Developing an Opening Repertoire

I think the reasoning may have been that it is a reliable safe system where black doesn't need to know a lot of sharp forcing variations. What I wouldn't recommend is the sicilian, just because it is so big and complex, and something like the pirc or modern, as you really need to know the strategy well as black to stop being trounced on the kingside. I played the modern far too early and could rarely survive against a strong opponent who tore my position apart. Open games are probably the best for a beginner because they advocate lots of step-by-step basics, control of the centre, tactics, etc. If an improving player wanted to build a repertoire I would maybe suggest getting to grips with 1.d4, the queen's gambit is old, respectable, important, and white can choose a system to suit his style, eg. e4 against QGA vs. e3, and so on. One thing that I don't agree with is improving players concentrating on a specialist opening that is advertised in books as amazing, the veresov, tromp, colle, albin, alekhine, modern, and so on. I believe that it is much more important to play major openings first, because they are the ones that will make you improve as a player, and those are the ones which give you the best grounding for strategy and tactics.

My Friend, all the advise above is old method of learning opening.

This is a new and sophisticated method, but of course you have to spend hours in that before you are fluent in opening.

I believe that learning opening is not learning chess, I also believe that it is hard for beginner not to learn opening, because nowadays every people is learning opening, and I believe that chess is 99% tactics.

My method is the method that was used by Roman Dzinziashvilli (i think i was wrong pronouncing his name).

1. Watch some opening video (whatever e4-e5, d5-d5, any repertoir will do because you are just beginner and opening is not the essence of chess improvement for beginer, you only need to start in good shape).

2. After watch it once, try it on internet for about 20 games in a 5-10 minutes game to get a feel about the opening.

3. Watch again the opening video, you will understand better now what the guy in the video is talking about.

4. Play again about 500 games and use Fritz (or whatever engine at least 2400 strength) to analyze your game. Find what is the better move to use the next game you play.

5. Use software -bookup or ChessOpeningWizard or FREE Chess opening trainer, to keep your game database and keep your better move the next time you play. Train with it. Don't cheat using it but train before you play.

6.  Do number 4-5 repeatedly until you reach 1000 blitz game. Now you are a decent opening expert in that opening. Try it OTB.

I got about 200 rating points difference, if my opponent go to my opening preparation (I can beat 2100, while my rating now 1800). But you know there are many openings to complete your repertoir. You have to do other opening also with this method try to concentrate first with white than go to blank defence for 1.e4 then 1.d4 and then other not frequent openings. It will take about two years to have a complete repertoir using this method.

Graw81 wrote: amrou wrote: Anatoly Karpov once said if you want to improve your game , study the endgame !

---

 No point in studying the endgame if you cant get to the endgame!!...especially not a winning one. No matter what, every game has an opening phase so it is important to be able to get through it.

---

I agree. Nobody wants to get to the middlegame all bruised up, or even worse, destroyed in the opening! Many advice on the openings here are intended to help him get a playable middlegame. We're not underestimating the endgame -- some tough dart player driving to a tournament in a middle of nowhere without a decent map (or lack of any) wouldn't even be able to reach the tournament!

caturcoach- I disagree that an opening is merely a means to an end and is an arbitrary choice for the improving player. I feel that learning an opening system is not only central to the type of chess player you will develop in to, but also it is the only reason you will arrive to a middlegame on an even footing. It is incidentaly also indicative of the type of middlegame you will face. Choosing an opening that is based on chess principles with natural moves, rather than deep strategy that is not at once apparent to beginners and improving players, has to be best. Mr Dzindzichashvili's cherry-pick method is probably completely correct and sound, however personally I see that a beginner or improving player is introduced to 'beginner openings' that ground them in opening principles that are simpler to understand.

You may be past the point where my method is relevant, but i've recently started to try and develop my opening knowledge, and i've been using my correspondence games at this site and studying whatever openings come about as I go along.  It's a broad method, but by doing some research into the best lines of whatever is on the board, i am studying some of the specific theory involved, but more importantly i'm expanding my general understanding of opening principles.  For my level, i'd say the mix is just about right.  Eventually i'll expand the method by looking deeper at the opening theory involved in games that gave me trouble once I was out of book.  Hope this helps.

Why not buy a good book of games like Chernev's "Logical chess move by move" and play the openings played in the book. You'll know the first moves, the reasoning behind them, and the subsequent middlegame plans. Plus there will be a wide variety of openings shown so you can try out a whole bunch and see what you like!

Agreeing with pinkerton, perhaps the opening goal of a beginner or someone developing their 'first opening repitoire' (a bit easy on the 'first' part as it will probably just become adapted over time) would be to get to a playable middlegame position that they understand a little about. ie. Avoid terrible opening mistakes and be willing to battle the middlegame be the case +/= +/- or =/+ -/+. Inotherwords dont end up with +- or -+.

Agreed

Graw81 wrote: Agreeing with pinkerton, perhaps the opening goal of a beginner or someone developing their 'first opening repitoire' (a bit easy on the 'first' part as it will probably just become adapted over time) would be to get to a playable middlegame position that they understand a little about. ie. Avoid terrible opening mistakes and be willing to battle the middlegame be the case +/= +/- or =/+ -/+. Inotherwords dont end up with +- or -+.

---

I think that's the point of ALL opening theory, not just for beginners.

ericmittens wrote: Graw81 wrote: Agreeing with pinkerton, perhaps the opening goal of a beginner or someone developing their 'first opening repitoire' (a bit easy on the 'first' part as it will probably just become adapted over time) would be to get to a playable middlegame position that they understand a little about. ie. Avoid terrible opening mistakes and be willing to battle the middlegame be the case +/= +/- or =/+ -/+. Inotherwords dont end up with +- or -+.

