You need to make your opponent uncomfortable and uneasy in the opening to get the most winning chances out of the game .
Anyone else hate their own opening repertoire?
Sort:
gregory9310 wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Study what your opponents play, not what is written in books. When I was learning birds opening (1.f4) my opponents would often push their h pawn on move four! This struck me as extremely unsound but I would always collapse quickly. So? I played games against myself over and over again until I developed a reasonable defense to keep the exchange. And now I win every single one of those games - and even if I don’t I always keep my advantage for quite a long time.
Wouldn't it be good to study both? Also I don't have any books, mostly from Youtube, most of the rest from Lichess."
Youtube, by necessity, gives superficial analysis—there's no way a 30-min video can cover any opening adequately.
Using engines is of value up to a point, but they can only tell you the "right" move—rarely do they tell you why.
A good book gives lots of info on themes and variations, with a smattering of traps to play and to avoid.
That said, studying openings is overrated; books on top grandmasters' games are very useful. Get to a playable position in the middlegame, and then smoke your poor opponent.
Were i learn the name of turma?
Hallo, I am beginner. I am from Indonesia
AguaLua wrote:
LM_player wrote:
I like my repertoire because I’m familiar with it. Though it has changed a lot over time. Some openings I’ve recently adopted, and others are from long ago.
As White, I now play 1.e4, and I’ve done so for a good while now. I used to only play the Bird’s Opening, but then I got into playing the Wayward Queen Attack, and from there I eventually started playing the Italian, Max Lange, and Ponziani, which I now mostly play.
I play KIA against the French, Snyder against the Sicilian, and Hillbilly against the Caro Kan.
Against e4, I now play the Latvian Gambit (a relatively newer change). I’ve previously tried the Scandinavian, Alekhine, Nimzowitsch, Owen, and Two Knights Defense.
Against d4, I mainly play the Dutch Defense. Partly a vestige of all those times playing the Bird. I haven’t really found a better defense that I enjoyed playing. I used to play the obscure Mikenas/Lithuanian Variations, but gave up on them because of the inferior early pawn advance lines. Today, I sometimes transpose to these lines from the English via 1. c4 Nc6 2. d4 e5, since I can avoid the early advance lines, but this is a rare occurrence.
As White, I now play 1.e4, and I’ve done so for a good while now. I used to only play the Bird’s Opening, but then I got into playing the Wayward Queen Attack, and from there I eventually started playing the Italian, Max Lange, and Ponziani, which I now mostly play.
I play KIA against the French, Snyder against the Sicilian, and Hillbilly against the Caro Kan.
Against e4, I now play the Latvian Gambit (a relatively newer change). I’ve previously tried the Scandinavian, Alekhine, Nimzowitsch, Owen, and Two Knights Defense.
Against d4, I mainly play the Dutch Defense. Partly a vestige of all those times playing the Bird. I haven’t really found a better defense that I enjoyed playing. I used to play the obscure Mikenas/Lithuanian Variations, but gave up on them because of the inferior early pawn advance lines. Today, I sometimes transpose to these lines from the English via 1. c4 Nc6 2. d4 e5, since I can avoid the early advance lines, but this is a rare occurrence.
You just refuse to play standard openings lol
LM, are you actually me, or maybe from the school of me? 😆
adityasaxena4 wrote:
If I were you I would think of your opening repertoire as the moon and your opponents opening repertoire as the sun and you as Icarus and your opponent as Icarus's father . Think of the chess game openings as basically remodelled stories of Icarus , the wings and the sun . The more you play natural and common moves in openings that you're opponent is familiar with and the more theoretical you play the opening the more it's like Icarus's wings being burnt to death by the sun or in this case you getting a lost position or losing material due to tactics or getting checkmated . The less theoretical you play the opening , the more you're opponent is likely to arrive at a position you have seen before or a similar position which is like Icarus's dad while not wearing gloves trying to touch the moon and dying because of either frostbite or the fact that his hand is getting colder and colder and he'd fall . The whole point basically is if you're opponent plays an opening they're familiar with try to get some preparation by ignoring engine lines and playing moves that have never been played before . Try to make your theory and your play less theoretical as the more theoretical the play the lower the chances of wins or knockouts and the less theoretical the play the more chances for wins and knockouts . If you're able to successfully do that then you can expand you're opening theory and opening repertoire and ultimately you will win most of the games you play even if the positions you're opponents put you in are at first familiar to them and they're opening repertoire but then you play the most uncommon move and most untheoretical move in the position and throw lightning bolts at you're opponents game .
