The Ruy Lopez is a waste of time

If you're a beginner, "every game is an adventure," literally.  That's why you shouldn't study (white) openings.  Not an effective use of your time.

But you have to choose something (with the black pieces) against e4 and d4.  That's forced upon you.  It's sink or swim.

So (maybe) learn to play something like a Caro Kann/Slav repetoire, against everyting that white can throw at you.

And leave the idiot memorization of trappy white openings (like the Parhamammy) to your other colleagues on Chess. com.

Arguably the best opening is the one you know, and your opponent doesn't, but that's not carte blanche to waste your time trying to maintain the advantage of the first move with white, in dozens of mainline openings.  That's a black hole for your study time. Don't bother with it, early on.

And you can always play your black opening system(s) with the white pieces, that saves you immense amounts of time as well.  And later, when you are a stronger player, set about building yourself a repetoire from the white side.

Just a thought, feel free to disregard.  Most beginners will.  

How does one define a "beginner", at whom all this advice is directed?

No offence to the posters who are definitely way more brilliant than myself in terms of chess playing skills, but I don't think a beginner should shun away from studying /specialising in an opening. Of course, we may have different perspective of what level one is considered a beginner. To me beginners who understand basic development principles are ready to explore an opening.

In my opinion, beginners are not too demanding to seek an advantage in the opening they play -- they want to know enough so that no matter who they play against, they can at least not make too critical mistakes early and actually get to play a game (in the mid and endgame).

That is why I've totally abandoned 1.e4 as an opening choice for beginners like myself, because if Black chooses to play some well-established system esp. the Sicilian, or even the French, Caro-Kann etc., you need to know and play the exact moves to not get into a bad position right from the start.(and some of these moves are not too intuitive for beginners)

And that is not what a beginner can do. I actually find most non 1.e4 openings quite newbie-friendly, such as 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3 or even 1.e3, as you can deviate from the most popular opening move choices but still do decent if your understanding of development is sound enough. (To me, anything non 1.e4 is non-committal, and grants both players lots of flexibility in transpositions)

Of course, your opening choice also reflects your preference, so you should play a little of everything as a beginner to see what kind of positions really suit your playing style.

My 2 cents as a forever beginner that picks up things every game =)

You're not really paying attention to what IM Pfren is trying to convey here IMHO.

He says (correct me if I'm wrong) it's a waste of time studying openings without adequate knowledge regarding general principles. He didn't say you weren't allowed to waste your study time... :)

This is sound, helpful advice to me and I should know 'cause I spent a fair amount of time trying to memorize a bunch of openings when I started playing a few years back. My idea was simple; don't wind up in the 2nd best position right off the bat. Truth be told, it worked like a charm - I would typically have the better position. Right up to the point where I'd throw it away, not realizing WHY it was better.

Encouraged by a friend, I went on to the principles and more or less immediately realized that I'd wasted a substantial ammount of time in no less than three fashions:
1) I knew the moves but not the 'why' - the result of this would typically mean that I'd lose my perspective whenever - for instance - someone would play a different move order.
2) I had been missing out on the beauty within the openings. The ideas, the strategies, the depth, everything.
3) Most players at my rating level don't play book moves. At all. This basically means that memorization/prep-work is out the window right off the bat.

Let's face it: There's not much elegance/beauty in devouring your opponents last pawn only to proceed with doing the 'columbine harvester mate' with your two rooks. You can dress up a pig all nice like, but it'll still be a pig at the end of the day.

Speaking of pigs: They never really seem to appreciate the pearls you throw in front of them, do they?

Funny you should write that.  Take a look at my post.  I am here to pay it forward.

Yes, I agree with your post.

What Qwerykeyboard needs is to build 3 memory banks in his brain with lots and lots of practice until he can do them in his sleep:

1. Basic endgame checkmate (K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+2Bs v K, K+B+N v K) mating net visualization pattern memory bank.

2. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank.

3. Endgame technique visualization pattern memory bank. 

The right perspective with these different openings is the most important factor.

First, chess is siege warfare in the form of a game.  What the hell is siege warfare, you say.  It was practiced in many forms by human armies throughout history.  No matter what form is practiced it employs 3 basic methodologies (strategies), restrain, blockade, and execute the enemy.  The best book ever written on how to conduct siege warfare on the chessboard is "My System", by Aaron Nimzowitsch.

