Breadth vs. Depth in Opening Knowledge

What is most beneficial for a player wanting to improve (past the 1800 threshold, for example--I realize that this question is highly elo-specific), understanding ideas behind many openings or knowing in-depth lines in a few openings? Also, before anyone points this out, I realize that improvement revolves around many elements in chess, so please limit discussion to opening theory.

Certain lines in chess can be avoided entirely if someone wants (for example, I never reach the Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 because I do not play 1...e5 as black), so is there ever a reason to learn them? I believe that understanding the ideas in some of these openings that I never play is beneficial because other openings may transpose or utilize similar ideas, but at the same time I can avoid them entirely if I want.

I am interested in hearing people's thoughts on this somewhat philosophical question. Insight from higher rated/titled players on what has worked for them would be greatly appreciated.

If you're interested in improving a little bit more (regardless of what your current level is) that's when, IMO, you can choose things like the Scandanavian which sets the tone early and has minimal theory.

For longer term improvement an opening like main line Ruy Lopez is great. The middlegames are very rich, and there are many different ideas among the many different variations.

The queen's gambit declined, aiming for e.g. a tartakower is great. If you learn how to handle those structures it makes learning other 1.d4 defenses easier like the Nimzo... but starting with the solid and logical QGD has the benefits that it's... well... solid and logical

---

You mention lines and ideas seemingly as if they're the same, but remember the whole point of proper opening study is having an eye on the middlegame ideas. Go to chessgames.com and load up 50 games from the Botvinnik - Fischer time period (all from the opening you want to study), and then 50 from more modern period. Play over them really quickly and note things like which side of the board did each player seek play on (kingside, center, queenside). Note the common pawn breaks. Note common piece arrangements, endgames, tactics. This should only take a few minutes per game, and you can easily do 100 games in a week.

At first this might be a little slow going. Maybe in the first 10 games they're all different variations and there's nothing too similar... but the more games you see, suddenly you'll see common ideas and patterns.

After that it's fine (and useful) to memorize lines... and this goes for any opening not just Ruy and QGD.

Anyway, good luck.

IMO, below about 1500 or 1600, it's more important to learn general ideas and get some experience in many different openings, so that you can see what kinds of openings most appeal to you and that work best for you. To move from 1600 to 1800 and above, it will generally be helpful to develop a repertoire of openings that you specialize in and learn as much about them from books, DVD's, actual play and post-mortem analysis, studying complete games, etc., whatever works best for you. Learning some openings in-depth can be very time-consuming, so any time limitations you have should be a factor in which openings you choose. Some openings are very theoretical and deeply analyzed and will involve much more study to learn well, and maintenance to stay current. Once you learn an opening repertoire well, it generally becomes easier to pick up additional openings if you become bored with it or want alternatives.

Thanks for the reply mariners.

I guess my initial wording was confusing, because what my question boils down to is memorizing many lines in some openings and their ideas (depth) while ignoring all else vs. understanding ideas in many openings but with less detail (breadth), but I think your answer makes a lot of sense, regardless.

To be honest I now share your opinion about recognizing general patterns in game databases. When I first started playing online I liked playing 1.e4 g5 because it had a cool name (Borg Defense), but I had no idea what I was doing and relied heavily on engine analysis. I had an epiphany recently when I revisited it a few years later because the way I play it now is significantly different after actually learning the ideas behind the Grob and modern Pterodactyl. It was one of those few moments where I felt as though I've actually improved.

The first chess book I ever owned was on the Sveshnikov Sicilian (given to me by a friend), and it was totally useless to me at first because all I could do was memorize lines in what is probably one of the most dynamic and complicated defenses for black. Further, over 50% of people play 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 against me anyway, and a little piece of me dies inside each time.

I'll keep learning new openings because I find their history incredibly interesting. I'd love to hear about other people's journeys with opening experimentation.

Thanks Pawnstorm and Zugerzwang,

In case you're interested, what I consider my main opening repertoire is:

Blackmar Diemer Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 (which I transpose to with both 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 and 1.e4 d5 2.d4)

Albin Countergambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5

Modern Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6

O'Kelly Sicilian: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6

Milner-Barry Gambit: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3

Hillbilly Attack, Schaeffer Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3 dxe4 4.Qh5

Basically I like gambits because I find them interesting, and have invested a decent amount of time learning some of them. Some of these openings are garbage at higher levels, but with them I have a response to mostly anything. Maybe I'm doing myself a disservice?