...
Wow.
And I thought I was the metaphor guy around here.
Very poetically written, indeed!
najdorf96 wrote:
indeed. I could never hate my Opening Repertoire because of the love & care + pain & agony + time & effort + trials & errors + studying & practicing + absorbing & discarding + thrilling victories & crushing defeats, that I'd put into building it over the years! THAT said (heh) it seems to me you could learn to appreciate your repertoire more by playing slower time control games 🤔. indeed2, I believe it could also help other aspects of your game (as in my experience, it also indirectly or directly contributes to your obvious disdain), just my opinion.👍🏼
I think what you're saying is most probably true. The more I think about it, the more I get the impression that I avoid slower time controls because I'm afraid I'd start thinking way too deeply... which, per se, isn't bad at all; but putting much more thought into my games would mean putting much more energy into my games, which would, in turn, mean caring much more about my games (and therefore about their results as well). And sure, wanting to win more is an important source of motivation, but then the losses are much harder to bear, because you spent all that time only to ultimately fail (and again, that doesn't mean you don't learn, but it still feels horrible and can lead to despair if you don't have a healthy perspective).
When I started playing chess some twelve or so years ago, I used to play correspondence on Chess.com, and because I was immersed so deeply, I used to dream about chess very often, and I also became very argumentative at home. I felt like I had to outsmart anyone. Also, I'm prone to depression, and while the pain of losing kinda lessened over time or at least became more numb, I don't think I have the mental capacity to care so much about my chess games on the regular.
Apr 19, 2021
0
#50
little_guinea_pig wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Aqualua why would people play standard openings?... lol
because they know how to play chess
because they know how to follow recommendations kek
Apr 19, 2021
0
#51
icyboyyy wrote:
little_guinea_pig wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Aqualua why would people play standard openings?... lol
because they know how to play chess
maybe he is just a genius who is way ahead of our time, playing some hyper-hypermodern openings.. we used to think that openings like the KID and stuff were odd, but now they are very popular today
I would actually argue that non standard openings is where real struggle takes place because you can only rely on your own mind, instead of thousands of grandmaster games you can study in mainline openings
Apr 19, 2021
0
#52
Shaikidow wrote:
Seriously, anything I play, there's always some line to trip me up. I don't know how others balance it.
I play d4, someone plays c5. Theoretically good for White, but I hate playing against the Benonis.
I play e4, I have to deal with EVERYTHING. Too much stuff.
I play e6 as Black, I end up in a Taimanov via transpo and I just mess it up cluelessly.
I play d6 as Black, I opt for a Lion and I either lose to the aggression after 4. f4 or I play the Q exchange line and just blunder pawns.
Nf6 lands me in some Londons I can never outtranspose my opponent in. All my lines get avoided, everything I opt for - the other side gets instead.
I make a break from chess, and every time I come back, I feel like I've never played at all.
I hate that I feel like this, it's like the last ounce of being reasonable just goes away from me.
F this.
There are always going to be openings that you hate playing against, it is a matter of finding a way that you can at least enjoy playing, which gives you decent chances. For example, I play e4, and while I do not particularly like to play against the Sicilian, I rather enjoy the closed Sicilian, which allows me to have a nice attacking game and gives me a sharp end to the game where I either lose or win by checkmate or some other winning attack. I used to get slowly destroyed by the open Sicilian lines, but now I have a way of playing against it that I somewhat enjoy. I would definitely recommend playing 1. e4 with white, and either 1... e5 or 1... e6 with black are what I play, but playing the Sicilian or caro kann are fine as well. If you want you can message me and I can share a few of my favorite opening lines with you.
surviviogod wrote:
Shaikidow wrote:
Seriously, anything I play, there's always some line to trip me up. I don't know how others balance it.
I play d4, someone plays c5. Theoretically good for White, but I hate playing against the Benonis.
I play e4, I have to deal with EVERYTHING. Too much stuff.
I play e6 as Black, I end up in a Taimanov via transpo and I just mess it up cluelessly.
I play d6 as Black, I opt for a Lion and I either lose to the aggression after 4. f4 or I play the Q exchange line and just blunder pawns.
Nf6 lands me in some Londons I can never outtranspose my opponent in. All my lines get avoided, everything I opt for - the other side gets instead.
