUa8) > I think a caveat to make though with 1.e4 e5 and the QGD is that while the theoretical moves are natural and easy to understand, they aren't necessarily _obvious_ to a beginner at the board—so they need to do some appropriate study. I believe most beginners get frustrated with these systems because they default to the 'obvious' variations like the Steinitz in the Ruy Lopez, giving White a lot of pressure early, and either never bother to research the opening to see whether there is better than the Steinitz or don't know how. We really need to revitalize education in the RL and QGD and make it more accessible to a 21st century audience. Interesting thinking. I believe we should picture two players of similar rating or level - when discussing what could possibly happen on the board. So, if Steinitz Spanish is the opening, and our guy has Black, should we assume that White not only knows how to play that line with White (memorized book moves), but also understands "why"? If they are capable to understand all that, and have had time to explore that specific line, I'd assume they are far ahead of the beginner level. So, overall, our guy has nothing to worry about. I agree with the statement on gambits. Positions with some obvious compensation are good for beginners to practise how to attack and keep their chess exciting.

This week I played non stop games against the computer using many different openings without prepping for any opening. I wanted to find out which openings gave me the best results naturally. I am not a beginner, so years of experience came into play, but as long as I have a king side fianchetto my games are fun, interesting, and "solid", plus the middle games flow more naturally for me, think Robert Ramirez "Counter Blow" course on Chessable.

Maybe this is an idea for others to test for their natural talent. Just play a ton of games against the computer using every opening you can think of.

This week I played non stop games against the computer using many different openings without prepping for any opening. I wanted to find out which openings gave me the best results naturally. I am not a beginner, so years of experience came into play, but as long as I have a king side fianchetto my games are fun, interesting, and "solid", plus the middle games flow more naturally for me, think Robert Ramirez "Counter Blow" course on Chessable. Maybe this is an idea for others to test for their natural talent. Just play a ton of games against the computer using every opening you can think of.

About such a topic one can certainly wright a lot and say very little. Personally i would not consider 1. ...e5 an answer to the question asked. Let me also say that until one stops throwing away pieces left and right openings do not really matter. So openings should only become a topic after one reaches a certain lvl of play.

Personally i would name the following criteria (which are somewhat akin to the authors own):

  • minimalistic
  • simplistic
  • synergistic
  • forgiving
  • aggressive

Minimalistic: Especially as black i would rank openings higher that limit the amount of approaches your opponent can choose. In that sense e4 e5 is a bad choice as white has (unless you go for Petroff) a great number of options to choose from.
e4 c5 is a much better choice in that sense as there are only to sidelines with 2. Nc3 and 2. c3. but usually Black again decides on move 5 which particular Sicilian he wants. This gives you much more control about the situations you find yourself in.

Simplistic: It is also beneficial to reduce the number of pawnstructures you will regularly be facing. e4 e5 is okish. But 1. c6 and esspecially 1. e6 do a much better job here.

Synergistic: If you have decided on an opening vs. 1. e4 or d4 look for synergies. If you go for the French then maybe pick KID. Similar pawnstructures. If you decide on 1. e4 e5 with many open centres then maybe consider d4 d5 c4 c5. There are not too many synergies between QGD and 1. e5.

Forgiving: Ideally i do not want situations to arise where i need to remember a particular move or even a line. Especially e4 e5 sidelines are a nuisance in this regard. 1. c6 e.g. has very little of those. Same goes for "trick openings" or gambits. At least give yourselve a Plan B and a position that may be worse but is not dead lost.

Aggressive: I find that beginners tend to do worse as defenders. So they should be attacking as much as possible.

If i summarize one key aspect certainly is missing: Quality. The objective quality of the opening is far less important. You do not need to beat Carlsen but your opponent at hand. This actually means somewhat dubious or even incorrect sidelines may result in better results. Once your overall lvl rises you swap out those that perform not as well against better opponents.

