Advice on Improving My Opening Repertoire as a 1200 Elo Player.

Hello everyone,

As a relatively new player to the game of chess, I have experimented with various openings as White. Recently, I switched to 1. d4 and started playing the London System, Trompowsky Attack, and the Dutch Defense: Hopton Attack.

At my current skill level (1200 elo), these openings have been somewhat successful. However, as I face stronger opponents, I find that I am at a disadvantage early on in the game.

I am seeking advice on how to improve the effectiveness of the London System in my games. Should I continue to work on this opening or is it time for me to switch to a different one, like the Queen's Gambit? I have also been considering switching from the Trompowsky Attack to the Catalan but heard it is rather difficult to learn and use in lower intermediate levels.

Lastly, I have watched the GothamChess video on how to play the Trompowksy Attack and while the video was helpful, I still feel uncertain about this opening, and I am not entirely convinced that it is the right choice for me. I am open to feedback about whether I should give the Trompowksy Attack another chance or if there are any alternative openings I should consider. I am also curious to hear about any tips or resources that might help me to improve my play with the Trompowsky attack, as I am still unsure if my struggles are because of a lack of understanding or something else entirely.

Any tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the tips on expanding my opening repertoire! Just to clarify, in my original post, I was specifically looking to improve my game as white and playing 1.d4 openings. I already play the Caro-Kann as black and feel pretty good with it. I might take your advice and learn the Queen's Gambit in the future.

One of my favourite youtube coaches talks about openings here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy-JX7hoy-g

His point is that the important question is not whether an opening is objectively good - but whether an opening will best effectively further your development given your current abilities. This sounds like the question you're asking, so hopefully you will find this and similar videos from Andras Toth very useful.

Revamping your whole repertoire in one go is too much work. I'd say keep the trompowky ( so for now you don't spend time on Grunfeld, Nimzo, KID, Benoni, Benko ) and start looking at QGD and QGA for White. A sample first repertoire that's relative low effort to enter is,

Slav: exchange, so that you don't spend time on the semi Slav as well. You can re-evaluate this choice later ( for the triangle go for mainline, don't play any Rb1 shortcuts which some opening books suggest but tbh I doubt you'll be facing it as much).

QGD: exchange with early Qc2.

Against the Tarrasch: mainline Rubinstein setup

QGA: 3. e3.

This way you'll have your Lego board setup and later you can see about whether you want to go for more complicated systems which require more time ( eg Bg5 or Bf4 QGD, different choices Vs Slav, something for the semi Slav or maybe even e4 QGA).

Keep the trompowky until you are comfortable with the above and eg after a year you can revisit what to do with 1. ..Nf6.

I also already play the semi-slav as black and don't want to change it. My repertoire against 1.d4 is completely perfect as it is now for me, so I don't think I need to change it.

When it comes to choosing openings, you should know that new players face a choice that they are probably not even aware of. You should decide early on whether you are just playing chess for fun and are only interested in beating players of your own level, or whether you are trying to improve your game and advance your playing level... which will mean, eventually, that you will be facing stronger opponents.

If you only want to beat other beginners, then one good possibiliity is that you specialize in "system" openings like the London system, or the Jobava, or the Trompowsky. These "system" openings are likely to lead to only a narrow range of middle-game positions, so in almost every game you play you will find yourself on familiar ground, working with familiar Pawn structures and piece arrangements, and pursuing (or thwarting) similar plans.

That's the good... and the bad... of it.

Why bad? Because after you become familiar with your chosen "system" opening, you will LEARN very little from subsequent games in that line. The games (or at least, the THEMES in the games) will begin to repeat themselves.

If I may be permitted a Goat analogy, before too long, you will have cropped the grass in that spot about as short as your teeth are long. Time to move on to other pastures... if you are interested in continuing to improve.

But if all you want is an edge over other beginners, then "system" openings are a good choice.

When I was in the 1200 to 1400 range, I chose unbalanced, chaotic openings such as the Sicilian Najdorf and the King's Indian Defense. People told me that no player of my weak strength could play such openings properly.

