Opening Choice for Beginners

My current opinion is that  starting out players should consider openings that have alot of opportunity to occur on the board ... so when they learn a principle concerning certain positions they may have the chance to apply it a few games down the road 

1 e4 Scandinavian as Black  will happen close to 100% 

1d4, 1Nf3, 1c4 Tarrasch Defence/or some QGD variation as Black will happen close to 100%

As White 1d4 Trompowsky/Pseudo-Tromp will happen close to 100% on the board 

The opening positions can be played strategically or tactically and general principles can be applied.

Other opinions about this are welcome!

Or stick with the Thrawn, Halloween, and Hippopotamus!

Oh and slot in a few BongClouds

I generally agree but I do have some comments and questions.

A) the Scandinavian: I have found from experience that black must also know the Blackmar Deimer Gambit, the French, or the Caro kann. And white, I think can also still "mix" lines between the three. Here's an example :

a) 1.e4,d5 2.d4,e6 3.f3,... I don't know what to call it or if it is even theoretically sound but it can still be played and some general knowledge of the Blackmar Deimer Gambit may still be needed.

b) 1.e4,d5 2.d4,c6 3.f3,... same here I think but it could also play out as some form of the fantasy variation of the Caro kann.

B) I can see the Tarrasch defense as a "universal " defense to 1d4, 1.c4, or 1.Nf3. But white does not have to play an early c4. Will the Tarrasch "work " if white chooses the Colle, the Veresov, or Bg5 type systems like the Trompovsky or the Torre Attack?

I understand that move order by Black may affect the answer to that question. The combined moves of Nf6, e6, d5, and c5 is the Tarrasch defense but it does not have to come about in a specific order depending on white move order or choices.

C) 1.d4,... the Trompovsky/Psuedo Tromp:

True, I don't think that Black can avoid it because regardless of Black's first move white can always play 2.Bg5,...

Another avenue may be playing the Polish Opening as white with 1.b4,... or the Bent Larsen opening with 1.b3,...

Hey chessterd5,

I personally pick to take the first Diemer pawn, but maybe not the second one that will be offered.

Yes there are transpositions that have to be accounted for I'm preparing the 2...Nf6 Scandinavian and it can transpose into the Panov Attack (I personally would not transpose into a French structure)

The Tarrasch pawn structure I think can be reached even if White avoids c4 I believe (there is no cure all system that makes chess super easy)

The Tromp bishop can be avoided with 1. .f6 or 1...h6, but how often will you likely get that and not exactly life threatening and actually explains why many suggest understanding why over memorizing what when playing your moves

Thank You for your response, I was starting to question my sanity

I do like the 1 b3 or 1 b4 ideas as I concur they are sound enough as well!

I share the same philosophy with 2 pawn sacrifice Gambits. I am happy to take the first pawn but not the second. I feel that the majority of the time, the extra material is not worth the time it gives your opponent to further their development. Here are 3 examples of 2 pawn gambits:

A) the Blackmar Deimer Gambit

B) the Smith Morra Gambit

C) the Benko Gambit

I like the French pawn structure. Which is also why I like the Tarrasch defense. It is the same pawn structure against either e4 or d4. Another thing about the Tarrasch defense that I like is that black usually castles early to the kingside providing king safety. Attacks in the middle game are suspect if the king is not safe.

I personally, would never play 1...,f6 or 1...,h6 just on the off chance of avoiding the Trompovsky. I would rather just play the manlines. I think that black is OK with 1.d4,Nf6 2. Bg5,Ne4 3.Bishop move,c5. I'm old, I remember when the Trompovsky was all the rage back in the 90s. I would bet that a majority of the lines for both sides have been semi forgotten by now.

I play 1.b4 not 1.b3

I do so because it is not 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, or 1Nf3 and ALL OF THE THEORY that is needed to play any one of those choices. Do you know realistically how much theory is needed simply to play 1.e4 alone? Never mind the other choices.

That being said, I have found that to play 1.b4 successfully you need a reasonable understanding of most openings because of "almost " transpositions to other openings in the middle game. Plus the Polish Opening has specific theory of its own. But you are always guaranteed a Polish "type " position with 1.b4.

Is it better to stick with only one opening?

At the very beggining stages, just focus on opening principles; so don't study an "opening", but study "how to open". Try 1. e4 or d4 and develop following good principles. Get a feel for which of those "works" for you. Eventually, you will want to learn an opening, and so look for one that seems to "make sense" based upon how you understand those opening principles and what moves you seem to make on moves 1 through 3 or 4 type thing. If you're following good principles, most likely that will be an opening, or similar enough to an opening that you "recognize it". That's your "spirit opening", so start to study that one.

For awhile, focus on that one main spirit opening as White in terms of studying. But you will find there are times when your opponent deviates, such as if your spirit opening was the Italian, let's say, then you're out of luck if your opponent plays the French. At first, just do your best, going back to "principled play", until you feel pretty confident with your spirit opening.

At that point, work out what deviation you face most often, and learn a line for it - you may find your "principled play" has led you to another "spirit opening" and there's a line that "makes sense" to you, so learn the main moves for that. But, keep focusing on your "main spirit opening" for most of your study, learning various lines and it's main ideas.

Once you feel comfortable with your line to deal with your "main deviation", find a line for your "2nd most common deviation". Slowly deal with the nuisance deviations by just learning a line against each one, ideally one that you get to choose. All the while, focus your study on your "main opening" (by now, you probably know a fair few lines for it, some many moves deep; your Italian now includes Evan's Gambit, Two Knights Defence; Giuoco Piano; Giuoco Pianissimo, maybe you even included the Scotch Game and Scotch Gambit). Once you can deal with 99% of your opponent's games, go through your "deviation lines", and decide if you're happy how those games go. If some just don't seem to work for you, then start looking at that more closely, maybe add a different line to try or study the line you know a bit more deeply. If they are all going fine, then still consider expanding your options, but again, learn one expansion at a time - don't try and expand everything at once.
It takes a lot of time, but trying to learn everything at once will just result in it all being a huge jumbled mess.
So in a way, yes focus on one opening in the "short term" sense, but over the long run, you will be switching which opening that one opening of focus happens to be. Just be prepared to get annoyed when someone plays something you're not ready for.
As Black, though, it's a bit tougher since White chooses the first move. There, you need to focus on how to play against 1. e4 and also how to play against 1. d4 (other first moves tend to be less common until higher ratings). But still, you should be learning your main opening from both sides anyway (so you can deal with it when you face it), and you should be learning your deviation lines from both the White and Black perspective, so if one of those deviations appeal to you from the Black side, learn that.
For example, when I have the Black piecesI either end up playing Petroff's or the Dutch 99% of the time. As a result, I end up in my Black choices with more consistency than my main focus with the White pieces (which tends to centre around the Italian), where I often end up facing a Sicilian, or French, or Caro-Kan, etc. As a result, my performance with the Black pieces is probably better than with the White as I've played more games that "go my way" (in terms of the opening) with Black than with White. And in the end, it's the game experience where you really learn. Studying the openings is just to make sure you don't blunder on move 3 type thing.