If You Could Do it All Over Again (or are learning now)

If you were (or are) an advanced-beginner or intermediate (or higher), and were going to really learn some opening lines and variations well for OTB tourneys (remember, no opening databases allowed like online), what opening(s) for White and for Black would you specialize in, and why? Maybe you are in the process of doing this now.

Assume your goal is to eventually become a Master. Please state which openings are for White and which are for Black. If you want, feel free to add in your lines and/or moves in diagrammatic format.

I'm not talking about someone starting from scratch who doesn't know tactics and basic opening principles.

Old, young, first timer, or not.  If you know basic tactics and endgames, there are two openings you should learn first.

Also, your comment about which are for White and which are for Black?  SCREW THAT!  You should be learning these two openings before any other, and should be able to play both from BOTH SIDES before you even think about going with any other opening.

They are the Ruy Lopez (The opening as a whole, not "The White Side" or "The Black Side", BOTH SIDES!) and the Queen's Gambit (again - both sides).

Now you are going to say "but what if they play something else like the French or Nimzo-Indian?"  The answer is that it's not important right now.  Not like they know opening theory at that level.  I play experts that still don't know how to play a Queen's Gambit.

I have some agreement with thriller fan. I will add however that your opening play from either side should fit your style and temperment.

OK. We seem very passionate about this. I don't doubt the advice from either of you, but out of curiosity, what is the reason (just for my own edification) to start with RL and QG. I totally see the logic in being able to play both sides of each.

My next question would be, after I have mastered both of those from both sides, where should I go?

Knowing both sides is for two reasons. First you may be playing those very popular openings from either side. Second even if your play is restricted to one color knowing the  responces and reasons behind them help. Go to openings that you feel comfortable with and you do well in.

Got it. RL and QG. Learn both sides. They are popular, and you need to know how to implement and defend. Makes sense.

After that task is complete, where would everyone focus their attention (if you were doing it over again). I don't know what I am comfortable with yet. My question is in what others would choose to specialize. This question is both for those who could do it over again, or those who are currently embarking on or continuing with the learning phase of opening theory.

In addition to what was already said, they are two openings that follow opening concepts to the letter, without violation, unlike say, the Scandinavian, where the Queen comes out early.

Also, they are both very rich in both tactics and positional ideas.

As for "After" the RL and QG, first off, that should be a multi-year project.  It's not just about memorizing a few moves.  You need to understand the middlegame and endgame ideas, go thru a ton of GM games, and exercise them in your own over the board games (5-minute blitz on here is baloney and you won't learn jack that way).

If you are just starting this project now, you shouldn't be going after other stuff until at least 2017, MINIMUM!

The year 2017? Or a rating of 2017? You must mean the year.

Interesting that you mention the QG being rich in tactics. I see a lot of people who claim that 1.d4 leads to a more positional game, and 1.e4 a more tactical game. I'm not saying I think they are correct, it's just an observation of what I see people post.

While studying the QG, what about also learning the Slav and Semi-Slav as possible defenses to d4 lines? Someone on this site who just reached 2200 OTB recommended those to me (in lieu of something more complex such as KID, for example), in addition to my study of QGD. Do you agree that would be a prudent course?

Well I play the Petroff, Caro Kann, QGD, Nimzo, KGD as black and the QGD, Kings Gambit, Goring Gambit, Veresov's, Ruy Lopez, as white. Of course that is just me. E4 will in general lead to a more open and tactical game. Slav defenses are fine. I am not a fan of the KID again that is just me.  

It's good to get some differing viewpoints from different experienced players. I seem to recall that you, Fiveofswords, currently use the Petroff (Petrov?) (sp?), but remember reading that you stated you change a lot.

I have seen Ruy Lopez characterized as, I believe the term was, "it sucks." I have no idea either way. I am wondering, however, if I am getting advice to spend years learning Ruy Lopez (from ThrillerFan, and maybe he is giving superb advice) due to the fact that it is powerful in tournament play, or simply due to the fact that it is instructive to learn as a stepping stone for learning other openings.

Let me explain what I mean. When I was a little boy, I taught myself how to program computers in BASIC (I just dated myself). In high school they taught us Pascal. Pascal was pretty useless, except for the fact that it is an amazingly logical language and very instructive to learn as a foundation for study of more powerful but less logical programming languages (e.g., C or C++).

I hope that made sense.

Have you ever thought of trying to figure out what you would play if there was no theory available and you were to create lines that were yours and which no one taught you. And then you used them against Stockfish and wound up a pawn ahead?!

@Five--Yes, the issue of not choosing the opening and wasting all your hard work is a big one.

@Convo-- I've thought of thinking of it. Sounds fun. However, I doubt I am going to come up with some super opening that the former great chess minds of the past centuries have not that will beat Stockfish. Who knows though. When standing on the shoulders of giants, one can sometimes see over the horizon... That reminds me-- I need to improve on Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity.

Twenty different experienced players will probably have 20 different opening repertoires, but I thank everyone for their ideas. I'm sure we'll get some more as the weekend progresses.

Seriously though, have you come up with something you would like to share?

(just whites moves: e.g. nf3, e3, B-e2, 0-0, and d3 then bringing this f3 n-d2) simple but has a lot of possibility.

If you dont know why you are moving a move then why are you? You should know why you chose a move. Even if you chose it deliberately for no reason, that counts too.

If you are learning then you should be open to experiment and nothing and noone should be regarded as better. In fact you must evaluate as if no one not even science including engines decides for you. you want to see so you are working from scratch. A comment once made about Fischer was that he played as new to chess every game.

(just whites moves: e.g. nf3, e3, B-e2, 0-0, and d3 then bringing this f3 n-d2) simple but has a lot of possibility. Oh and yes I have been up a clear pawn several times against Stockfish. Engines just keep you on your toes over the whole game. I believe one has to have shapes of multiple blocks that you do operations on. And you have ideas like shifting to another shape when 60% of your goal is achieved. Operations can include possessing certain blocks, influencing blocks , getting alongside, clearing , any reason whatsoever even just colour or because the opponent likes that there anything. What works well is mere presence for absolute no reason at all. Touch on's on sensitive spots. or on any spot .

Most people when they play play action and response. If you played action - new action type chess you would keep the initiative.

The famous artist Goya wrote on the bottom of one of his paintings done at the age of 85 " I am still learning"

If you are learning then you should be open to experiment and nothing and noone should be regarded as better. In fact you must evaluate as if no one not even science including engines decides for you. you want to see so you are working from scratch. A comment once made about Fischer was that he played as new to chess every game.