To reiterate what other have said, make sure you know opening "principles". Maybe someone knows a link to a simple article about this.

Looking at the openings Rei mentions you can see a common thread:
a) They fight for the center (d4,e4,d5,e5)
b) They develop pieces fast
c) They try not to do move the same pieces twice

Basically the center of the board is where you want to do battle. If you control that area you will strangle your opponent. In the center your pieces are better than his. A lot of beginners start playing on the wings with moves like a5 (for black) followed by Ra6... admirable in the sense that they are trying to develop their rooks, but completely misguided as it does nothing with respect to the battle for the center control.

I just skimmed this thread but am not sure this has been mentioned: play some games too. I agree with the thread consensus in regards to studying tactics over openings. But also play a bunch if you have time. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most chess players improve a ton and quite rapidly to start with, just from playing alone. It also is necessary to reinforce the tactics studying you're doing. It's one thing to improve at "chess puzzles" but another to spot them during an actual game where you won't be considering each position independently - they will be considered in context based on whatever has been going on before then.

It may also not be an awful idea to post a game ITT and then another a couple of weeks later to see if anyone can pick up on noticeable progress. You can ask specific questions on it and such too.

Yeah, good point Yugoslavian. To expound on my earlier point, I will always bet on the player who is stronger tactically over the player who has memorized more openings, but of course that begs the question of how exactly does one best improve ones tactics in a limited timeframe.

Puzzles are necessary - and I would say they ought to be the biggest single component of your overall study plan - but they probably won't do the trick entirely on their own. It's one (very helpful) thing to understand the tactical patterns that you'll learn from puzzles, but it's another (not quite identical) thing to be able to apply those patterns in a game situation, which is ultimately what will win you this bet.

Thanks again guys for all the info. I'm actually beginning to really love the game. I played a friend last night and can't remember anything quite as satisfying as getting a mate out of nowhere.

Hmm... training tactics is obviously important, but if I were you I'd certainly give Richard Reti's "Masters of the chess board" a read. I hope I would have read that book much earlier, I was maybe rated around 2000 when I read it and I think reading it still helped me tremendously. Trying to remember opening lines makes no sense IMO but Reti teaches you how to understand the opening phase, so you can make better decisions in unknown opening positions (so most of the opening positions at this stage). I cant recommend that book highly enough, it's one of the best chess books I've ever read and I think it should be fairly accessible for beginners. I doesnt go over basic mating patterns (checkmating patterns!) or how the pieves move of course, but I think you are already familiar with those.

Not sure if that's the best piece of advice you'll get for that match against your friend, but reading that book will help you become a better chess player in the long run for sure (if that's what you are after ).

edit. Reti's idea is counting one point for each move with one of the two central pawns, developing a knight or a bishop and for castling. The one who has more points is usually doing better. And making a move with one of the central pawns, bringing out a piece or castling is almost universally good during the opening phase of a chess game. And say you are up 2-3 points, it usually means you have initiative and should start attacking your opponent. A lead in development isn't a static advantage, because if you end up not using it to your advantage (attacking your unprepared opponent), he usually catches up to you. He also explains concepts like gambit, initiative, development, weak squares etc. really well.

I once solved 5600 problems in one day, ship it.

And controlling the four central squares e4, e5, d4 and d5 is what it's all about really. Because of this the knights are usually developed to f3, f6, c3 and c6, because from those squares they are controlling two central squares. The bishop on f1 usually goes to (in 1.e4 e5 openings) c4 to take d5 under control and to maybe attack the pawn on f7, which at this point is usually defended only by the black king, or to b5 to attack the knight on c6 and thus removing protection from black pawn on e5. So every move during the opening should have reasoning similar to this. The idea is to take control of those central squares. I'll put an example game here just because I don't have anything better to do:

1. e2-e4 (Opens diagonals for the queen and the bishop, and also takes some of the central squares under control. 1 point for white. 1-0)
1... e7-e5 (same as above. 1-1)
2. Ng1-f3 (Attacks the e5 pawn and also takes d4 under control. 2-1)
2... Nb8-c6 (Protects e5 pawn and also takes d4 under control. 2-2)
3. d2-d4 (Opens up the c1 bishop and forces black to react in the centre. 3-2)
3...e5xd4 (Black didnt want to protect his pawn anymore and decided to exchange it for whites central pawn. Indeed both 3...d7-d6 (blocking f8 bishop behind that pawn and allowing d4xe5 but not going into that now) and 3...Bf8-d6 (blocking d7 pawn and thus making it a lot harder to develop that c8 bishop) had their drawbacks. No points fo moving the same piece for a second time during the opening. 3-2)
4. Bf1-c4 (White is not taking that pawn back right away and develops the bishop instead. The bishop is now looking at that vulnerable f7 pawn which is only protected by the black king. 4-2)
4...a7-a6 (A mysterious move that doens't help black's development and isn't fighting for the control of the centre. Definitely no points for moves like this. 4-2)
5. 0-0 (White decides to castle before making any further developing moves. Also brings the rook from the corner into play. 5-2)
5... Bf8-b4 (Black developes his dark squared bishop but placing it on b4 makes no sense, it doesn't fight for the centre from there. 5-3)
6. c3 (white cuts the bishops line to e1, thus securing that square for his rook. He is hitting the bishop, so he is also doing this without losing any time as black doesnt get to bring new pieces into play. 5-3)
6...dxc3 (Black is forced to move one of his already developed pieces. He does win a pawn but he is already falling way behind in development. 5-3)
7. Nb1xc3 (White captures the pawn and brings out his knight. 6-3) etc.

White is already clearly better in that example game because he played the opening according to the opening principles. 4...a7-a6 is obviously never played there because it really makes no sense, but just to illustrate a point it was played this time. White is a pawn down and has a lead in development so he should start attacking. I won't go into how to build an attack (definitely not an expert in that :P) but f7 is obviously one of the targets here. Reti's book has 60 games analyzed similar to this and he's also a lot better at this than I am. I think this is the way you should approach studying the opening phase of the game. Studying and trying to remember opening lines makes no sense at this point. Just play according to these simple opening principles and try to make sure every move has a reasoning behind it. And get that book!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBiw-...02A0B148E81034

Learned almost all of my chess from him

Hey

I played him tonight and beat him 3-1. Made a massive error in the first game when I mistook his Queen for a Bishop (they look pretty similar with the set we were using) and never recovered from it. At this point he was pretty confident and thought he had it in the bag.

Just into the second game he was boasting about what opening he'd used and how he knew the name of the defense I had used. As expected he had put his time into studying openings, but was struggling because I wasn't making the moves he was expecting me to make. The following 3 games were pretty easy. I was never under any real threat and was in control of the game.

Would just like to say thanks to all that offered advice. Can honestly say it was a massive help because playing the game it was obvious that taking the tactics route was far superior to his. I would probably have made the same mistake unaided.

Congrats!