From 1200 to 1500

I think what @Compadre_J is getting at is that a lower rated player may have more success with a more simple opening. I'm only picking up the sicilian now at 1700. Before this I played the caro.

As for Sicilian, I can sort of understand , even though it still isn't that important to pick something else, but one can do so.

Most beginners start with 1. ...e5 against e4 as this type of symetry have the most sense for someone starting out. That being said, 1. ... e5 is very complicated on the highest level as well.

One of the things he recommended was French, which is theory heavy as well. But, it is still okay if one likes it.

Exploring openings you like is ok as well. For instance, I am kind of decent with black pieces in the Sicilian, while I didn't enjoy it as much with white, and I started playing Moscow/Rossilimo as white as a result.

In any case, as long as one likes his opening lines and is not lost, it is completely fine to continue.

To back up what @Compadre_J is saying, as an advanced begginer/low intermediate player, I already have a lot on my plate to improve on. Improving my application of chess principles, improving both my tactical and positional game, calculation, middlegame, endgame, etc. At least with simple openings, I won't have to worry about theory as much compared to if I play Ruy Lopez or Sicilian in the future. I could focus on improving the fundamentals first up to a point that I've honed them properly.

At that point, it'll just take a month or two for me to incorporate these complicated openings in my repertoire as opposed to OP taking more months or years to master it. Also, he's playing it because he's forced to. Since it's the only opening he knows. Also, since Ruy Lopez is his only weapon as white, I'll have the advantage if I play Caro-kann as he can't play Spanish against it. He's forced to play another opening. Similarly, I could also just play London against him if his main weapons are Sicilian and Caro-kann. This is why having simple but effective openings is more important for beginners than knowing more complex lines. If you're faced with an opponent that happened to deny you these weapons, you're at an immediate disadvantage.

Imagine spending more time than usual in learning an opening. Only to find out that your opponent could easily take you away from familiarity by playing another simple but effective opening. The worst part about it is, in these situations, most intermediate players know how to play against simple openings like London, Italian, Scotch, CK, KID. Since you spent more time learning about the Spanish and Sicilian, your response to these openings might be less sharp compared to the average intermediate player.

One of the things he recommended as white is Italian. If the opponent plays CK, it doesn't matter if white plays italian or Ruy, he will have to come up with something against CK, french, sicilian, scandi, pirc and so on.

In short one can't escape from all the hardships. The good news is, the opening itself is rarely the deciding factor, even on much higher level.

People are too much focused on the opening which is not completely unimportant, but it certainly doesn't merit so much worry.

And now I am unfollowing the topic. I said what I wanted and I appreciate the opposing view.

In any case, I wish you all a great day, and best of luck with your chess.

Playing Italian vs Caro-kann also seems to be a bad idea since d5 at move 2 just immediately kicks or prevents white from playing bishop to C4. Just so you know, I quickly looked it up. It's -0.3 if white plays e4 Bc4 against CK.

Also, I would have to disagree. Prior to studying caro-kann and KID, when my opponent played London, I had to always play with my gut and reinvent the wheel. Similarly, against e4, I always had to just play the opening as if I'm playing the middle game. Blunder proofing my moves and fishing for tactics, I was forced to "reinvent the wheel" each time when I didn't have to.

This resulted to a typical time disadvantage with most of my games. Not only that, since I'm playing by ear, players who have better understanding of their openings only had to worry about the middle game and the endgame to convert. Whereas for me, I had to worry about the whole game.

After learning KID and CK, my win rate with black noticeably improved. Learning it also helped me attain 1200. So based on my experience, I disagree that openings don't matter. If anything, in pre-1200, it might be the first step of a beginner towards concretely learning positional chess.

And I would say learning positional chess is important.

I could play any opening I want. I used to be a d4 player. A KID player. A Caro Kann player. The Benoni. This account am an e4 player. Else, I will lose interest. It is fun playing moving from openings to openings.

I do not know about you guys who have plans to be a professional player. I want just I to have fun type of chess player.

My rating is sinking. If I go to chess.com 1930 I will train five hours a day of chess again. I just play for the past 2 years.

