A sub-1600 player shouldn't care about openings - he has way more important things to learn.

Keano wrote on 02/19/14 at 16:18:13:


With no disrespect, re the first para "just play and enjoy", is this not a fallacy? This is the learning by doing and not learning by reading fallacy. Perhaps fallacy is too strong a word. Again there is a simplistic bifurcation into an either/or. As some has pointed out, everything has its place. Why reinvent the wheel when an opening book can quickly get you up to speed on the opening moves. To give a very simplistic example: Is it better to let a beginner play 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 Qh5 Nf6 4 Qxf7# or something like that. OR is it preferable to show a beginner things like that which can happen and avoid it?

I for one would actually like to survive an opening (roughly 10 moves) and play chess in the middlegame.

Perhaps the more refined answer is what books are relevant for a beginner and post-beginner player? Yes, A book such as Avrukh's  1 d4 is not suitable. But surely a book such as McDonald's How to Play Against 1 e4 or even Paul van der Sterren's Fundamental Chess Openings is not amiss. I would also point out that IMHO adults and children learn differently and hence the same advice does not work for both.

Re 2nd para, could not agree more.

Of course absorbing study material will help, but at that level I think you can just play and enjoy. Exposure to some of the things on the market now may do more harm than good.

An important thing - every time you play a game analyse it afterwards, you will be much more motivated to look at your own games rather than theory from books. Of course you can cross-check the theory then also and see what you should have played, you will be picking things up as you go along.

Keano wrote on 02/19/14 at 01:06:16:


Ditto, but for the record I also looked at Moskalenko and Baker (mentioned by Katar above). I happen to play the Velimirovic vs. Classical Sicilian, so Moskalenko made a lot of sense to me.

But I will be humble and add that you better put more weight on Inn2's advice, than on mine as I have never played the French from the Black side (apart from some friendlies).

Forget about books, DVD's any other rubbish.

Look at the position. Think. Play what you like.

ErictheRed wrote on 02/18/14 at 17:04:30:


+1000

If I was 1600 again I would learn 3. Nc3. 

Against the Winawer, specialise in a decent sideline either solid (e.g. 5. Bd2) or sharp (e.g. 4. a3).

Against 3... Nf6 play 4. Bg5 and aim for the Alekhine-Chatard which is quite a pleasure to play. 

Burns and Rubinsteins are easy to play for White- aim for queenside castling. 

The most difficult task is the MacCutcheon. No shortcuts there but 6. Bd2 mainline is rather straightforward for White side. 

The best thing about 3. Nc3 is that it will become more and more effective as you get stronger (unlike say, the 2 knights - which you may feel like giving up when you reach 2000).