Best Repertoire Structure for Improvement

I have recently been going through How to build your chess opening repertoire by Steve Giddins and have found a number of his points very interesting and useful. One idea in particular was very interesting. in discussing a broad vs narrow repertoire, while he pointed out that a narrow repertoire would give you more experience and help you play better in those particular positions, thus producing short term improvement, he suggested that for younger, developing players, a broader repertoire would give them a wider, better all-around understanding of chess and thus would serve them better in terms of long-term improvement.

this seems like an interesting idea, and I would like to take it into account when deciding how broad my own repertoire should be. what do you think? is it a valid point? if so, how broad should a repertoire be for this purpose(probably my biggest question)? do certain openings work better? (the author of the blog secrets of grandpatzer chess suggested the same idea of playing a variety of positions, but suggested implementing it via a narrow repertoire made of openings which can lead to a variety of pawn structures.) is a balance between broad and narrow best?

what are your thoughts on this whole concept?

Given that I have not reached any level of chess that I consider successful yet, my opinions should be read with that in consideration.

I think it depends on what you are planning to do with chess. Is it to play tournaments and get an official ranking? Then to me it would seem best to stick with a narrow opening repertoire. Simply because you will get to know those positions better and deeper than your opponents and allow you to progress farther.

Is your goal to try and gain the ultimate chess brain and understand everything, every position and every right move? Then playing a broad opening repertoire would be better as it would lead to a wider variety of positions with different theory and plans involved.

With this approach though I would expect it to be slower and harder at first to do well in tournaments/rise in official rankings because you will be running into positions opponents know better and deeper than you. However, in the long long run you may end with better understanding then those people and hit a point where it all comes together and you rise up the rankings quickly and do well in tournaments.

Personally my goal is to stick to a very narrow opening selection (currently c4 for white and typically avoiding transposition until I get higher up, KID as black vs d4 and Caro-Kann vs e4) and continue to look over the games after and learn deeper and better into my games and to start recognizing similar positions and what worked and why (or didn't and why) in previous games.

It depends how high up the chess ladder you are trying to go. Really, it isn't necessary to have a broad opening repertoire until you are at least 2300, maybe higher, though of course you can choose a wide repertoire. I myself can play virtually everything with both colors, which is good when I have specific opponents to prepare for, but otherwise is very demanding as far as study time and understanding goes.

I think

As white Italian, which will teach fundamental development principles.
Against 1.d4 tarrasch defence, also teaching development and space ideas
Against 1.e4 1..e5 will probably alow you to learn the most.

Studying them indepth is not necessary though. Knowing the setup of the tarrasch and italian should be enough, while 1..e5 the first 4 moves should suffice.

Edit: misunderstood topic, i think setting for somewhere between the extremes is best. Limiting your experience, with say the london system wont do you anygood. but neither will playing the posioned pawn variation or other mainlines. As I listed above are some openings that fit this description (1..e5 is quite theoretical though) 

@ estragon: so you think before choosing a narrow repertoire one should play through all major openings for a while? I am confused.

@ chess sponge: that is a good distinction I had not thought much about before. what if you just want a good general understanding of chess, enough to get past 2000, but not necessarily to know every single position?

@ andre harding: would one approach help you get to a level like 2300 faster? do you have to be a universal player to get past 2000, or will a more concentrated approach suffice?

@ fear itself: where would you say that balance is? 3 black defenses to e4 and d4? 2? 5? is it helpful to play e4, d4, Nf3, and c4 as white, or are e4 and d4 enough?

If you're young and playing at an intermediate level (1300-1700 OTB), I think it's a good idea to broaden your opening repertoire to be exposed to different kinds of positions. Though it might lead to worse results in the short term, it will certainly help your chess development. One of the beneficial side-effect of this pratique is to be much less reliant on book moves and to find solutions by yourself OTB, thus making you more resourceful.

I did that myself a couple of years ago, and I think it helped my chess a understanding a lot, though it didn't translate into direct rating gains.

Also, it's not so much the # of defences but the different types of positions you play. For example, if you play Nimzo as black, it's diverse enough for you to play very different kinds of positions : no need for a 2nd defence against 1.d4

OTOH, if you play Dragon Sicilian as Black, then your play is quite stereotyped, and playing something more classical, like 1...e5, could broaden your chess horizons...

@ Hicetnunc: how many openings would you suggest for this purpose? is it best to play almost every main line opening, or will say, 3 defenses to each white opening work? which openings did you use for this?

edit: sorry, this was aimed at your first post, I only saw the second after posting

I'm afraid there's no simple answer : it depends where you stand at the moment, what your current repertoire is, etc. Also, I find it very important that you adopt new systems you find interesting, whatever the reason, as it stimulates learning.

However, you don't need to make it super-broad : adding one new defence against 1.e4 or 1.d4, or one main line as white is enough. You want variety, not drowning into a sea of variations 

I think you need a narrow repetoire for Black, and can go as wide as you want with White.

Thanks hicetnunc, your points help me a lot, esp. the one about variety vs drowning. thanks for your thoughts!

@ blake: why would you treat the black and white repertoires differently?

Because White goes first which gives him an initial advantage.  White can make one small error and the result is an equal game.  A small error by Black can be fatal..  A draw as Black is acceptable and you should be happy to repeat the opening move for move if you draw.  If you draw as White, you need to look for a new move.  You can improvise as White more often, while you need to have a very good command of your Black openings to survive.

ok, that makes sense. thanks!

Some really good advice posted by others here!

I'll answer the question rtc3 posed for me before:

@ andre harding: would one approach help you get to a level like 2300 faster? do you have to be a universal player to get past 2000, or will a more concentrated approach suffice?

I think that the concentrated approach will get you past 2000 faster, for sure. The reason is that once you have set your opening repertoire, you will not need to study it anymore and can basically eliminate opening study (which is at least 50% of chess study for most players). You can work on your tactics and endgame play.

Right now, I am doing intensive work on openings (almost 100% of my chess time), because I feel my opening knowledge is deficient against the quality of opposition I face on a regular basis (because of my "scattershot" approach). I have chosen the openings I want to play and am now looking at games in ChessBase, looking at books, and analyzing with software. I'm inputting my lines in ChessBase and when I am done will print out the Tables and play through them on a board to memorize them. I'm doing all this because I want to finally make the push (from 2065) to 2200-2300.

(my post keeps getting cut)

Now, consider this. The main openings for Black that I am working on, I have played in years past. Imagine if I had stuck with them, learned them really well, and not changed. My rating would certainly be at least 50 points higher, up to even 100 points higher. My experience with a lot of different openings will eventually bear fruit, but I could have raised my rating faster by being more concentrated.

+1 @pellik. 

On a side note to Pellik's post, both methods can be implemented with or without a coach