background: i was around USCF 1400, took 15 years off and now i'm getting back into the game. i always kinda sucked with black anyways.

lately with white i've been keeping it simple and playing the colle which imo is kinda boring but it usually gets me to a decent middlegame.

but what about black? i really don't want to have to learn tons of lines or dig too deep, just something relatively easy to learn to get me to the middlegame. i'm just playing blitz on ICC against guys < 1500, so i don't think this should be too crazy but i don't really know where to start, and you guys are all smarter than me, so any suggestions would be really appreciated.

1.g6
2.Bg7
3.Nf6
4.d6

or just play chess960 so you dont have to worry about opening theory...

I agree with a Pirc/Modern hybrid as it's something you can play basically against anything.

There is also room for considerable flexibility within that system as you get stronger and investigate more into the system/s.

Plz to be shipping me a cheeseburger k, thx

Great easy enough I'll do some reading, cheeseburger on it's way

DAMMIT! I just lost a long post replying to this thread when there was a VB error. Okay, the cliff's notes:

1. e4 - play the classical Ruy Lopez (e5, Nc6, Bc5). 2nd choices would be sicilian (classical>e6 variations>dragon) or Nf6 scandinavian

1. d4/c4/nf3 - play either the QGD or semi-slav

Why? These follow the basic rules for openings and give the player an easier game.

1. Take your share of the center
2. Develop pieces quickly and to good squares
3. Castle quickly

Hypermodern openings, especially the pirc/moder/KID, tend to neglect #1 which is fine, but requires a more sophisticated understanding of the game. i.e. It's all too easy to just get uncomfortable, cramped positions where your opponent's center runs over you if you're not careful. By taking a chunk of the center immediately, it's going to be easier to find good squares for your pieces and have better games.

I completely agree with swingdoc, with the caveat that I would suggest the Nimzo-Indian as another good response to 1. d4.

Qa5 scandinavian vs 1.e4
1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 vs 1.d4

Now with all these different answers, we've probably just confused the OP..

Like I said above a hybrid modern/pirc system/move order is decent. You will probably run into some trouble when White maxes out his center against you, but then you can really zone in on how to handle that.

I do agree with swingdoc that it can be annoying to a degree so his suggestion of:

1. e4 - play the classical Ruy Lopez (e5, Nc6, Bc5). 2nd choices would be sicilian (classical>e6 variations>dragon) or Nf6 scandinavian

I do agree with this. If you're going to put in the extra effort to learn the Sicilian, I would say that the Classical is probably one of the easiest to learn.

Classical Sicilian:



As far as against d4, I would highly recommend Nimzo Indian and tag along with it the Bogo or Queen's Indian. The Nimzo Indian is imho the easiest defense to learn against d4.

The French Defense against 1. e4 is fun, but also 1. ...d5 (Centre Counter) is very simple and easy to play.

Against 1. d4, some sort of classical defense like the Slav or Semi-Slav will be very solid, though I find the Nimzo-Indian or Queen's Indian more exciting.

Dude!
Focus on endgame and strategic midgame notions.
Openings are not important until like 2000 or so, what good for you is to take some advantage in openings but then lack the skills to make that advantage a win?

If you are really interested on learning buy some chess books of those stages, if u want some advice about which books just reply or pm me.

In your advice there is 4 openings that a beginner should never play!

French - They lack the basics strategics to understand this opening. How can a new player understand that the main ideia of this opening is to trade pieces and make the white advances structure bad?

Centre Counter - A better option since they should start playing some open games to learn more. But still you are putting a beginer to move his queen 3 times and try to teach them that it is not bad because the queen can make difficult for white to develop, instead of putting a beginer to learn to develop all his pieces focus on the center etc...

etc---

jesus, that's the whole point, i'm looking for something easy to learn and play all the time so i don't have to mess around with openings.

and seriously, i'm not THAT dumb or that bad that i can't understand that

thanks for the responses guys i have some thinking to do now!

