Organizing my Openings part 2 Conceptual Considerations
Organizing my Openings part 2
Introduction
Following my decision to focus on studying openings, mainly to create a structure in my learning process, I started building an opening repertoire. The way I envisioned it was deceptively simple: for any common position, you only have to analyze the position, determine the best move and afterwards add the selected move to your repertoire. This turned out to be a larger undertaking than I expected.
Determining the best move involved considerations on a much more fundamental level.
In this article I will discuss the conceptual considerations involved in the decision making process and then I’ll try to provide some examples as illustration and share my personal choices.
About this series
My articles will be on building an opening repertoire, emphasis on building it. I don’t have much to offer on creating a good opening repertoire, emphasis on opening repertoire (there are plenty of other sources, almost all of the available content is focused on the repertoire, few on actually building it).
Chapters
Organizing my Openings part 1 - Practical Progress
Organizing my Openings part 2 - Conceptual Considerations (this article)
Organizing my Openings part 3 - Repertoire Reliability
Organizing my Openings part 4 - Practical Playability
Organizing my Openings part 5 - Structural Struggles (postponed)
Conceptual Considerations
Determine the best move
My deceptively simple approach to building an opening repertoire was a straightforward 3-step plan for any common position
- analyze the position
- determine the best move
- afterwards add the selected move to your repertoire
Repeat these three steps enough times and you’ll have an opening repertoire. Obviously, step 2 is the most crucial step, maybe even the only relevant step. It’s also the step that’s most imprecise. First of all, there isn’t always a clear-cut best move. There are multiple factors one needs to take into account when trying to determine a best move and it’s not always clear what it is. The best move can be highly ambiguous and in many cases debatable. Secondly, the player needs to be taken into account. A move that is objectively the best move in a given position, might not be the move that offers me the best chance of winning the game. A better way to phrase step 2, highlighting the underlying issue immediately, would be:
(to) determine which move in a position offers me the best chance of winning the game (and all future games in that position)
Three layers of opening decision
Building my repertoire revolved around deciding the best moves for me. In many situations the process was indeed straightforward: after discovering a sub-optimal move, I discovered a better move and updated my repertoire. In other cases, the decision was more difficult.
After giving it some thought, I have identified three layers of abstraction that played a role in my decision making process. Note: When I use opening in this context I'm also referring to specific lines.
Concrete layer - this was my initial focus when I started building my repertoire. On the concrete level there is only one consideration.
- What is the best move
Tactical layer - tactical considerations are about my understanding of an opening.
- Understanding the key ideas behind an opening
- My familiarity with the positions that are likely to occur
- My ability to find good moves in unfamiliar positions
Strategic layer - considerations on opening repertoire on the strategic layer are about the long term for me as a player. Relevant questions are
- What motivates me to play a certain opening?
- What investment does understanding an opening require?
- What does playing a certain opening offer me?
This distinction between the layers is somewhat arbitrary, but I'll give some examples below to illustrate how they are connected.
Some of my choices
Choosing to play an opening or a specific variation involves considerations on all three levels. It involves strategic arguments, there are tactical concerns and implications on a concrete level.
Old Benoni
On the concrete layer, there is an obvious best move to play in this position: d5. It’s the move most played in the Lichess database, with the highest winrate. In the Masters database, d5 is played 75% of the time out of 8,000+ games with a winrate of 60.1% (10% higher than the alternatives). The engine evaluation gives +0.80 evaluation over alternatives, which is huge.
On the tactical layer, there is a bit of a challenge: In my 1,100 games playing d4, I have seen c5 only 28 times. Assuming I play white 50% of the time, this is 28 games in 2,200. Essentially, I will face 1. c5 once every 100 games. London is my main line, and in none of my normal games I have a pawn on d5. Never. I’m totally unfamiliar with the position and I don't really understand it. So far I haven’t been winning much playing 2. d5.
On the strategic layer, it's not an appealing line: it has no synergies with the rest of my opening repertoire. The Old Benoni is pretty rare, so I can’t justify a large investment in this line.
Even though I have no strategic reason to invest in move 2. d5 and tactically I'm behind when I play it, concretely it is is obviously and significantly better to play d5 than anything else. It won't synergize with the rest of my repertoire, but my understanding of the line will improve over time. All things considered, I decided to keep playing d5.
Englund Gambit
For quite a while I played the Englund Gambit as my main response to d4. To play the Englund was a strategic consideration: it required very little effort to study. My main focus was learning the London System (for white) and the Caro-Kann (for Black). A low investment and simple opening like the Englund was a perfect addition to my repertoire. My other consideration was also strategic: It was fun to play. Tactically, I would say, it was easy to master the main positions and outside of the main positions, I could rely on principles. Outside of the main lines, my opponent would be equally unfamiliar so we could just play an honest game of chess.
On a concrete level, the opening just wasn't strong enough. Eventually, I decided to stop playing the Englund. Besides this concrete consideration, there was a more strategic consideration: it's not a future proof opening for the level I want to play at. I stand by my decision to switch to 1. d5, but holy moly, converting to the Queen's Gambit Declined and a whole range of other openings I need to study, is not a small project.
Horwitz Defense
I wasn’t doing well when playing my usual second move (Bf4). That’s why I started to investigate. The difference was marginal, but Nf3 seemed to be a better move. The main reason, at least, I suspected, was that Nf3 allows a bit more flexibility.
Strategically, Nf3 will still lead eventually to the positions I was familiar with and another strategic consideration is that, even though a play accelerated London now, I still consider 2. Nf3 a long term possibility. Tactically, it was a nightmare. All the positions that followed were almost similar to the positions I already knew, but also they were all different with a Knight on f3. I decided to continue with Nf3, as it was slightly better on a concrete level and re-evaluate later.
Modern Defense
My repertoire after Nf6 g6 d6 Bg7 in any order is fairly solid, it usually leads to something like this
In the Modern Defense, black skips Nf6 and plays g6 immediately. I’ve looked at all the possible responses and variations and the best moves for white would always include Nc3 and e4. It looked like 2. Bf4 was not the best move. Even 3. Bf4 was not the best. Over time, I discovered that the best decision, objectively, is to delay playing the Bishop. Which makes sense. The best square for the Bishop might be f4, but depending on black’s moves, it might be better to play Bg5, Be3 or even not moving the Bishop at all.
In this case, my decision is to play 2. Bf4 anyway. Strategically, because it doesn’t require studying additional lines. Tactically, because it leads to familiar positions. On a concrete level, I can live with the fact that the move is, objectively, a tiny bit worse than the alternatives.
