Building an anti-preparation repertoire

I am building my repertoire. What openings should I choose considering the following three criteria?

1) Even if my opponents have access to all my games on some games databases, it must be very difficult if not impossible for my opponents to prepare against my repertoire.

2) Preparing against me must not be very useful for my opponents. If they do prepare against me, this must not give them a big advantage, this must not greatly increase their winning probability.

3) I will never bother looking in a games database what's my opponent's repertoire. I will never prepare against any particular opponent.

This is what I mean by "anti-preparation".

Should I choose openings that are positional+strategic+slow+quiet+safe (e.g. London, QGD) or openings that are sharp+tactical+aggressive+chaotic (e.g. KID, Modern Benoni, Semi-Slav, Sicilian, gambits) or openings that are balanced?

Should I choose mainlines or sidelines?

How wide or how narrow should my repertoire be?

Play openings that you know forwards and backwards, that you enjoy whether anyone else likes them or not, and get you into positions that you don't stress about even if they are hard. Here is two examples of what I mean. 1) Mikhail Bottvinik knew every variation of the Semi Slav. So much so that he created his own variation named after him. He also played the Dutch at GM level play cause he liked it! 2) Ben Finegold said he couldn't count or remember how many times he has played the white side of the Queens Gambit Declined. He also played the Chigorin Defense because he liked it!

It’s utterly impossible to avoid preparation. Sooner or later, your opponents will have a weapon against everything, to the point where all the “surprise factor” goes to refuted openings. You should play what you know, like, and are comfortable with. For example, I play the Open Sicilian knowing well that black knows what he’s doing more than I am- but I still come out with a good position. Don’t base your play on surprise.

If you want to avoid preparing against your opponent, you will probably never have to. You should have a weapon against anything your opponent can try. For example, I play e4. Against e5, I play the Ruy. Against the Sicilian, I play the Open. Against the French, I play the Tarrasch, and so on. I don’t know what my opponent’s gonna play- but I know I have a weapon against it.

I play e4 and resign, avoiding all theory. If I give my opponent the chance to play a move, they could play the Sicilian.

Bobby Fischer's Najdorf was so good that even the Russians with their computer-like preparation could not take him down

average chess.com player be like

i would make a variation of this meme but im too lazy

either way, avoiding main lines for the sake of it is weird because what are the chances you will lose because of prep

people say that playing sidelines doesnt matter because openings dont change the result of the game so this is very valid

you should be thinking "what do i like" and "is it atleast playable" not "is it a mainline" imo

I am just wondering how does this dude have an 800 points difference between his live games and daily ones

play the grob and master it from both sides... I doubt many players are booked up against that.

I have edited the first post to add a third criteria:
"2) Preparing against me must not be very useful for my opponents. If they do prepare against me, this must not give them a big advantage, this must not greatly increase their winning probability."

wait

op is assuming that the opponent will know their repertoire but op wont know theirs

what a sort of assumption to make

if you’ve been living under a rock, this account is a troll btw it’s just better not to give any attention

oh no I’m just warning people

The Botvinnik-Carls Caro-Kann, the Tartakower Caro-Kann, the Vienna Gambit, and the Leningrad Dutch. Very rare and hard to prep against.

Ah makes sense as they spread such trash opinions.

After pondering about it, I have concluded that to satisfy point #2:
- I should not play openings that are objectively bad (like almost all gambits).
- My opponents will know my repertoire while I will not know theirs. So if I play openings that are positional+strategic+slow+quiet+safe, my opponents' better preparation will give them only a small advantage. While if I play openings that are sharp+tactical+aggressive+chaotic, my opponents' better preparation will give them a very large advantage, because in a sharp+tactical+aggressive+chaotic opening one single mistake can cost you the game. Therefore, I should choose openings that are positional+strategic+slow+quiet+safe, openings that allow me to avoid opening theory and just play chess.

To satisfy point #1, my repertoire should be wide. But how wide exactly? Should it be so wide that I play absolutely all openings in existence?

"my opponents will know my repertoire"

"i will not know theirs"

huh?

doesnt make sense

Two ways to beat prep:

Method 1: Become an expert in so many different openings and defenses, that your opponent won't know how to prepare against you, because you can play anything.

Method 2: Become a master of your own narrow repertoire, so that no matter how much your opponent prepares against you - he still be playing into your game.

(For example: Gata Kamsky is probably going to play the London against you. Good luck trying to outprep him, though - he's been playing the London for 40 years now. He's seen anything you can come up with.)