They stunt your chess growth, but not necessarily the because they don't develop any tactical skills.
They are bad because they make you believe that you can play moves x, y and z completely regardless of what your opponent plays, and that's just not how chess is. What your opponent plays matters.
I'd learn the principles of development and go with Ruy lopez or Queens gambit like lines, they leave a lot of options and there's plenty of ways to develop your pieces without immediately being forced into crushing, tactical lines.
Aslong as you make sure you don't leave any pieces hanging and defend well, you don't really need a system. But that's just my opinion, I'm not the best chess player myself. ;-)
They're not exactly good or bad, they can only be bad if you neglect learning opening principles and reacting to your opponent's moves. Which is, unfortunately, what many beginners who adopt system openings end up doing.
In a sense, if you don't follow specific opening lines, you should follow a sort of "system", only it's not defined by a certain array of moves, but guided by the opening principles: Develop, get the king to safety, control the center. Choose moves that help achieve those goals, according to your opponent's play.
Opening study is the least of your worries when you are just starting out. As long as you are playing reasonable moves you should be ok in the opening. I'll show you what I mean.
After 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 the pawn on e4 is attacked. White has several reasonable moves. He can guard the pawn with 3. Nd2, 3. Nc3 or3. Bd3. He can push the pawn to a safer square with e5. Or he can exchange pawns with 3. exd5. All of these are good moves. The key point here is that there is no single best move.
So what's an unreasonable move? One that ignores the opponent's threats. For example, if White plays 3. Nf3 Black captures the pawn on e4 and gains an advantage.
If you want to learn to play well I think the most important thing to do is ask yourself, "what does my opponent want to do next?" after every move by your opponent. Don't move until you have an answer to that question.
i appreciate all the replys. specially "NM Splane" thank you for your time and effor. i do have one last favor though, can you guys give me a suggestion on atleast one opening.
><
umm here ill be more specific. which opening would you recommend me learning, the london system or the italian? both are fairly simple and have very little theory involved.
The italian game has very little theory involved? huh?!
If you go into an Italian game against someone who knows all the main lines out 20 some moves, you'll get crushed every time. It's not NEW theory (for the most part) but it's theory, and there's lots of it!!
However, if you're just starting to learn opening theory, I'd suggest forget about learning any one opening, but rather learn the principles of the major openings. Pick up "Mastering the Chess Openings" Volume 1 & 2 by Watson and use them to learn the basics about the most popular 1. e4 and 1. d4 opening variations.
Forget about learning specific lines past the first few moves but instead learn the characteristic play that comes out of the opening. Use what you learn in your games and figure out which openings suit your style of play. Then go get specfiic books on those openings and learn them.
my apologies sir, again. . .im fairly new, i guess i was miss informed. and i cant thank you enough for that book suggestion and everything else. highly appreciated that reply.
Im fairly new to the game, and im having trouble deciding which opening i should learn first. ive read many forums and arguements saying that systems stunt your chess growth, since you dont develop any tactical skills.