Most people have told me that I shouldn't bother to much with opening at my level, it comes after awhile, my only opening "studying" now is using opening references at the start of my correspondance games, to see how the openings progress.

As a beginner, I've been told, just like many else, to start with 1.e4 and then start trying out other stuffs after I've played awhile, but when is it time to look into the openings?

I've goot a book by Tony Kosten The dynamic English the aggressive player's guide to a traditional chess opening which I find interesting, but I haven't really looked into it besides from the first few pages. But I'm insterested in the English opening, and would like to give it somewhat of a try, with the help of the book.


My current rating, online, is somewhere around 1600+ on correspondance, and about 1400 on live chess, I haven't played live actively in almost a month though, so I'm assuming it's a little bit higher since then, been mostly playing correspondance, some against Chessmaster, and some games otb.

I do keep up with all my practicing, so I'm not just hunting an opening which will somehow perfect my game, I know that trap and I'm not falling into it.

If you're playing correspondence, then I think you should focus more on openings than players who stick only to real time games. After all, you can follow a book line straight from the book as you're playing it. The real problem with opening study for most amateur players is that they spend all the time on opening study that they should be spending on tactics, endgames, positional play, etc. But looking up opening moves as you're using them in correspondence is a great way to learn.

--Fromper

So, there is no reason why I couldn't stop using 1.e4 for awhile, and try out maybe 20 1.c4 games?

Just asking due to the constant chat that you should stick to 1.e4 to learn the open games etc properly, I'd stick to 1.e4 if it helps my progress.

I strongly recommend learning a couple openings. It can really improve your center control understanding, and what squares are key to the themes of each opening. Without knowing what squares to fight for, the game is possibly doomed from the start. 1. e4 is a nice way to start, to be sure. I prefer the Hypermodern openings such as Alekhine’s Defense or the Reti, but that is after years of playing and studying and being frustrated with the more popular openings. I was stuck at the 1800-1900 level until I started playing the Hypermodern systems, and now that I’ve found them I will always employ them.

The funny thing is, that almost all Hypermodern openings will actually end up looking very similar to say 1. d4 or 1. c4, because of the necessary center control that spawns out of chess itself. I highly recommend going to a place like chesslecture.com, or purchasing (or downloading, if you have the means) ChessBase lectures if you have Fritz or Chessbase Light. There is nothing like those video lectures for me, I can promise you that. ONE hour of video can easily take the place of 10 hours of bookwork, because I just learn better that way. There is just something different about a Master actually TELLING you: this is the way it is played, and why.

You don’t need a whole lot of opening preparation to jump a few hundred points, either. Just learn the themes, and watch for mistakes from the other side. When YOU know what is supposed to be played, it will become very obvious to you when your opponent does not. THEN you can start schooling higher rated players when they make blunders, even if only slight ones.

Anyhow, my advice is to hit the openings hard, and worry about endgames a bit later. After all, if you never make it out of the opening alive, what good is endgame knowledge?

Completely disagree. If you don't know where you're going, how do you even begin to try and get there?

At low levels, learn basic opening principles. As you move into intermediate level, pick specific openings, and learn them by using them, with only a little opening study from books and lectures.

--Fromper

The opening sets the stage for middlegame strategy and the effects of one’s opening choice can reach all the way into the endgame. A well-played game is not a disjointed one where the three phases have no relationship to each other; it’s a logical, smooth flowing entity.

So to me it’s obvious that one should strive to become an all around player with some knowledge of all phases of the game because concentrating on only one aspect will retard progress.

You need a nodding acquaintance with the general strategy of some openings, positional play, tactics and at least a minimum of K&P and R&P endings. Beginner games are marred by gross blunders, missed tactics, no strategy and poor endgame play (if the game ever gets that far) so there is no single bit of knowledge that will lead to success. In short, you have to study everything.

Hi Tricklev,

Here's a quick suggestion: When analyzing your otb games, spend some time studying the specific opening lines you found yourself in. You'll save a lot of time by focusing your efforts on the actual openings that come up during your games.

When you're still a novice, it's not productive to spend a large amount of time memorizing opening lines. You just wont see the time payoff in your otb games.