P.S.: I find it much harder to give a good advice with black than with white. With white you have the option to build your repertoire around variations that regularly result in IQP-structures. Those meet quite a lot of my criteria.

About such a topic one can certainly wright a lot and say very little. Personally i would not consider 1. ...e5 an answer to the question asked. Let me also say that until one stops throwing away pieces left and right openings do not really matter. So openings should only become a topic after one reaches a certain lvl of play. Personally i would name the following criteria (which are somewhat akin to the authors own): - minimalistic - simplistic - synergistic - forgiving - aggressive Minimalistic: Especially as black i would rank openings higher that limit the amount of approaches your opponent can choose. In that sense e4 e5 is a bad choice as white has (unless you go for Petroff) a great number of options to choose from. e4 c5 is a much better choice in that sense as there are only to sidelines with 2. Nc3 and 2. c3. but usually Black again decides on move 5 which particular Sicilian he wants. This gives you much more control about the situations you find yourself in. Simplistic: It is also beneficial to reduce the number of pawnstructures you will regularly be facing. e4 e5 is okish. But 1. c6 and esspecially 1. e6 do a much better job here. Synergistic: If you have decided on an opening vs. 1. e4 or d4 look for synergies. If you go for the French then maybe pick KID. Similar pawnstructures. If you decide on 1. e4 e5 with many open centres then maybe consider d4 d5 c4 c5. There are not too many synergies between QGD and 1. e5. Forgiving: Ideally i do not want situations to arise where i need to remember a particular move or even a line. Especially e4 e5 sidelines are a nuisance in this regard. 1. c6 e.g. has very little of those. Same goes for "trick openings" or gambits. At least give yourselve a Plan B and a position that may be worse but is not dead lost. Aggressive: I find that beginners tend to do worse as defenders. So they should be attacking as much as possible. If i summarize one key aspect certainly is missing: Quality. The objective quality of the opening is far less important. You do not need to beat Carlsen but your opponent at hand. This actually means somewhat dubious or even incorrect sidelines may result in better results. Once your overall lvl rises you swap out those that perform not as well against better opponents. P.S.: I find it much harder to give a good advice with black than with white. With white you have the option to build your repertoire around variations that regularly result in IQP-structures. Those meet quite a lot of my criteria.

Puscherbilbo's post is well done. Such high level generalized thinking, presenting ideas, is much lacking in the concrete world of computer assisted chess that we deal with today. In all cases of repertoire selection there are trade offs and compromises to be made. A minimalist opening will be second tier e.g. Scandi and Alekhine, but maybe that does not matter at the beginner level. A simplistic approach can limit focus to similar pawn strutures but this limits overall chess understanding of other structures, which at the beginner level, IMHO, is an OK compromise.

The question of what makes "sense" for beginners is open to interpretation. Many coaches insist that students learn a wide range of pawn structures. Does this make sense for a beginner? It has benefits and cost, like any other choice. The goal a beginner sets is an indicator of what to study. If the student is hoping to play a universal style of chess and master all aspects of the game then disciplined long term emphasis is appropriate. If a student has limited time and memory for chess then a more narrow focused approached make more sense.

Puscherbilbo's post is well done. Such high level generalized thinking, presenting ideas, is much lacking in the concrete world of computer assisted chess that we deal with today. In all cases of repertoire selection there are trade offs and compromises to be made. A minimalist opening will be second tier e.g. Scandi and Alekhine, but maybe that does not matter at the beginner level. A simplistic approach can limit focus to similar pawn strutures but this limits overall chess understanding of other structures, which at the beginner level, IMHO, is an OK compromise. The question of what makes "sense" for beginners is open to interpretation. Many coaches insist that students learn a wide range of pawn structures. Does this make sense for a beginner? It has benefits and cost, like any other choice. The goal a beginner sets is an indicator of what to study. If the student is hoping to play a universal style of chess and master all aspects of the game then disciplined long term emphasis is appropriate. If a student has limited time and memory for chess then a more narrow focused approached make more sense.