My Quick Repertoire

Hi guys !

I'm expecting to join a chess tournament in 4-5 months so I decided to create an opening repertoire . Basically , I had this "identity crisis" whether I like tactical or positional games . There is a time that every other game , I rush to sacrifice anything on f7 and deliver mate asap (which is very entertaining , and I won more that I lost in those games) . Then there is a time that whenever my opponent had any pawn structure defect (even just a small one) I quickly exchange pieces to get to an endgame (at this time I had a copy of J.Silman's Endgame Course , so I did everything to reach an endgame on my games ) . Then there's the time when I'm trying out every chess system / opening I can find . I played the Spanish , the Dragon , the French etc. So I have in the back of my mind a bit of memory on what could happen in certain types of position . (like a rook exchange sac on c3 on the dragon , playing Kh1 before f4 when expanding kingside , delaying castling if there is no immediate threats to gain the initiative  etc . )

So after playing chess for about 5months , I had acquired some tidbits of chess knowledge about everything . Now I want to put it in one , cohesive whole repertoire which I can focus my limited (4-5 months before the tourney) study time on . I have decided to set aside my "attacking personality" because it is too risky , and I thought to myself that I can first create a solid position , then look for tactical opportunities rather than to compromise my structure then fail . So it's a win/win for me .

I have chosen 1.c4 as my opening with white , with the possibility of the accelerated fianchetto mixed with the 3.e4 variation depending on how black will respond .

against 1.e4 , I have played most successfully with the main-line Caro-Kann , but I still have problems with the Advanced Variation and the Panov-Botvnnik attack .

against 1.d4 , I play the QGD setup , probably the semi-slav and cambridges spring as a surprise weapon . I also have experience with the 3.. Be7 variation of the QGD , and the tarkatower if white does'nt exchange on d5 .

I need your suggestions , I'm looking for any possible sidelines (most preferably , those with less theory to learn ) , pointers on where should I focus my study time on , any quick and playable lines against the other flank openings (1.f4 , 1.b4 etc) . 

Thanks for your response !

Cheers , AlcherTheMovie

To be honest, it seems that you still have a ways to go before you need a 'chess identity', or even an opening repertoire. Nothing wrong with having either, but I remember that when I was struggling with the subtleties of positional play, trying to avoid king-and-rook knight forks, and so on. There just isn't any point to having an 'identity' when you play okay for fifteen moves and then promptly lose your rook to a knight fork!

Of course, it's never too early to start thinking about what style of chess you want to play. There's the key - what YOU want to play. Do you like the fast-paced games or the slower-paced ones? Your answer to that question should dictate what sorts of openings you should be playing. If you really can't decide, you can go for a mix of both, but in my opinion, you get more out of doubling down on one. Personally, I went down the aggressive path (because I realized that attacking was one of my weaknesses), with the King's Gambit being my favorite of the openings I chose. Since then, I have naturally become less risky, but the experience I have had from going all-out on the king (which isn't always the best course of action, as I learned quite quickly) helps me when I want to get an attack going. Chess is a game of balance though; you need to know when to attack and when to defend, when to push quickly and when to slowly build up.

My suggestion: don't worry at all about the lesser-played lines (1.f4, 1.b3, etc.) unless you frequently play someone who plays the same thing over and over and you don't know how to beat it. When those strange openings come up, it is often enough to play naturally - that is, to play moves that look reasonabl. Basically, develop your pieces, castle, and watch for tactics, and that should be all you need. And I wouldn't worry about back-ups and whatnot. Focus your study time on tactics, playing chess, and analyzing your games. Reading Silman's books are great, but it's a long-term thing. You read and learn, but it doesn't typically 'soak in' until you've had the opportunity to use those ideas in your games.

For the more common openings, it's up to you. 1.c4 is a good practical bet, so if you like it, I'd say stick with it. You seem to like the Caro-Kann too, so I'd stick with that. Against the Queen's Gambit, I'm not sure if the Semi-Slav, which is very theory-intensive, is ideal. Maybe you should switch it up and use the Cambridge Springs Variation more frequently and have something else as a back-up.

The key to doing well in the opening is experience. If you are comfortable with the openings you play, stick with them. The more you play them, the better you get with them, and the bigger your advantage when your opponent plays into them. The only reason you might switch would be if you find that your opponents play a certain line that you just cannot handle. Even then, you should stick with it for a little bit and try to find an antidote, but if all else fails, you can always try a different opening - but then you would have to start all over again (as far as experience is concerned).