I make a break from chess, and every time I come back, I feel like I've never played at all.
I hate that I feel like this, it's like the last ounce of being reasonable just goes away from me.
F this.
There are always going to be openings that you hate playing against, it is a matter of finding a way that you can at least enjoy playing, which gives you decent chances. For example, I play e4, and while I do not particularly like to play against the Sicilian, I rather enjoy the closed Sicilian, which allows me to have a nice attacking game and gives me a sharp end to the game where I either lose or win by checkmate or some other winning attack. I used to get slowly destroyed by the open Sicilian lines, but now I have a way of playing against it that I somewhat enjoy. I would definitely recommend playing 1. e4 with white, and either 1... e5 or 1... e6 with black are what I play, but playing the Sicilian or caro kann are fine as well. If you want you can message me and I can share a few of my favorite opening lines with you.
Sure thing, I'll keep in mind to consult you!
Play the English with White. Very good explanations on this site.
Apr 19, 2021
0
#55
pfren wrote:
Every beginner or post-beginner who thinks that openings are important at his level does get angry about his opening repertoire, althougfh this should be the very last thing to blame.
very well said.
BigSplat2018 wrote:
gregory9310 wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Study what your opponents play, not what is written in books. When I was learning birds opening (1.f4) my opponents would often push their h pawn on move four! This struck me as extremely unsound but I would always collapse quickly. So? I played games against myself over and over again until I developed a reasonable defense to keep the exchange. And now I win every single one of those games - and even if I don’t I always keep my advantage for quite a long time.
Wouldn't it be good to study both? Also I don't have any books, mostly from Youtube, most of the rest from Lichess."
Youtube, by necessity, gives superficial analysis—there's no way a 30-min video can cover any opening adequately.
Using engines is of value up to a point, but they can only tell you the "right" move—rarely do they tell you why.
A good book gives lots of info on themes and variations, with a smattering of traps to play and to avoid.
That said, studying openings is overrated; books on top grandmasters' games are very useful. Get to a playable position in the middlegame, and then smoke your poor opponent.
Not 30 mins, I kind of have a rule that it has to be at least an hour, and 2-3 hours would be preferable, unless it is just to show what it is. still not perfect, but better than your 30 min. assumption.
I feel this post
Apr 19, 2021
0
#59
My repertoire I have essentially gained from playing a few thousand games over the course of a year, aided by a few books and videos.
Apr 21, 2021
0
#60
My opening repertoire I have gained by trying new ideas first on the analysis board to see what all possible logical lines could possibly look like and what the positions would look like . In my opening repertoire I look to play unusual ideas and uncommon moves that go away from all theoretical lines which yes, have been aided by videos . For e.g. The idea to play d5 and gambit a pawn in the Italian Game on move 3 and on the Bishops Opening on move 2 I inspired from actually 2 videos on chesskid.com one on fair play and the other video is named "Tactics on the f7 pawns." Particularly timestamp 4:11 for the video "Tactics on the f7 pawns." where a game is introduced between an FM and his friend where his friend plays a similar idea just in the wrong position .
If I were you I would think of your opening repertoire as the moon and your opponents opening repertoire as the sun and you as Icarus and your opponent as Icarus's father . Think of the chess game openings as basically remodelled stories of Icarus , the wings and the sun . The more you play natural and common moves in openings that you're opponent is familiar with and the more theoretical you play the opening the more it's like Icarus's wings being burnt to death by the sun or in this case you getting a lost position or losing material due to tactics or getting checkmated . The less theoretical you play the opening , the more you're opponent is likely to arrive at a position you have seen before or a similar position which is like Icarus's dad while not wearing gloves trying to touch the moon and dying because of either frostbite or the fact that his hand is getting colder and colder and he'd fall . The whole point basically is if you're opponent plays an opening they're familiar with try to get some preparation by ignoring engine lines and playing moves that have never been played before . Try to make your theory and your play less theoretical as the more theoretical the play the lower the chances of wins or knockouts and the less theoretical the play the more chances for wins and knockouts . If you're able to successfully do that then you can expand you're opening theory and opening repertoire and ultimately you will win most of the games you play even if the positions you're opponents put you in are at first familiar to them and they're opening repertoire but then you play the most uncommon move and most untheoretical move in the position and throw lightning bolts at you're opponents game .