Second, there 2 theories of chess:

1. Classical Chess Theory:  Control the center by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.

2. Hypermodern Chess Theory:  Control the center with the power of your pawns and pieces.  With this method you do no create targets in the center for your opponent to attack.

Nimzowitsch's book also explains these 2 different theories with a strong emphasis on Hypermodern Chess Theory.  In addition, it proposes an overarching principle that paraphrased reads like this:

Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.

The Ruy Lopez is both White and Balck employing Classical Chess Theory to conduct siege warfare on the chess board.  I have never seen a chess book that gave you any other reason for Whie's move 3.Bb5 than the rationale, White is trying to win Black's pawn at e5.  Also, the B clears the rank so that White can castle Kingside.

This may surprise you, but 3.Bb5 is alot more sophisticated than that.  The real reason White plays 3.Bb5 is that with it, he temporarily restrains Black's Queenside pawns.  Especially Black's pawn at d7.  A central pawn that is vital to controlling the center.  The reason the Black d pawn can't advance is, that if it does, then White plays Bxf6 and creates a static, loose, exploitable double pawn complex weakness for Black.  There is alot more, but we will save it for later.  The other important factor in getting the right perspective is noticing the type of pawn structure in the Ruy Lopez opening.  The type of pawn structure in the Ruy is the known as the Ram formation pawn structure.   There is a book that details for the reader how to handle Ram formations for both the White and Black side.  The book is, "Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch.  An enlightening explanation of the 6 characteristic pawn structures that result from almost every opening, begins on page 107 of the book and continues with insightful detail until the end of the book at around page 200.

The Sicilian Defense applies Hypermodern Chess Theory to controlling the center.  While White is employing Classical Chess Theory to control the center. 

There is alot more.  I can explain further if you would like.  Please let me know.

I admit it, I play the Sicilian.  Having said that, the Lopez is the only opening I like both sides of.  If the Sicilian didn't exist I would play it.  Even not playing it in serious games I like to play the Lopez in casual ones as it is just so awesome.  White shuffles his bits through the back rank in a way you wouldn't expect at first from an e4 opening, for example.  In league matches I play hypermodern as White and Sicilian/King's Indian as Black but in terms of maneuvering you will learn far more from the Spanish.  By all means study this opening at any level - there is no system, or set of systems, that are a better advert for the game.

You probably know the following rule, but important concepts bear repeating:

Wing attacks (flank attacks) are best thwarted (repelled, rebuffed, stopped) by counterattacking in the center, as long as the (middle) center is open/fluid.

If the center (middle) is blocked up then the flank attack stands a very good chance of succeeding.

If that was me I would just have stopped at "I agree with transpo".  Nothing I like more than a pat on the back.  Oh yeah and LOPEZ ROCKS.

Also sound advice!
These days I do more exercises than actual play to be honest. I go over the basic mating nets you described (and other thematic end games as well, e.g. Lucena position and the like) at least once every day to improve technique and consolidate/internalize said technique. I've decided to keep up this practice untill I'm absolutely sure I can do them all in my sleep.

On the side I've managed to get my greasy palms on a copy of Aagaards "Excelling at combinational play" which I find not only stimulating, but also a lot of fun although Aagaards dinglish makes my inner school teacher VERY upset. :D
- Comes highly recommended, especially if you find the chess.com puzzles to be too easy.

Where was I? Oh yes; it seems to be paying off. I have a funny feeling that training - for instance - the K+B+N mating pattern* has a stimulating effect on the rest of my game, sharpening it and also changing my perspective of what chess is entirely. This is the true reward for me; understanding only to realize that I understand very little :)

Oh well, I'm patzer galore, so who am I to tell people what to do and how to do it? These are, however, my observations :)

Regarding your kind offer, I'm definetely open for conversation that would lead to deeper understanding of the game, however my plate is quite full just doing these exercises at the moment. Also, I think Pfren is right; it's over my head still.