Forget about openings. Play e5 after 1. e4 and d5 after 1. d4. Just develop your pieces to good, active squares and castle. This way, you will always have a decent playable middlegame position. That is really all you need to know about openings at your level.

thanks dick I already answered a guy who said the exact same thing

I'm not trying to learn 30 pages out of mco I'm ytrying to take 4 or 5 hours to figure out something simple that I feel comfortable in

The nimzo is excellent, but it does require more work since you can only play it vs d4 c4 Nc3. I just wanted to keep it simple, but the nimzo would obv be easy to add.

OP, if you want the Nimzo to be a part of your repertoire, use this move order:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 and now you can follow up with c6 immediately and play a semi-slav or just play a QGD.

You can even initially learn the QGD/semislav ideas and later add the nimzo! Then you'll be cool like me

Edit - the nice thing about the classical Ruy and QGD is that you don't need much memorization. Even if you forget whatever theory you'll probably be okay because you've developed quickly and grabbed your share of teh center.

imho this is the right way to learn a system at ~1400 USCF

The main thing like you said is to feel comfortable/confident in the system. Something that you're familiar with.

Heck, if you're more familiar with an opening system you'll probably be more familiar with the resulting middlegame type positions which should help your middlegame in general and also help with practical results.

Let's not forget that the Opening ties into the Middlegame people...

P.S. I got my cheeseburger with pickles and onions, and I said no pickles and onions!!!

P.P.S. I ate it anyway. nom nom nom and it was good.

I agree with this. Creating a very cramped position (anything hypermodern or the French -- is the French hypermodern??) makes it difficult to figure out how to develop your pieces and which pawns to move without knowing more theory. In a more open position where you have a stake in the center, proper development is more obvious.

I'm not saying not to learn the theory associated with whatever opening you choose, but this simply helps you in case your opponent plays some sideline you weren't prepared for. EDIT: and it makes it easier for you to learn it quicker.

I'm fairly certain this is not true. WinBoard and Arena read it fine, and in fact print out pgns with spaces there. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation ) includes the spaces. PGNs from gameknot and from chessgames.com include the spaces.

Do you have some source that supports your claim?

between this thread and random flaming in the cash online game thread, dipolemoment is giving paymenoworlater a good run for the title of the ****tiest chess poster

Those are the only 2 pgn viewers I use, so I didn't need to search far. Wiki, gameknot.com, and chessgames.com all do what you claim to be incorrect.

You know what, let me look it up for you. http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

Appendix C, page 20 shows a sample. It includes spaces after the numbers. So, either you know something about chess notation that FIDE doesn't, or...

You can? The 1 poker post you've made is you playing a ****ing 1/2 live NL game. Does that count as making money at poker? Not really.

Do you know what the document I posted is? Do you understand what organization created that document?

Also, where did I say that the space was required? All I've been claiming is that it's not incorrect to include.

Everyman Chess - uses a space, no period i.e. 3 Nf3
MCO - uses a space, no period i.e. 3 Nf3
Quality Chess - uses a period, no space i.e. 3.Nf3
Russell - uses a space, no period i.e. 3 Nf3
Gambit - uses a space, no period i.e. 3 Nf3
Chess Stars - uses a period, no space i.e. 3.Nf3
CIRC - uses a period and a space i.e. 3. Nf3

ICC - uses a period and a space 3. Nf3
Chessbase - uses a period, no space 3.Nf3

Pretty obvious fact imo. 4 use space with no period, 3 use period with no space and 2 use period and space. Where exactly did you get this rule from? Even if you went with published material as a convention and were right (which you are not), that wouldn't mean that's the only correct way to write algebraic notation is 3.Nf3. It'd most likely mean the book publishers are good at conserving space.

*all my dover chess books use descriptive notation.

I love this post so much. In case anyone is not keeping score, Dipole claimed that it is incorrect to write chess notation 1. Nf3 He believes it is only correct to write it 1.Nf3 Unable to substantiate this claim with any rule, he appeals to the authority of chess publications. When the governing body of chess uses the "incorrect" notation in its own publication, this is clearly an error and must not be used as authority.

Seriously. How the hell is this guy not banned yet? Do we need to add a 2nd mod??