Markovich wrote on 05/27/09 at 12:37:14:


Actually, I would propose a new section entitled "Why you must play 1...e5"  Surely there are enough threads preaching this theme to justify such an independent section by now.

On a more serious note, to this debate I might add,  that 1...e5 is also advocated by many for the reason of  benefit to be gained from playing the closed Ruy Lopez. 

In "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black", Leif Johannessen wrote that the Soviets "advised all aspiring chess players early in their careers  to play the Ruy Lopex with both colours as they would then be exposed to almost every kind of position - closed, semi-closed and open and with all kind of pawn formations." He also mentioned that Capablanca said that "the Ruy Lopez is the cornerstone of understanding positional play." 

Nigel Daives  wrote in his "Play 1 e4 e5!" that he was told by Soviet GM Lev Pskhis that "an essential grounding in the Ruy Lopez was essential if you want to develop your game". He further claimed that a switch to playing 1...e5 was a key role in his finally gaining the GM title. (Of course, iti notable that in the same book, he advocates one of the least classical approaches to playing the Ruy Lopez as Black, but I digress here.) Note, Davies was already an IM when he made the switch, so he was not exactly a young beginner. 

Of course, both of those authors were trying to sell  1...e5 repertoire books. And, I mention all of this without any particular conviction. My feeble chess mind is at a loss to understand why the Ruy Lopez should have a special and unique place in cultivating positional understanding that could not be gained by say...the Nimzo-Indian. But maybe this is just one of those things every Russian schoolboy knows and part of the reason  perhaps that is why I am just a lowly patzer. 

thanks Markovich, your reply was really helpful. sometimes it is confusing when each chess teacher advocated different approach. and because I study on my own, I want to be on the right path (regarding my own strengths/weaknesses of course). I think I will always have the dilemma of which openings to play /study as I like almost all of them.

thank you for your answers. I would like to clarify - I am already 29, FIDE ELO 2031, but my problem is I like to play all kinds of openings without studying them actually. For the last several years, in my league OTB games I have played 1.e4 together with Queens Gambit, English and Reti as white, and as black it has been Najdorf, Petroff, Ruy Lopez, French, Pirc against 1.e4 and Grunfeld, KID, Queens Gambit against 1.d4. 
the thing is I have never studied any opening (I only quickly play through grandmaster games, that`s all) and I bought my first opening book several months ago as I decided I would like to study chess thoroughly finally.
to be honest, I enjoy all these openings, but I realized I am more a positional player, that`s why I would like to create a more positional repertoire.
Most importantly, I want to play several openings in which I can specialize, for instance French/QGD or Caro-Kann (Petroff)/Slav etc.
There are people with quite narrow repertoire and have become great players (Vaganian, Volkov).
but  I never studied open games, I started to play English/Reti as white and Semi-closed games as black rather soon (but never abandoned 1.e4 with white and 1.-e5 with black completely).
I think I should have played only open games for much longer to be better at tactics atc. My aim is to reach 2400 one day (whether this is realistic is another mather). so do you think that I should get back to playing open games as black before building a repertoire with semi-open games which suit me more? (I am not saying I don`t like playing open games, but in semi-closed or closed I feel more safe).
I reckon Markovich would say :"sure, go back to open games", but I am still hesitating because I would like to start studying French/QGD as soon as possible.

thanks for the answers, I surely agree that studying how to play open positions is fundamental. in my question I referred only to open openings in particular. I am not a beginner, but the very first chess book I had was one on Reti - and that`s why from the very beginning I was playing the Reti opening (and others similar) and I was intuitively afraid of open positions, which I don`t think was a good start.

I begin to think that the best "first opening book" is just the biggest encyclopedia of openings you can carry or afford -- MCO, NCO, ECO, BCO, take your pick.  Then just play around with whatever openings interest you or catch your fancy.  My experience is that you will naturally begin to develop preferences, and as you learn what you like, you can purchase more specialized and advanced books.

Of course, the danger is that you won't get beyond the first third of the book and so you will end up playing only the openings in that section.  My own first experience was with Horowitz's "Chess Openings: Theory and Practice," which explains why I fell for the Urusov: it was the first opening the book discussed and I never got beyond that... 

So I agree: there is no need for someone to play open games just because that's what beginners "should do."  It is good for beginners to try out lots of things and play lots of games to get lots of ideas -- some of which might translate between lines.  Best, in fact, if they do not specialize right away but just learn.

I`ve seen here several times the opinion that improving players should begin with studying and playing open games - to learn about tactics, initiative etc... 
I agree with this, but what if someone doesn`t like playing open games? let`s say can he play Sicilian as black (also full of tactics) and closed games with white. I mean if he wants to play open games on a certain level, he must study them. buy why dedicate much time to studying opening that one will eventually abandon anyway?