building an opening repertoire around D4

ipcress12: Thanks for mentioning "Pins, forks, discovered attacks, skewers, decoys, one-move mates, two-move mates, etc."

@ Conman: I have been studying the Najdorf Sicilian for about 6 months now. And the only thing I do when I look at other openings is study the tactical reason behind them.

@ Unleash: I understand what you mean by "how to actually learn what I need, because everything looks such a mess!"

I would like to visit your forum. I am always eager to share what I have learned. And perhaps I will learn something myself.

Also, so far, learning some openings and understanding them has been extremely useful to me, I think more useful that anything else.

Unleash_the_Queens: When I was a beginner, though not a complete newb, likewise.

I don't get all the knucklewrapping which predictably appears on chess.com when a class player talks about learning openings.

Sure, one shouldn't focus only on the openings. Granted, one shouldn't just memorize lines. Of course, tactics, strategy and endgames are important too.

But jeez louise. You'd think some people were trying to keep pornography away from schoolchildren with all this "You shouldn't study openings until you're 18 years-old or have an 1800 rating."

Back in the seventies I subscribed to Ken Smith's "Chess Digest" which was brimming with state-of-the-art opening ideas pitched to class players. Smith made no bones about it. If you get killed in the opening, you won't get far in the middlegame and you probably won't even see the endgame. Smith was the first chess writer I knew who argued even average tournament players should be thinking about an opening repertoire.

So yes, junior, study your openings.

Smith had to sell his (mostly bad) chess books, so what did you expect to say?

I know at least a couple of players which became IM's while having extremely poor opening knowledge.

GM Tamas Gelashvili got his title when he was still living in Greece, and his opening knowledge was paper thin. He was playing the same standard (and pretty much unorthodox) opening moves again, and again, since THIS was he was taught when learning chess in Georgia- and Georgian chess teachers are VASTLY superior to any Ken Smith I can recall.

I could just go on and on, but since there is no chance to persuade people to stop parroting moves and learn something useful...

pfren: I'd say the moral of your story is that different people learn chess in different ways.

Ken Smith, following his ideas which you disparage, managed to reach a 2415 rating and became a FIDE master.

Ken Smith inspired many American players who went on to titles. Andrew Soltis, as I recall, wrote books under the Chess Digest imprint.

come on sally VIII please help move the discussion forward rather than trying to score debate points

You could do an opening repertoire based on d4, c4 and a kingside fiancetto. It's a very solid way to go against the KID and Benoni and you don't need to think about the Nimzo or Queens Indian since you'll just whip out the Catalan. 

pfren: So what is your point? That class players should not study openings?

I grant you there are players who don't study openings much and reach titles. But I'd bet they are exceptions.

Bobby Fischer certainly had very deep opening knowledge by the time he reached GM. Was that a mistake on his part? Should his teachers have kept Fischer away from the Russian chess magazines he read to keep up with the latest opening theory?

Apart from the weary sighing, what is your argument here?

I think the argument is against memorising and getting too deep in theory. The time you give to openings won't do anything to remedy the mistakes you will inevitably make in the middlegame which are the real reasons that games are won and lost. The opening stage barring blunders and questionable moves is pretty irrelevant. It can be fun to look at different ones but they're not worth taking seriously.

Honestly you could probably play 1.d4, 2.e3 and 3.c4 against everything  and do just fine.

I think the argument is against memorising and getting too deep in theory.
 
If so, that's a strawman attack. No one here is arguing for memorizing and getting too deep in theory.

All Conman89 said is he wants to setup a repertoire based on d4 and he figures he needs to learn QGA/QGD, Nimzo, QID etc. and asking for assistance on what to add and what to leave out.

In my comments I reflexively add a disclaimer against obsessing on opening study and memorizing long lines.

And dear departed Ken Smith, of whom pfren speaks so poorly, also emphasized tactics and endgame knowledge, and recommended a path of openings starting from simple forcing openings before complex systems. Smith would likely steer Conman89 more to the Colle than the Queen's Gambit.

My own attitude, as someone largely self-taught in many areas, is to go with one's enthusiasm when starting out. If Conman89 has a yen to learn the Queen's Gambit, why not. There's much good chess to learn there. And just because it's the opening doesn't mean one can't learn tactics and strategic principles.