Question. what do you call a beginner? I tend to call beginners below 1000 but while reading through your posts I have noticed a lot of texts along the lines of "BLUNDER" and I can safely say I don't just give up pieces and then also stuff like *too much theory* or "On his level" I take chess seriously and play it as a sport, playing OTB tournaments in the Swiss qualification, obviously in my age group.

Yeah, to sum It up would like you to define "Beginner"

Probably below 1000. There's an argument to be made for 1200 but 1000 seems like a safe bet.

Elo ku 2000

Gak Trimo Bewan epep

chess.com 1600 and below are beginners. 1601-2199 are intermediates. 2200 experts.

You really think it's fair to group 1500s with 800s? I get anyone under 1900 probably looks like a slug to you but there is a big difference between those levels.

I rate people the following way:

Players below 1,000 - Novice

1,000 to 1,399 - Beginners

1,400 to 1799 - Intermediate

1,800 to 2,099 - Advanced

2,100 to 2,199 - Expert

2,200+ - Master Players(Titled) or Master Players who Squandered their Chess Talent (Untitled).

My Current Training Plan

Here’s what I’m doing to work towards my goal:

Solve tactical puzzles on Chess.com or Lichess to improve my calculation skills. ---> GREAT.

Play one rapid game (10|0 or 15|10) and analyze it afterward to learn from my mistakes. ---> GREAT.

Focus on openings I use frequently, aiming to understand typical plans and ideas instead of just memorizing moves. ---> Not a big priority, but pretty OK.

Practice basic endgames, like king-and-pawn and rook-and-pawn scenarios, to improve my conversion skills in winning positions. ---> GREAT.

Watch instructional videos or study materials(GM games and Chess.com/lichess Studies) to improve my strategic understanding. ---> Passive learning, does not work for everyone.

Game Analysis:

After every game, I use tools like Chess.com’s Game Review or Lichess analysis to identify critical mistakes and missed opportunities.
I track recurring errors and focus my training on fixing them. ---> First analyze on your own, without external aid by an engine. Later, you can use any sort of external aid to see where your thoughts & analysis were accurate, and where you miscalculated/missed something.

Other than that:
- Daily is useful for learning openings, and that is that. Not a priority.
- Rapid (15/3 up to 25/10) is the indicated way to play meaningful games- focus on this.
- Blitz is useful for fun, and little more than that at amateur level.
- Bullet is useful for destroying any chess skill you have ever possessed.

Chess.com 2000s can never win an open OTB tournament that's why I label including myself as intermediate. We struggle to score a point. Ok maybe 1200-1599 as advanced beginners.

It doesn’t really work to put such exact labels on it. If a 1599 is an advanced beginner (whatever that means) then they’re in the same category as someone 399 points lower(a 1200), but in a different category to someone rated 1 point higher. Doesn’t make sense.

You can also make a distinction between someone who is a beginner but has just learnt the rules and started playing (that’s how I’d define a beginner) and someone who has played for a long time but is very low rated.

In any case I can say from decades of coaching experience there is a decent amount difference between a 1200 and a 1599, particularly in terms of having reduced the frequency of the worst types of blunders.

Kronos & Witetear hit the nail on the head.
They said what I was trying to say even better vs. me.

I gave them upvote.

———————————————

Also, I agree with CM James.

I don’t know what kind of rating metric the forum poster Self-Taunt is using, but it seems highly questionable to me.

In my experience, when players have a 400 rating point difference, The games are not even close.

A 1600 player vs. 1200 would be slaughtered match.

A 1200 player vs. 800 would be slaughtered match.

The difference in skill is very recognizable.

If they was to play 10 games each, It would be very nasty result.

1200 player vs. 800 player - Best case scenario:

I think the 800 would win 3 games and lose 7

Worst case scenario:

The 800 wouldn’t win single game 0-10.

—————————————————

Same thing can be said with Strong players.

2,200 CM goin up against 2,600 GM wouldn’t even be close.

I saw a chess video by International Master John Bartholomew. He was going up against a Grand Master.

Some of Johns fans asked the Grand Master if John was good chess player.

The GM looked in the camera and said with the recent Title Tuesday games John is showing signs of slight improvement with a few more Lessons he might become a decent chess player.

Like What?

The Margin of difference is huge.