my repitouar
white: c4 b3 g3 Nf3 are my main openings and recently ive started to re explore e4
Black: mainly things like the french the sicillian and ocasionaly a strange defence and many lines mostly little known or used
all are playable except maybe e4 b5
I open with e4, i don't mind comming up against the sicilian.
against e4 i play sicilian najdorf and against everything else i play KID
White: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Black: Dutch Defense, symmetrical king pawn openings
I enjoy studying chess openings as much or more than actually playing chess.
Therefore, I chose a narrow repertoire of openings which are well-suited to be analyzed by computer programs.
After years of building computer analysis upon previous computer analysis, I published my analysis in a book before I began work on an “advanced chess” openings wiki to encourage others to share their own home analysis.
The wiki, I hope, represents an advancement over traditional “advanced chess” (human + computer) analysis. The idea is to facilitate an “advanced chess” peer-review process whereby teams of human + computer can attempt to verify or falsify the analysis of other (human + computer) teams as well as to build upon the foundation laid by others.
So, to answer your question, I built my opening repertoire by choosing openings most tractable for research using computer programs.
White: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Black: Dutch Defense, symmetrical king pawn openings
I enjoy studying chess openings as much or more than actually playing chess.
Therefore, I chose a narrow repertoire of openings which are well-suited to be analyzed by computer programs.
After years of building computer analysis upon previous computer analysis, I published my analysis in a book before I began work on an “advanced chess” openings wiki to encourage others to share their own home analysis.
The wiki, I hope, represents an advancement over traditional “advanced chess” (human + computer) analysis. The idea is to facilitate an “advanced chess” peer-review process whereby teams of human + computer can attempt to verify or falsify the analysis of other (human + computer) teams as well as to build upon the foundation laid by others.
So, to answer your question, I built my opening repertoire by choosing openings most tractable for research using computer programs.
Very interesting answer!! I think there is a book already with the name The Final Theory Of Chess.... So you believe in BlackmarDiemer Gambit as the one
From your choices, I see you prefer the theory to the game itself. Lokking forward to hear further results & contributions, good luck
I like the French Defence and Caro(though I rarely use it lately) and I also have tried the Sicilian....as for d4 I try to play the Benoni Defence or the QID and KID.I use the KID against opponents structures that are out of the theory-opening book...in other words against openings I am not familiar with.As for white I like mainly the Italian game and the KIA and also the four knights game
Well my repertuarie is at the moment
White:
Birds (f4)At the moment play it always,(OTB)
e4 (OTB vs dragon), sometimes in blitz, usualy by some anti-sicilian/advancer french/exchange caro/ and four knights.
Some times Blackmar-Dimmer, Grob, or something random
Black: Vs e4
Dragadorf sicilian (main otb)
Sometime frecnch (still learning it)
vs d4
Grunfeld or some kind of slav with g6,
Almost always some setup with g6, Bg7 and so on.
as White: Bird 1.f4 .... really?? you sound like someone has a taste in Chess and certinly a kind of experience...
Why would prefer Bird to e4,d4 & c4 ?? what makes it better for you?
(( Just for sharing experience, I am asking ..))