They were right, of course. I made lots of errors, and lost plenty of games.

And I learned a lot. While the "system" players around be were settling into their rating niches and stagnating, I was improving my game.

I'm now 2351 chess.com rating. I still play those same two openings (although I've pretty well stopped playing chess lately because of failing eyesight) and they still lead to unexpected, original situations. No doubt, I still play them badly. That's not really a problem. I only rarely face super-GM opposition (like, once in the past 40 years),

Agree with everything, one note though, one doesn't need to go to as complex complex openings, even some world champions played less complex openings, but of course they used "real" ( non-system ) openings that are rich strategically and healthy, albeit less complex.

Between having a mentality of London setup vs everything Black plays and playing the poisoned pawn Najdorf, there's a whole spectrum of healthy openings that one can adopt. Karpov played the Caro and the Zaitsev, the nimzo and QGD, he did fine and was superb positionally. Spassky played mostly Breyer/Marshall (some sicilians too) and QGD ( Tartakower, Tarrasch and Orthodox ), he did fine and was superb with the initiative.

Systems like the London have too narrow a comfort zone, but from the spectrum of "real" openings, the ones that are very preparation-heavy are not needed to progress, even some WCs didn't play them because their focus was not in the opening.

The KID / grunfeld / pirc defenses are hypermodern, and generally harder to play for black... they're very sharp, if black messes up on the theory he can get punished quickly. I don't really recommend these opening for beginners for anything beyond experimentation. Also the pirc can get really demolished by early e5 pushes unless this is handled very carefully.
The nimzo indian / queens indian systems are very powerful, but there's a TON of theory because the moves branch out very quickly... because white has alot of options. They're kind of like the ruy lopez in this respect. Especially the nimzo indian. But the nimzo is a great weapon. 
An alternative to the nimzo, which can reduce the amount of theory, is to play the english defense / queens indian defense, the english defense (b6) is more compact and pretty lethal, a good option. 
The slav / semi-slav is a solid choice... there aren't as many branches in the slav / semi slav as there are in the nimzo. The opening is pretty epic... it's what I prefer personally. I recommend not starting with the semi-slav, but starting with the classical slav and its various gambits. You can enter the slav either via the triangle or via the exchange... the triangle can lead to the noteboom, which is a very fun attacking line, so usually I recommend the triangle systems... exchange is a bit boring. 
The queens gambit is probably the ideal starting point for beginners since it adheres to all the classical chess principles and will teach you all of that / give you a very good foundation.

Nothing wrong with your openings...

You (like the rest of us... get out played because our tactics are soft and our endgame is weak)

Don't listen to people telling you to play GM level openings (Frak....!!! they probably don't understand those opening either... and they are telling you to play them???? WTHeck?)

The London system isn't a noob opening, oh....IMO there are Noob openings, but that isn't one of them...

What do the Stonewall and the London have in common? i.e the Phalanx of pawns at c3, d4, and e3... You probably got a book or cd on the London opening and are studying positions and memorizing lines ... Not they way.... not the way at all...

"The Stonewall Attack" is not a noob opening either, what is in most modern ECOs as the best line to play against it... is wrong) but that is for a different thread. The reason why I bring up the Stonewall Attack is because its the original 1.d4 variant (or the first to become popular with GMs ... employed extensively by the top players between 1880s and 1910s.

As somone using a 1.d variant, If you don't study the Stonewall Attack , then you will be clueless to the attacking abilities of the London's pawn chain (i.e the Phalanx of pawns at c3, d4, and e3... & using the f and g pawns in your attacks) this also goes for the Torre, and Both Colle's (the Zuckertort and the Koltanowski respectfully)  DifferentFear .... IMO that's how you should be studying the London... i.e. fundamentally grasping the pawn phalanx, it's what the Stonewall Attack is known for ... it's all inherently in the London too.

Guys like Yusupov or Kovacevic destroyed GMs using 1.d4 variants.