I hope I helped. Good luck!

@Pikachulord6 , thanks for that wonderful reply ! I learned a lot from your lengthy response , but I'm quite confused with the first paragraph . I can confidently tell that I know the basics of tactics (skewer , pin , double attack etc .) , so I'm more likely to see that " K+R knight fork " on move 13 before it was played at move 15 :)) . Or maybe my choice of words gave an impression that I don't study tactics that much , or maybe that paragraph has its double-meaning , and I'm too stubborn to see . But nevertheless , I appreciate your help . Thanks !

AlcherTheMovie

@Blindside , good day mate ! 

I can't say I don't agree with you , that definitely will cut some load on my study time . But what I have in mind is that even though it will be their first time to play with me , I'd like to have positions that I actually studied , but is awkward to play with if you're only playing the mainstream openings .

--

Oh , and for those who want to help me out , I got a couple of questions .

1. I found this line in the CK 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6 - it looks really appealing to me (since it also has the fianchetto setup just like 1.c4 2.g3) , the only problem is what should I play when my opponent plays e5 ? Should I take on e4 before playing g6 ?

2.I cater the idea that some (if not most) of my opponents in this particular tourney will go out of theory fast , or have these weird looking systems (ex. they play a3 and h3 no matter what , plays h3-Kh2 when they have a fianchetto setup , the dual-fianchetto setup , etc .) that is awfully common here in the Philipines . Can you share with me your experiences , if you have , when playing with these kind of players ?

Thanks for those who will respond !

Cheers! , AlcherTheMovie

I agree with one thing Esragon, that speed chess is fun but does not improve your thinking! In fact if you over do it and you are now aware what you are doing , you might lose your judgemental abilities.

@ChristianSoldier007 Hi ! I also played those lines when I was starting out ! I especially like forcing an IQP when playing those exchange variations (that way the initiative is mostly on my side) . I personally don't feel the SM-Gambit that much , coz there's not that much immediate threat unlike the other gambits . But it's really annoying to play with as black >:) 

Thanks for dropping by mate ! Cheers !

AlcherTheMovie

Oh , a queen trap ? I don't play the SMG that often , but I'll give my two cents ! I think I know this line . but maybe we are talking about different things . Does that trap involve a bishop taking on f7 then the King is forced to recapture , thus leaving the Queen hanging ?

I would try to have a white opening which is a bit more aggressive than

the English available as well. 

@beardogjones , first of all , nice name ! I already catered that idea , but I'm more inclined to have a narrow opening repertoire , and I choose lines that are "active & attractive" . As I said before , I tend to compromise my position when I play aggressive openings , so I made the switch to 1.c4 :))

@ChristianSoldier007 , hahaha I knew it ! That trap is also possible with the Italian and Spanish games if they overextend their pawns before castling :')

UPDATE : 

Okay , I played and practice 1.c4 these past days and I really liked the results . I got games that are tactical just like when I play 1.e4 in the past (maybe because me and my opponents still make mistakes) and still got positions that don't collapse that easily . One of them is this :

I'd really like to annotate it , but I'm quite low on time now , so I'll have it analyzed later . But in the meantime , please look for flaws on my gameplay . Thanks :)

c4 isn't really recommended for players to start with (1.e4 or 1.d4 should be chosen) but since you started it would be worse to change it.

We can play some games in live chess (you as white) to see your understanding of the opening if you want. 

As for 1.c4 by all means stick to it if you like it but I would not advise it as a first opening simply becuase the transpositional character of the move means you need to be well versed in many different openings and positions, Based on your black openings (CK and QGD) I would recommend taking a look at playing 1.d4 followed by 2.c4. Since the CK and QGD are solid and positional in nature, a 1.d4 repertoire would follow this same spirit. Just some basic theory will allow you to get playable middle games at this level.

@Daeru , maybe we can play some other time , my pc can't handle live chess :(

@MrMnM , you're kinda have convinced me . I only spent a few days studying 1.c4 so switching to 1.d4 won't be that much of a loss . 

Just a question , I have a copy of Fundamental Chess Openings , would the chapters that focus on the Queen's Gambit be sufficient for studying it ? I mean , is there another book that I should look for if I want to study that opening ?

