Decent Openings

I think if you are playing someone who probably doesn't know a ton about chess, the best opening is to go e4 and head for giuoco piano--a lot of people with little knowledge of openings will blunder here.

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6
This is petrov's defense and is totally legit, if you are familiar with how to play it... if you aren't, it can be bad, here is an example:
3. Nxe5 Nxe4?
4. Qe2 Nf6??
5. Nc6+!! And now he has no way to save his queen from your knight. Doesn't always work that well, but in general if he takes the pawn directly rather than first driving away your knight, it leads to bad positions for him.

or try this...
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 f6?
3.Nxe5! fxe5
4. Qh5+ Now he either blocks with 4 ...g6 followed by you taking the e pawn and then his rook, or he moves his king forward, followed by you taking the epawn and potentially starting a king hunt. Either way, you come out way ahead on what he will first think was a stupid knight sacrifice.

Also mentioned was the Fried Liver attack and a rather aggressive way to counter it--some people might not even notice what you are doing, and many will not deal with it appropriatly allowing you to become more aggressive still and gain a much better position--either way, its also worth trying and stems from giuoco piano.

Of course, if they REALLY suck you can just scholars mate them, but generally the above moves are at least secure even against skilled players, leading to often times fun and/or fairly balanced play.

I would like to recommend "Winning Chess Openings" by Yasser Seirawan for the beginning player. He explains basic opening strategy and how these strategies are utilized in the major openings.

First I think we must look at the definiton of a decent opening. In my humble opinion a decent opening must be

-Simple, offering as little and compact theory as possible.
-Classic, one that occupies the center and lets the pieces out quickly.
-Sound. An opening that equalizes for white and comes off slightly worse for black is suitable and considered sound.

Next, you should know your weaknesses. If, for example, your tactics are horrible, you might want to play open games. Note that we are not trying to work around the problem, but we're aiming to solve it.

10 months ago, my tactics were incompetent, to say the least. To solve it, I played the Sicilian Defence even if I didin't know a lot of theory (theory is a must if you want to play the Sicilian seriously). I was slightly/or clearly worse in most of the openings, but the ensuing tactical junge made it anybody's game.

Someone has said thet below 2000, every opening is sound. But playing openings that obey the criteria above will teach you more.

Originally posted by anthias
If, for example, your tactics are horrible, you might want to play open games. Note that we are not trying to work around the problem, but we're aiming to solve it.

I think that players that are rated below 2000 are too weak to have certain strengths or weaknesses. It is too early to prefer closed games over open, tactical games because there is still a huge, huge room of knowledge to fill.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I am sorry but I must disagree with this statement. [b]Open games are highly tactical and should be avoided if your tactics are horrible.
[/b]

Originally posted by BFM
A good way to improve your tactics is to play open games, even if it means losing.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Any recomendations for a few openings to try and master? This is from the point of veiw of someone who normally moves randomly at the start of games and knows nothing about the various advantages or disadvantages of any openings.