why is the Italian opening labeled a beginner opening?

Weak players who don't have the strength to slide the bishop all the way to b5 play the Italian. They might be children, or very old, or weak. Or lazy. Sometimes people are just lazy. Modern professionals might play the Italian but they're being ironic, pretending to be weak and lazy old children because they are so strong. They could even push the bishop to a6 if they wanted. But they never do. That would be vulgar.

The Evans Gambit is considered in very poor taste these days. Technically it is still allowed, but how dare you. The great Larry "Melvyn" Evans passed away in 2010. It hasn't even been 10 years for crying out loud. Show some respect.

The February 2018 issue of Chess lists the top twenty openings compiled from a list of 5449 December games where both players were rated over 2400 Elo. One can not take position on this list too seriously because it is greatly influenced by how the openings are grouped. For example, all the Retis are grouped together, while English is separated into 1...c5, 1...e5, etc. Nevertheless, for what it is worth, some of the list entries are: 418 Retis, 201 King's Indians, 192 Caro-Kanns, 176 Slavs, 176 declined Queen's Gambits, 143 Nimzo-Indians, 140 Kan Sicilians, 136 1...e5 Englishes, 134 Najdorf Sicilians, 127 1...Nf6 Englishes, 117 Taimanov Sicilians, 108 Berlin Lopezes, 103 Queen's Indians, 96 1...c5 Englishes, 93 Giuoco Pianos, and 91 Pirc Defences.

openings played by beginners can be played by world champions and top players.

That's the case for italian and queen's gambit declined.

Why beginners are playing these openings? Because they are natural.

U don't seem to know what GM play, so i will give u an advice : try to watch top players's games on tournaments online. Then u will see that italian is very popular nowadays...

Because lots of people use it to teach chess to very young children.  For something like 1/3rd of all  chess players it was their first real opening.   So while the Italian is still played at a high level, the vast majority of Italians are played at a lower level.  You can see a typical lesson you don't see the audience but they sound about 4-8 years old (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7oevckYWDI) 

I disagree. They real reason why beginners play those openings is that beginner books and beginner lessons always start with this opening to illustrate basic principles and ideas. That's why it is more likely that you will encounter such openings on lower levels.

Keep in mind that most beginners are taught the Italian for very different reasons than those GMs play it.  That is, we aren't teaching someone brand new to chess to play c3 and b4 to gain space, or to play Nd2-f1-g3.  Indeed, moving a piece twice in the opening is up there with early Queen development as the big chess sins beginners are taught not to do.

We teach them to play Nf3 and Nc3, developing pieces to their best squares in one move.  We teach them to play Bc4 and Be3 or Bg5, because Bishops need open diagonals.  We probably play Qe2 or Qd2 and then move the Rooks to the open files (or at least central files).  We might call it uninspired, but to a true beginner, these are the principles of opening play to a tee.

Saying that my first opening and the opening that Carlsen et al are playing right now are the same is stretching the truth.

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

The Italian is recommended for beginners because it teaches them to mobilize and activate the minor pieces and to castle quickly - all good things for players learning the game.  It is not inherently better or worse than the Ruy Lopez (Spanish), though as it is commonly taught it is perhaps a bit more passive than the Spanish.

As for the Evans itself, if your opponent doesn't know how Emmanuel Lasker dealt with it, then it is a good opening to play from the Italian, especially if you favor attacking play.  However, even Lasker's line isn't that bad for white, just a bit drawish.

Like the Ruy Lopez, there's a lot of theory in the Italian, but in order to get good use out of it, you'll have to break free from the many "quiet" lines that the Italian is known for.  The Evans is a good way to do that.  Of course, a lot of folks playing black respond to 3. Bc4 with Nf6 (Two Knights Defense) instead of Bc5, which takes the Evans out of play, so you have to be prepared for that, too.

Is the two knights defense simple to learn against the Italian game?  

U "disagree" telling something which almost means the same and/or is complementary to what I said.

So we can think that u disagree agreeing. Thank you for your logical point.

Thanks Deirdre and IM PFren

No one is a beginner for life.  You either improve or give up.  The former makes you a veteran player, the latter makes you a quitter.  Even a beginner has to play something, and the Italian is a relatively easy opening to grasp in terms of basic principles, as others here have noted.

Points made about the complexity of certain lines of the Two Knights Defense are spot-on, but that doesn't stop many beginners from trying it.  That's another reason you want to start with a basic, sound, and easily understood opening to start off - the opponent won't usually cooperate at the beginner level, because they don't know the "book" replies.

I will say that I do not think taking the classical approach is necessary for a beginner, but I will concede that it is far easier for the beginner to grasp than the hypermodern approach.  One of my club students has had very good results diving into the hypermodern school directly.  He has a great passion for the game, and that usually means a strong aptitude for learning it.

Of course, my local chess clubs are loaded with aggressive and unconventional players, so it may just be that we aren't very good at teaching the classical approach to begin with!

Also, the Italian seems like a small step in the right direction when you realize Scholar's mate is actually weak if defended against. These people might still not be ready to give up Bc4. Then they can start to learn sound positioning.  This doesn't mean more advanced players can't use it.

Lol. I don't know why I wrote that I disagree. Sorry for that. I of course completely agree with you.

It's nice to see the italian game a lot in high level chess.

I agree that good results at the beginner level can be a trap, but the basic structure of a starting player's game need not be classical, and an understanding of the classical approach in its entirety is not necessary to the understanding of the hypermodern system.  My hypermodern student understands opening principles very well - he just takes a hypermodern view of them.

Classical players try to build a strong stable center to leverage into attacking pressure.  Hypermoderns turn it into a bloody no-man's land to apply attacking pressure across, or else destroy the foundations supporting the classical player's center.  Classical players seek control through occupation, hypermoderns seek control through pressure.  They are fundamentally different approaches.

Chess history has proven that extremely strong play can be established using either method - even when forsaking the other style completely.  Certainly, the very best players have found uses for both, but I think the notion that classical principles must precede hypermodern ones is at best an oversimplification.

The terms classical and hypermodern make me wonder what ever happened to modern. Modern is the missing link of chess. Vanished without a trace?

I have seen advice somewhat like that:

"... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today.
The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ...
In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game.
For this reason the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended - as well as those of more recent players who have a somewhat classical style, like Fischer, Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Michael Adams. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

However, I do not remember anyone ever saying that one "must" start by studying "players like Greco , Morphy and Anderssen".

Modern players sometimes decline the gambit, even at the risk of being called a sissy. Bunch of bean counters just playing to win, or at least to avoid losing. No sense of style. Where is the beauty in this modern, scientific chess?

But that's the romantic / modern distinction. Whereas classical is contrasted with hypermodern.