Repertoires

Anyone else wanna say sth?

Also i think it would be interesting if anyone can write the basic repertoires of various GMs just to see what GMs play the openings we do so that we can more easily find games around it...(eg Kasparov played a lot the KID and Grunfeld especially vs Karpov in Lyon)

i play either 1. e4 focusing on scotch, bb5 sicilian, two knights french and ck OR 1. b3. as black i play french vs e4, nimzo indian vs d4 with Nc3 and qid vs most other things.

As white:

1.d4 usually, but sometimes 1.e4.  1.b3 and 1.Nc3 are my unorthodox replies.

As black: Sicilian, Ruy Lopez, Qf6 or Qh4 Scotch, ...g6 variation to avoid four knights defense since four knights is drawish and to break symmetry early, Sicilian Paulsen, Scveningen, and Najdorfs depending on how the transpositions go.  Once in awhile I'll go 1...b6 against 1.e4. 

Against 1.d4:Either the Leningrad Dutch or Nimzo or Queen's Indian.

Against 1.f4: 1...c5

Against unorthodox: 1...e5, occupy the center, usually with ...Nf6. 

How do you avoid the 4 knights with g6?Can you please elaborate?do you mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 or 3. ...Nf6 4.Bc4 g6...?

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Nc3,g6

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 is probably not best in view of 4...Nxe4 among other moves, but 4.Bb5 is perfectly playable as may be 4.g3, the Glek variation.

I play 3...Nf6 because I play the Two Knights Defense and Ruy mainlines.

I also look at 1. b3 for white and 1...d6 for black.

You are probably always better prepared than most of your opponents. This weekend I am playing it for the first time in an OTB tournament.

My reasoning is: Rather play a single opening that you know well than attempt a main line with many theory. With my work I dont have so much time to spent on learning big opening systems.

How did the tourney turn out and do you have any games you are willing to post?

After years of playing sharp, trappy openings, I am trying to force myself to play positionally. So I've adopted the Qd8 Scandinavian and the Orthodox QGD, both very solid for Black. With White I tried the English for a while, but I always go back to e4, where I have lines I like against most things. Still having trouble against the Sicilian, but am trying the Kopec system. Against e5, I'd like to wean myself off the Vienna Gambit and play something like the Four Knights (Scotch or Glek variations), but it's hard to break the habit when there are all those traps to play for.

Um, I won't give away everything because I know a lot of the tournament players in the MD/DC/VA chess scene whom I run into in my tournaments are on chess.com and these forums sometimes, but I can tell you that I can play both 1. e4 and 1. d4 depending on what my opponent plays against them and the situation. Currently I am transitioning from primarily 1. d4 to primarily 1. e4 and 1. d4 is reserved for certain situations or if I know what my opponent plays against it and am particularly comfortable. What I will say is with 1. e4 I don't play the most aggressive or topical stuff. I just like simple positions. I play offbeat lines in the Ruy, the Bb5 or c3 Sicilians, and sometimes the Nd2 French (although that may change). As black I can also play multiple things. I primarily play 1. e4 e5 and 1. d4 d5 (with Classical Slav defense coming up) but in certain situations I also may play the French against 1. e4 or even the Czech Benoni against 1. d4. My repertoire gives me positions that I am good in, but maybe I should work on playing more open positions than I currently am. I don't know.

I cheat a little bit. In sparring against the computer and online games, I use Sargon IV to choose my first 2 moves. Then play from there.

This insight comes from Kung Fu. Like Shaolin 5 animals Kung Fu. You have to be able to fight like 5 different animals, or however many animals there are. Fight fierce like a tiger. Fight clever like a dragon. Fight graceful like a crane. Fight fast like snake. Fight precise like an eagle. Fight unpredictable like a monkey, and so on. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and they have rock-paper-scissors relationships between them.

Playing this way allows me to be adaptable in any situation. I'm never in an unfamiliar situation.

The character Shang Tsung in Mortal Kombat fascinates me. The ability to fight in any style fascinates me.

"Your Tiger-Crane is no match for my Eagle Claw, hah hah."

Weren't you on a kick for a while playing 1.b4, or was it something else? What were your findings, and are you still playing it regularly?

Study Kasparov's games.  He's a universal player with calculation and strategy as his biggest strengths.  Spassky, Botvinnik, and Fischer are also relatively well rounded universal players as well.