The Best White Opening at YOUR ELO: A 71-Million Game Analysis

@Toadofsky said ^

So... at what rating levels are 1. d4, 1. e4 or 1. Nf3 best?

1.e4 Best under 1400 ELO. The Italian Knight Attack scores 61% at beginner level — tactical chaos punishes unprepared opponents.
1.d4 Takes over around 1400+. The Queen's Gambit peaks at 57% (1400-1600) — higher than tactical e4 lines.
1.Nf3 Wasn't the focus here (usually transposes to d4/e4 structures).

What's your current first move?

@MeWantCookieMobile

Thanks for this detailed feedback — lots of great insights here!

On the Fried Liver: You're right it's theoretically drawish. My point is purely practical: at 1000-1600, opponents don't know the refutation, so 71-74% wins. The Lolli suggestion (6.d4!?) is interesting!
On "study for master level": Valid long-term philosophy. But my target audience is the 1200-1600 player who wants to enjoy chess now and win more games today — not necessarily grind to 2200. Both approaches coexist.
On the 2000+ cutoff: Fair criticism. Sample sizes get thinner above 2000, but I may extend the analysis in a follow-up. You're right that the picture likely shifts again there.
On Kraai's advice ("forget openings, learn real chess"): 100% agree for improvement. But openings remain fun — and understanding why certain ones work at your level builds chess intuition too.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment, thanks!

@skjung2034

Love this mindset! You're proof that enjoyment and rating can coexist — 1800 with King's Gambit and Stafford is no joke.
The data shows what wins most, but why you play matters just as much. Keep having fun!

@Tigerthinksbad said ^

So... at what rating levels are 1. d4, 1. e4 or 1. Nf3 best?

i would say e4 as the best move at any level

Classic debate! "best" depends on your style — if you thrive in tactical chaos, 1.e4 might feel best even when stats say otherwise. What matters is what you win with!

My "Teaching style" is similar to those weirdos who talk about "learning styles". hahah.. I believe that there are 3 kinds of chess learners.

1. The principled learner - Those of us who can learn chess through models or principles.
2. The framework learner- Those of us who can learn through a framework. So learning a system like opening as a basis for learning advanced tools.
3. A combination of the above.

It's rather flexible. But I have decent results when it comes to people who even take it relatively seriously. I don't think you have to "Grind to 2000". One of my recent went through a four year college, met with me once a week for about 8 ot 9 months, and before he graduated he obtained a 2000 blitz rating in chess.com. Going from 1300 to 2000. He was a combination learner. So I fixed his openings first. One of my changes which he liked was I showed him my 1. e4 system. Consists of the Worm Hole Lopez, The French/Caro Two knights attack. Then touches on some easy sidelines with easy transpositions back into main lines. We would still be working together, but he moved out of state for a new job. I don't know statistics, so I never quoted them. I do however have a "fairly" deep understanding of models and principles for my "level".

On your comment about target audience. I might hypothetically insist that the corrections be taken seriously on the grounds that when you make your target audience think there is a lower goal post it lowers motivation. You can give almost the exact same information and preemptively state that the goal should be to want to go higher. (EG: I was u1000 for about 10 years, I felt I could only dream of reaching 1600. And a lot of my peers thought I would be a life E and F class player during that time. If I had the mindset that I could only make that rating forever, I might never have even tried.)