---

I think that's the point of ALL opening theory, not just for beginners.

---

 ha! i would say your mistaken!!

As white you want to get some advantage for your preperation and go into the middlegame +/=. Ok, some players cut down their opening learning and could go with KIA for example but the downside to that is you only get = position. As Black, you try your hardest to punish white for his opening errors and = for black is success in the opening. Black should be happy enough with +/= in the opening as most serious main lines are evaluated as that anyway. Some players may go for 'unclear' positions which can be good for either side. I really really dont think the point of opening theory to the most of players is to get a middlegame +/- or -/+. Maybe some lines in ones repitoire will be evaluated as +/- but someones 'whole' repitoire wont consist of +/-. 

 

Inotherwords, my definition for beginners includes +/- and -/+ positions but for the majority of us we would want no worse than +/= or =/+. 

 

Some exceptions may be unsound gambits but used as surprises. 

Oh I agree, I was talking about "getting into playable middlegame positions that they understand". I think this applies to all players of all levels.

ericmittens wrote: Oh I agree, I was talking about "getting into playable middlegame positions that they understand". I think this applies to all players of all levels.

---

 Oh yes of course! Totally agree with you then.

For beginners I would recommend  simple opening  that lead  to  open positions. As white I would play 1.e4, play the Giuoco Piano, or maybe the Evans Gambit. Against the Sicilian play  the morra smith gambit  it's fairly simple  and there aren't too many variations to learn. As black play 1.e4 e5, if you don't like playing the black side of the ruy lopez, you can always play Petrov's defense or  Philidor's defense. Against 1.d4 , I would recommend the Albin-Counter gambit or the Slav.   

I would say absolutely do not play a gambit.  They're often dubious enough when you know what you're doing.  Why play the smg for example, when you can just play the c3 sicilian.  As a beginner, the single most important thing, to the point of maybe being the only important thing, is keeping your pieces on the board, and taking pieces that you can take.  I would say this is tactics, but it's almost too simple to be tactics.  Dont give your pieces away for free, and do take any free pieces that are offered, once you are sure it is safe to do so.  This includes pawns.  Even though the Evan's gambit is probably perfectly fine, as a beginner, you will simply find yourself starting every game a pawn down. 

some ones already mentioned it , colle system excellent beginning rep , easy to remember , and gets you in to the habit of studying openings, as will all openings i think you got to play , play play it you will loose but you will learn about the opening and eventualy find answers were before you wouldnt

The smith morra gambit is not dubious  neither is the Evan's gambit. Both openings allow white to gain the lead in development, and set up an attack. I play the smith morra gambit and the c3 Sicilain, morra smith gives white more attacking chances. And along with with keeping you pieces on the board it just as important that a beginner learns how to use the pieces and set up attacks and checkmate their opponent. These openings give white extra tempo to set up an attack. Also they are both alot of fun to play, for beginners give both openings a try if you don't like play something else. But really for a beginner don't worry to much about the opening study the middle and end games more.

Look into the KIA for white. Simple opening, easy development.

but I agree with karpov on studying the endgame ! in the endgame there are less pieces ,so you get a better undrestanding on the power and abilities of pieces and how pieces work together and what piece possition favors you and you will learn how to overcome when you have a minor advantage cause mostly begginers can`t use all their position potentials ! just like any other art or science you should work on the simplest to the most complex ,in the beggining there are endless possiblities but not in the endgame ,if sa begginer wants to develop a openning repetoir he will be probably memorize them & not undrestand them !and it doesn`t mean that you can win all the endgame or study your endgame solely,study the common and diffrent logical endgame is the right way ! and remember as the game advances you get more comfortable with the game cause you are a endgame expert !

I read through this threat and although I'm not a super strong player, I have an opinion based on reading, my experience and what strong players have suggested.  For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

-- I agree that tactics and endgames are important.  I think that study in these areas will give you the highest return on your time.

-- I wouldn't get too attached to particular openings until I got a good general idea of the main ideas of all the openings and played them to find out what types of positions I like, which types of positions occur in what openings and most important what are the ones I enjoy playing.

-- I think if someone takes up any main respected opening, they will get good at if they review their games and how to play those types of positions.

-- With all the above said, learning the Scotch or using it as a tool to transpose to other openings such as the Italian gives a good platform to build upon.  If you want to branch out to the Ruy Lopez, you can do it in stages e.g. looking at the Exchange Variation and then using d3 to avoid variations you're not quite ready for.  In other words, playing 4. d3 or 5. d3 (second most popular move).  This simplifies the terrain, but you are still playing solid positions.

-- As Black, I think the Hyperaccelerated Dragon and Nimzo Indian is a good place to start.  At the same time, you can experiment with other variations.  However, these two defenses go well against 1. e4 and 2. d4 respectively and they are fun to play.

-- Additional thoughts, you could use an Anti-Sicilian against any Sicilian such as the Grand Prix Defense or Bb5 variations such as the Rossolimo and Moscow, which score quite well.  However, if you like Open Sicilians as White, they are easier to tackle than as Black.  Black has to be ready for anything.  The Alapin is also a successful one size fits all approach to the Sicilian, but more positional in nature.

-- In my case, I don't worry too much about playing some unfamiliar positions.  I believe this will make me a better player.  However, I do try to stick with some openings that I slowly am digesting 40% of the time.  I realize with all the possibilities, I'm really running a marathon and not a sprint.  What's important to me is enjoyment, exploring ideas and improving while having fun.

I hope my two cents was useful to someone.  Like I said, I'm not a high Elo player, but I wasn't serious about the game when I was younger, nor did I have much time to play.  However, now I am almost 50 and I am improving and having fun.