*this is probably what it's good for when push comes to shove. What was it? One in 5000 endgames? The humanity! :D

Depends on what you mean by study.  Memorizing variations of the Ruy Lopez is a waste of time.  Studying Ruy Lopez games will teach you a lot about chess.   However, I would put off study of the Ruy Lopez until you have mastered the go for the throat (f7) Romantic open games like the classical Italian.

Anyone under roughly USCF 1800, (or 1600 if you insist).  Spend 4x as much time with middlegame and endgame study (combined).

Do roughly a 20/40/40 split, in your study time, for the 3 phases of the game.  Perhaps study the openings even less.  Maybe only 10 percent.  Just go back and check your game score (for the opening) during post-game analysis.

In my humble opinion, it is better for a beginner to familiarize himself / herself with some elementary openings, provided that the opening moves are provided with reasons also. Otherwise they are apt to give up on chess after some unsuccessful 1.h4 openings. While I agree that the bulk of any non masters study should be tactics, tactics wont help the novice who has surrendered the center and has fallen behind his opponent in development...with the white pieces. The Ruy was the first  opening I learned, and I think it is a great first opening for anyone without having to memorize theory, because in playing the Ruy the beginner is practicing sound opening principals, and by the 4th move a fundamental appreciation of tactics is important.

I guess at the end of the day, most of the posts including myself are a waste of time because we interepreted the OP in different ways and replied in quite different manner =(

But generally speaking, you are free to study whichever aspect of the game that interests you, be it the opening, mid-game and endgame. And 'study' does not mean memorising without understanding the rationale of making certain moves. In fact most ideas, when understood well, can be inferred in all kinds of situations that you'll face in a practical game.

If the OPer finds studying Ruy Lopez a waste of time, he should reflect if he actually gained any insights out of the choice of moves in the Spanish opening. If so, he's learned something, and not a waste of time. If not, then time was really wasted.

Yeah, even before I ever knew a single opening, moves like h4 just don't make sense anyway compared to, for example, e4 which is a logical move based on principles of controlling the centre, opening lines for your bishop and queen.

Studying openings is never a waste of time unless this is the principal and only focus in your preparation. Probably a beginner should concentrate more on middlegame planning and endgame technique. Why? Because this sharpens your strategical view and your ability to create the more appropriate plans according to the position on the board. Studying an opening can enrich your knowledge if you familiarize yourself with plans commonly made in that opening. So it is not memorizing move after move just for the sake of it, but it is trying to understand the creative plans and ideas looking at the different games in your database. At lower levels you can't really benefit from this very deep work but in the future you will for sure.

h4 is better than the Parham!! (for black)

Or instead of trying to analyse or rote learn an opening, just look at a few nice Lopez games for entertainment.  Chess can be fun to watch even without total understanding.  The odd snippet will filter through.  I appreciate a master's aim is to improve but mine isn't for the most part.  I just want to enjoy this more than my other hobbies.

Pfren, it only 'seems' that I do not understand anything ; the point I was hoping to make was that as most chess games begin in the opening, especially for us weaker players, it would not hurt a student to examine a few lines (along with tactics 101!) to see how it is best to start the contest; perhaps a well marked trail is better for the novice hiker then a machete. The Ruy is wonderful place to start because it marries sound development principals with tactics and the struggle for the center. Of course not all beginners begin with 1. h4, but again, in my opinion, it is better for a beginner to play king pawn openings then, say, the English or queen pawn openings, because of the importance of getting ones self involved in tactical melee early on in chess development. I wasted years on the English, and have only now come to respect the importance of improving my tactical eye with sharper 'theoretical' openings.  At my level, I need not fear my opponents 'theoretical knowledge', because if it was all that hot he would not be playing at my level. Most of my current study involves solving tactical problems. OP, play the Ruy! Perhaps you should look into playing in a Ruy Lopez thematic tournament, or starting one...

You are right in the Ruy Lopez both White and Black apply the Classical Chess Opening Theory of controlling the center by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.  It's a mix it up right away tactical melee.

Hypermoder Chess Opening Theory advocates cntrolling the center with the power of your pawns and pieces.  With this method you do not give your opponent any targets in the center to attack.  Openings that apply this opening theory are the English, the Sicilian, Alekhine's Defense. The Reti, etc.  A much more complicated manouvering strategical game. results.