Yes FCO is a great book, and it'd be enough.

@Daeru Okay , thanks for the info . Now I can study my whole repertoire without changing the reading material 

----

So , this would be my study plan . 

Study and practice Caro-Kann (8-9:30 am) w/ FCO as reading material .

Study and practice Queen's Gambit (10-11:30am) w/FCO as reading material

(take lunch and do whatever in the afternoon )

Study and practice  QGD (9-10pm) w/FCO as reading material

Play video games (and scan fast on my collection of chess books for something interesting) - 10pm onwards until i fall asleep .

--

Now I only lack the study of tactics . I can have access to , say , chesstempo.com only two or three times a week (due to crappy connection) and I can read Silmans endgame course every other day (So I still improve my endgame skills) so I need to find a way to practice tactics . I think I have a pdf file of chess puzzles on my home PC , I'll check on that .

Thanks for those who dropped by ! 

-ALcherTheMovie

Also, I'd suggest looking at games of players who play these openings.

I think that was Alexandra Kosteniuk(World Women Chempion) who once said -"When you are starting out you shoulndt play dubious openings, or sidelines. The best way to learn about strategy of chess is to play main lines of main openings." And there is also an conception that the stronger you get in your chess, the less likely that simple position will give you chances to win. So i think best openings for new player are stuff that is with e4 e5 or d4 d5 as first move. These kind of openings have mirrored/balanced center, which results in simpler position strategically then say e4 e6 or d4 c5. You want to get center easy and thats the way to do it. If you choose a complicated line like d4 c5 - benoni, or d4 b6 - queens indian, then the game will be strategically weird - center is inbalanced, its unclear who has the center and will it blow up any moment. This creates unnatural strategical position and people at master level usually use these kind of openings as surprise weapon, at cost of not being so stable and trying to avoid some general strategy which opponent might be used to. If you play these kind of openings with unbalanced center or weird strategical ideas - you will learn weird strategy and when you get better and better you will be not so good in standart strategy which can arise in any situation. So say youre giving up center for good bishop placement on b7 or g7, and you expect opponent to put 2-3 pawns in center and develop his pieces, but instead after developing 3 pieces and 2 pawns doesnt keep developing, but instead pushes pawn forward attacking your pawn, you might get scared that he will weaken your king taking pawn which is only protected by your king pawn, so there would be only 2 pawns protecting king not 3 and you take his pawn first, but after he recaptures the pawn, you see that he has opened line for his rook, few moves later he pushes 2nd pawn forward sacrificing it to open position and doubling your pawns, you are forced to take and now lets look at position - you have doubled pawns, you are behind in development and opponent has opened center. This kind of position often arises in Ruy Lopez exchange variation(without pawn sac) or sometimes with not doubled pawns but some other compensation in sicilian. So now you look at the position and you dont like it, because it requires standart strategical/tactical thinking, and thats probably not what you were aiming for. So after this game you will analyse it and try to find your mistake - and very possible you will come to conclusion that you need to learn a sideline. And next time you come across some different problem you might do the same. And again and again, until you have like 20 sidelines and all need constant learning and improving. So why did this happen? Well i think its because you are playing an imbalanced opening with complicated sideline strategy. I would recommend instead to play main line opening with main line variations. This way game will be balanced and your opponent cant find tons of weaknesses in your repertuare to press on and make problems for you. Thats cos of simple reasons - there arent any different weakneses that your opponent doesnt have. For example  - QGD both have bad bishops, both have strong center, both have c pawn to attack center and potentially open c-file, Ruy Lopez - Everythings in perfect symmetry:D. Play these openings and you will see what happens when someone deviates from symmetry and how that affects your game. This way you can develop your strategical thinking without any problems or need to learn nearly ANY sidelines at all! You just come up with new sidelines as you play, because its easy to observe differences.