No arguments for dumb & deaf people... I'm terribly sorry for that. Regards.

For the record, I have four Ken Smith books, and still can't decide which is the worst. The only readable one is co-authored with Soltis. The readable part is the Soltis one, of course.

pfren: I was pretty sure you couldn't make an argument beyond taking a snippy, superior attitude.

Regards.

Precisely. But it seems that this simple thing is too difficult for some to understand.

Study to any more than this level is cost too much of time for study other more important matter.

That's an approach, but hardly the only one, and not at all a proven one unless you have cites for your opportunity cost claim. I'll bet you don't.

Fischer, to go back to an earlier example, knew more than e4, develop your pieces and castle by the time he had an 1800 rating. Eveyone I knew at that class did. Ubik42 teaches kids openings and they win trophies.

pfren: Apparently you can't make your own arguments, but feel free to chime in your signature insulting way as you wish.

I think the dutch defence is a good one for players to try

It isn't about "You should include this, or this, because it's best". There are many ways to respond to 1.d4. You need to be able to take the game in a direction you prefer, no matter what black plays. If 1... Nf6, for example, you will likely play 2. c4. Blacks' next move reveals their plan. If 2... e6, they want the Nimzo. You need to decide if you like playing the Nimzo as white, or if you would rather avoid it with something like 3. Nf3, which will likely lead to a Queen' Indian.

Do your research and learn all of black's common responses. A very uncommon response is alright, because it's uncommon for a reason--it isn't very strong. You just need to use your understanding to take advantage of such weak moves.

Also, ignore the above posters telling you to ignore opening lines until you're stronger if you enjoy doing it. My weakest area is endgame, but I don't study it because I don't like to. And that's a good enough reason for me, I don't care what other say.

I think you guys are seriously out of touch.

I know lots of talented young players (many of whom I started to coach in elementary school, but have since moved beyond me) 3rd, 4th, 5th grade, 1800ish, who excel in tactics but also have very very deep opening knowledge, far deeper than I do. We had a chess get together where one of my former prodigies ( a 3rd grader) defeated a (older, late 60's) 2340 player in blitz over and over, and said he "changed his opening repertoire" for our party.

Yes, just changed it. For that day.

Its just the way people are learning now. It may have been different years ago. but now, step in a class tournament without pretty good opening knowledge and you get slaughtered early.

I started to play OTB chess again recently. openings have always been my weakest area. I am trying to fix that, but I can say that nearly all of my recent losses were in the opening, and my wins and draws were all comebacks after a weak opening. This was not true when I played tournament chess 30 years ago, but its true now. Porbably a combination of the influence of internet and computers. Players are just a lot more knowledgeable about openings at lower rating levels than they used to be.

To claim you don't need to know about opening until 1800 can only be made if you do not play at that level of chess. I am 1700 and know better. I get clobbered in the opening. I am slowly fixing it, and my games are improving as a result.

And you do learn about chess from studying openings if you do it properly with good opening books. Dive into the books deep, question every move, and you learn something.

one concrete thing I learned is that when I am out of book in an opening I tend to play far too "classical". I stick to opening principles and develop, relatively aimlessly, instead of forming an earlier, concrete plan. this is what has gotten me into trouble. Just following principles of development and center is just not good enough at class levels of C-A. Not anymore. You need specifics, move orders, and you need a good idea of what middlegame plans flow from your openings.

Ah, OK, Google "Tamas Gelashvili", or find him at Wikipedia, or finally any chess database.

He is rated around 2600, and he is still playing those funny "look-like-openings" with both colors that he played twenty years ago. His secret is simple: excellent positional understanding, exquisite fighting spirit.

You are 1700, and know better. He is almost one thousand points higher rated than you, yet he does not seem to know much, if anything... 

A lot of people here confuse openings and "general principles of opening". Openings and repertoire are intended for players above a certain level say 1500 at the least. Beginners should concentrate on general principles only. There is no harm in familiarizing with some openings but make sure you don't overreach until you gain some experience.

To the OP, there is an IM on here called Chessexplained. He has an excellent series of videos on youtube on building a d4 repertoire. It is a good place to start looking I think, as he covers the full repertoire.