 

I played BS openings until I was about 1800, then I decided to go all classical all the time for a while (1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5). I did that until 1900, and then I decided to try some more dynamic / post-classical stuff like Benko gambit and Reti.

Now I don't really care about improvement anymore, so I like to play whatever I feel like, but I don't recommend classical first just because that's what I did, lots of people will tell you the same.

They were the openings people discovered first because they're the most logical. If your learning loosely follows the actual progression of chess then it will make more sense. If you try to jump right into a KID or, as you said, sveshnikov, or scheveningen it's going to 1/2 memorization and 1/2 confusion

You might find a pawn structure book really enlightening.

I like Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess because that's what I read, but some people recommend Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess over it.

Your experience with gambit play has probably given you a good sense for dynamics like development and initiative. Learning structure is like the opposite

And it's not all boring either  The first example in the Soltlis book is a big sacrificial attack, and then Soltis points out this attack was destined to succeed because the pawns said so!

And once you start thinking in terms of structure, where the pawn breaks are, that sort of thing, openings make a lot more sense... at least they did for me.

Thanks a lot for the suggestions. I'll check them out!

I agree with most of mariners suggestions. I no longer play tournaments and just study and play what appeals to me at the moment, as I view chess now as for fun and enjoyment and not too much hard work. If you're serious about rating improvement, I would scrap most of the gambit openings you listed as a core repertoire or I think you will be hitting a brick rating wall soon, if not already. You could go higher with some other gambits such as the Benko Gambit or Smith Morra Gambit as part of a more advanced repertoire, but it will take some work to upgrade your repertoire. The Albin and Blackmar Diemer are probably all right if you learn them deeply enough, but probably better as an occasional surprise weapon. Playing gambits teaches a lot about chess, learning to pursue an initiative, etc., but except for the very best gambits, it's usually time to eventually go on to other Classical openings, to get to higher levels. And study them deeply, but focus on understanding the ideas, not just memorizing variations. I rejoice if someone plays 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 because I get easy equality as Black.

 

Yeah bro your APM communicating with Stockfish is insane. Please teach me.

I have always been fascinated with openings since I first learned about them as a kid. Lately I haven't been putting as much effort into them though and I feel my game has actually improved because of it. Granted I am more of a casual player than when I was younger. Sadly we can learn as much theory as we want but unless we get to IM strength this seems like a waste of valuable time. Theory means nothing in the face of an opponent who understands the plans and structures better than you.

Playing through games seems to be regarded as a beneficial activity, even if the games are not in the openings that you regularly use. However, it is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that if you never reply to 1 e4 with 1...e5 and you never play 1 e4, then there is no necessity to learn all the details of a 1 e4 e5 repertoire. Learning such a repertoire could be a pretty big task that one would probably not want to undertake if one is not going to use it. On the other hand, someday, you may become unhappy with reliance on the Blackmar thing, and it might be helpful to have done some preliminary work on learning a 1 e4 alternative.

Does this mean that you have already been playing 1 e4 from time to time?

Yes. Actually, recently I play almost 1.e4 exclusively. I enjoy playing the Vienna against 1.e4 e5 (I forgot to mention this earlier). It's also a useful tool for transposing out of Alekhine's defense. Some lines that come up frequently are:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 exf4? 4.e5 (I find people my rating don't know any Vienna theory and therefore don't play the correct move here, 3...d5. If this line comes up it's usually an easy game.)

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qg4 Qf6 5.Nd5! Qxf2+ 6.Kd1

I've also studied a lot of lines in the Italian game, but I generally prefer not to get into 2.Nf3 territory for whatever reason. Maybe I'll start playing it!

This is pretty well said. Reading through all-purpose chess books like Nimzowitsch's My System and Silman's Reassess your Chess has done more for me than knowing any opening line.

Well, if you don't play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 as White, and you don't play 1 e4 e5 as Black, then it does not make sense to work on learning the details of a 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 repertoire, although it could still be of educational value to play over 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 games from time to time. And, again, of course, preliminary work on 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 might be of use if you ever decide to do a switch.

I think this gets to my fundamental question: is it useful to learn openings you never plan on playing? I believe there is value in it, as ideas in one line often find analogies in others. But as you say, there wouldn't be any point in memorizing lines.

I read somewhere that Fischer had a somewhat limited repertoire (in line with his mantra regarding 1.e4), but what he did know he knew a lot about.