Now for the other thing - as you will get better(~2000+rating in ELO standarts, i am around 1900-1950 ELO atm i think, havent been playing too much tournaments but i train every day, so thats my guess:)) you will see that opponents start to play exchange french and stuff if the want a draw. Openings which are simple. And only THEN, when you have trouble beating lower ranked players, you start to pick up more complicated lines like grunfeld, semi slav, sicilian najdorf, dragon ect... At start, there really is no need for that. If you check master games you can see that theyr main openings are sicilian, Ruy lopez, kings indian, grunfeld, queens gambit. So what i think motivates to choose these openings is they are looking for balance between strong center without creating weaknesses d4d5 e4e5 and complicated play so opponents cant draw against them e4 c5 giving up territory and development for center pawns and pawn structure, d4 nf6 c4 g6 nc3 d5 - trying to capture center AND having bishop quality increased at same time, which is complicated, because most openings are usually trying to get only one of these things.

So my final suggestion is - play main lines of main openings, but keep variations relatively simple and increase complexity as you get stronger - this should give you maximum of increase of your strategical skills and stability in chess overall, it also should train your mind to find balanced and simple positions when you feel position is good for you and find complexity when you feel you cant just sit and wait for endgame or when you see that game is going to draw against lower-ranked opponent.

And i also wouldn reccomend learning these main lines and give openings a break and instead focus on learning chess:)(i think that openings are just "how you place your pieces", real game starts after pieces are placed) Learn about things like tactics, advanced tactics, different kinds of attacks, sacrifices(typical sacs on g7, h7, f7, e6 - to take with queen and fork something, Bg4, h3, h5, hg, hg with open line for rook), mating patternts - learn about hook mate, smothered mate, that mate where king is trapped between his own rooks and queen mates, attack on king - same side castling, opposite castling, no castling, learn about sacrificing pawns to open lines or diognals, and stuff, i can go on and on... You say that you have learned tactics:) Well that makes me smile. I think only master level and higher know all about basics of tactics:P Because it really also involves combinations and attacks on king... Knowing what is fork or scewer isnt gonna cut it...

Also strategically id suggest read/watch videos about stuff like isolated queens pawn position, excluding opponents pieces from game, preventive moves, play on open lines, rook on 7th ect ect... For example did you know a rule - 2 rooks on seventh leads to win(of material or mating), rook on 7th with absolute control over it(no pawns are blocking rooks sight) and passed pawn leads to win(theoretically won position 70-80% of times), how to put your pawns in middlegame so they dont block your bishops and block his.

There really is very much theory to study. And i really hate people for using the word "theory" only associated with openings. I think GMs and maybe strong Masters should use it, because most people who say that dont know all this stuff... They just hear strong players say that and repeat:D Middlegame and endgame theories are, imo, much more important then opening. Remember 2-3 opening variations up to move 5-7 and in most cases youre okey:) Maybe just know the names of other variations and first move how it deviates... And always remember this - if you are stronger in the middle game, even if you come out not as great in opening, you have good chance to regain advantage in middle or even lategame. Contrary to popular belief(dunno if you think so too), endgames arent just boring crap which is decided by material or positional advantage... Even then good player usually outplays bad one and can win even lost middlegame...

Oh my god, how much i wrote:D:D:D:D Sorry about that:D I guess i had need to express myself:) Actually i just went trough same thing youre going right now... I had identity crysis of chess, and now i have found what i was looking for. At first i wanted to be attacker - then i saw everyone is doing that and wanted to be positional/defender - started to study Steinitz, Nimzowitch, Capablanca. I read and conspected and integrated in my play about 2/3 of Nimzowitch "My system", looked at about 100-200 games of Capa, spent about 2 weeks to study steinitz and after a lot of time spent trying to incporporate all this/take someones style of play i must admit i failed... I was wondering why is that - maybe not my style? Tryed alekhines and kasparovs style - get good position and go for sacrifical attack! Spent about month. Still wasnt working... Well, now i understand... I need to play according to my skills and not try to be a master. While i will never forget and always try to use styles they played and let them inspire me even more, i decided to keep it simple and learn BASICS of chess first. All this theory is BASICS. Everything you learn until youre 2300 ELO, Master or International Master level is basics. Therefore the name - Master, someone who learned everything you can learn from theory and someone who can start making his own theories.

Looking for your style is good and to some extent vitally nessacery, but i wouldnt go too far in these searches as you might end up just like me - lot of work, lot of random theory learned, lot of time sacrificed, lot of opportunities missed when i could go out with friends and stuff, and result - sigh.... Just gotta start70% over again...

@Gamer2O12 woooo ! wall of text :) had alot of fun reading it , I appreciate your help ! I'll keep those words in the back of my mind . Thanks !