On the @skjung2034 comment. I was going to comment on that too, so might as well here. I have this urge to squish the "I just like to play to have fun." crowd. The reason is, the comment insists that the only people who have fun are the ones who are not serious about the game, or can only get to a certain lower level, and in their mind that qualifies their "lower performance". I actually took skjung2034 comment in that way. I completely agree that one should have fun at what they do, but to try to qualify lower performance as better because you have fun is categorically wrong. I have been over 2100 in most ratings for the better part of 10 years now, and I have just as much fun as any 1000-1900 player. And then I can't claim my rating stagnation is because of fun over skill because it's more likely a GM has more fun than I do. It's not really about "fun". It's about interest and path chosen. You can be an 1800 who plays unsound gambits all you like, but the fact remains that you are simply not choosing the correct path. GM's are not simply people who always play boring openings. There are plenty of GM class or GM level players who play aggressive chess. Just we humans don't understand why they play better. And aggressive unsound openings isn't the only fun. I personally have a decent amount of enjoyment boring aggressive people into submission. An example? The stafford? I have an 83% win rate against them. My only loss is a blitz game. I will admit that the stafford does better against me in lightning/bullet controls, but I have no care in the world for epileptic chess. Point is.. Fun is not dependent on the sacrifice of skill. It's purely dependent on the interest level. If you start claiming you have more fun as an 1800 with a bad opening rep, that is just an excuse. But if you are just satisfied with 1800 and love the bad opening prep, that is much more valid in my not so humble opinion. I know it could be just a saying he's adopted.. But I don't think it's a correct saying. It's funny because in my original post I said "Stoddard" and I meant Stafford. And then someone who theoretically plays the Stafford pipes up. I wonder if he did that in reference as well?

@MyChessPosters said ^

@MeWantCookieMobile

Thanks for this detailed feedback — lots of great insights here!

On the Fried Liver: You're right it's theoretically drawish. My point is purely practical: at 1000-1600, opponents don't know the refutation, so 71-74% wins. The Lolli suggestion (6.d4!?) is interesting!
On "study for master level": Valid long-term philosophy. But my target audience is the 1200-1600 player who wants to enjoy chess now and win more games today — not necessarily grind to 2200. Both approaches coexist.
On the 2000+ cutoff: Fair criticism. Sample sizes get thinner above 2000, but I may extend the analysis in a follow-up. You're right that the picture likely shifts again there.
On Kraai's advice ("forget openings, learn real chess"): 100% agree for improvement. But openings remain fun — and understanding why certain ones work at your level builds chess intuition too.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment, thanks!

@MeWantCookieMobile

I was not suggesting that my real strength is somehow higher or that my openings were somehow holding me back; my rating is very reflective of my skill.
I do suppose my comment was overgeneralizing, but my intention was that I personally have most fun with those openings even if they're not necessarily sound. Props to you for being disciplined about studying chess and having fun at the same time, I wish I could do the same!

:-) Yes. I figured that was the intention. And comments are mostly said or written out of habit. But notice you did another qualifier.

"Props to you for being disciplined about studying chess and having fun at the same time, I wish I could do the same!"

I don't actually remember my study. I remember the theory and where it comes from, but not the physical act of doing anything. And for 95% of my improvement I have to admit I am super duper lazy when it comes to actual training or study. Honestly I don't know what the fascination with unsound gambits are. It could be because I can't find the proper intuitive play in order to play them. I have tried a few that are questionable and sound and still can't wrap my head around the logic. Like I tried the Smith Morra, the Wing both Sililian and French, The Danish, Scotch, Even some d4, and Benko/side gambits related to that, elephant and some others that I don't remember the names. I just don't get the flow. I don't even know if I can logically do them now, and sometimes I try just to see what it's like. But there is no way I would consider myself disciplined, even if I tutor on the side. I have thought about creating chess accounts based on themes. Like a "SniperGambit" might be cool, or "ONLYTHECOW!" but I don't know how dedicated I would be to keeping those up. I would have to be a much better youtube personality than I currently am before I did something like that I think.

@skjung2034 said ^

@MeWantCookieMobile

I was not suggesting that my real strength is somehow higher or that my openings were somehow holding me back; my rating is very reflective of my skill.
I do suppose my comment was overgeneralizing, but my intention was that I personally have most fun with those openings even if they're not necessarily sound. Props to you for being disciplined about studying chess and having fun at the same time, I wish I could do the same!

The games at levels bellow 1800 are decided by blundering checkmates / pieces not by the openings.

another ai slop?

@Takamatsu_Tomori said ^

another ai slop?

This doesn't even remotely make any sense.