building an opening repertoire around D4

Wait Greece? Didn't know anything about GMs living in Greece! Really? Anyway, I do get your point. But what happens to me, is that when I go really bad at opening, I don't really manage to keep up with my opponent, and I eventually die. So, the "opening" issue is baffling me a lot.

ATTENTION: The discussion was meant to be one about helping the admin to build a repertoir based on the 1:d4 move. I am not sure that anybody is actually helping him with that. He wanted to learn something, but most people just started flaming against each other. I don't think he is really interested on that flaming, so everybody please be relevant to what he asked for. I also visited this thread to learn something about 1:d4, and I know that many of you are going to say "Hey, you know what? Your score is just 1180, way too low jeez!" but it doesn't really hurt to learn something about openings, does it? So please be relevant and helpful.

The answer is pretty straightforward: Play 1...d5 followed by ...e6, castle fast, develop your pieces, and play chess.

You, as a Greek, should probably know that the whole Greek National team are Grandmasters, none of them is imported (unlike many other countries), and it's one of the few teams that have won against Russia at an official team event. Tamaz is not Greek, but he has lived and played chess in Thessaloniki, Greece for more than a decade.

I admit you may be right Pfren, but I think studying openings on my level (and maybe on 2000 level also) for example can teach also many things about positional chess as well. For example studying opening theory of French may help understand pawn chains and wing attacks etc. I have been opening fanatic around 20 years because I have liked openings but I know it's only small part of chess. My question is what would you suggest for average FM to practise? I think tactical skills are important and that means Chess Tempo training or something should be done. Also analysing own games deeply without engine. What else?

I'm not at your level but... maybe the ECE?  At FM you should understand Informant hieroglyphics by now and not need text commentaries (e.g., "Of course play this to prevent the short side defense" "Don't want him to obtain a Philidor position so move the king here" "Centralize my queen to avoid giving him perpetual, of course!" "Need to set up an f2-g3-h4 formation here to best parry checks" etc.)

I feel the same way about openings too.  I want to buy Shipov's Complete Hedgehog (both volumes) not to memorize a stupid variation but understand the various pawn setups better (especially Hedgehog vs. c4 + e4) and plans special for these systems.  If only Shipov wrote a book on the Catalan. 

I agree with pfren, I think until you become very advanced there's no need to clutter your mind with thoughts that will just confuse your anyway.

I like to keep it simple and stick with the basics: I play something familiar, develop pieces to useful squares, get the king to safety, and try to play good solid moves each time to gain an advantage.

An anology would be golf, if you are a beginner or average player, trying to study the golf swing of Tiger Woods and do exactly what he is doing is a mistake. Just learn the basics first, build from there.

Somehow I knew someone, probably you, would single out "I am 1700 and I know better" out of context.

I am 1700 and I know better about what it is like to play other people my level right now than you do. When is the last time you played against 1700's in a tournament? Do you sandbag to go beat up on us patzers?

I do not know your 2600 player. But you mentioned he has been playing those openings for 20 years. Likely, he  knows his "funny little openings" quite a bit better than I know my mainline stuff, right?

I am simply telling you how people at class level are playing right now, expecially the young kids. They know their openings. There are two ways this helps them in their ratings - first, by knowing them so well, they get into better middlegames. Second, you learn something about chess as you study openings.

You can deny it again if you like, but its a fact thats what people are doing today. Go watch a tournament with elementary school aged 1700's and 1800's and they are playing openings pretty deeply.

As another point, you mention the 2600 has "excellent positional understanding", and this presumably lets him play offbeat stuff. Well, I suppose I have to point out the obvious here - my positional understanding is nowhere near that player. Deliberately making an early offbeat move is just counting on my opponent not seeing whats wrong with it. Why should I try to play chess like that?

Actually now after I became curious and examines the list of openings this GM Gelashvili guy has played as black I can mention few things. Yes his favourite is Pirc-Robatch Defence with 63 games, but he also has played many less speculative openings:

-Caro Kann, 33 games

-Nimzo-Indian, 24 games

-Few Sicilians as well

I examined few games from each category and he seemed to play them about normally that means theoretically good lines. My conclusion from this quick observation is that he is quite normal GM when it comes to openings. I don't know if he played those strange openings when he was younger or only against clearly weaker opponents than he is. Maybe he plays more strange stuff as white and that is WIkipedia also saying. Like b3 stuff against sicilians, Caro, etc...As black he plays quite good openings because as white there is generally more freedom on opening phase and moves.

Well, this year. Some of them. Actually I even lost against a 1600 player- I was so annoyed that I missed an elementary win, that I started (silently) mumbling to myself, and lost on time.

Why you should try to play chess like that? Errr, quite simply, because if you don't try to play like that, you will become a good player the day pigs fly.

Positional understanding, tactical ability and adequate endgame technique are WAY more important than "opinings". That's why.

crazy

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=4444124

Oh yes, Tamaz plays pretty frequently odd stuff like that- with both colors. Actually this game is a very good example of the "opening means little" argument.

Thanks for showing this. I disagree that is is crazy. Although I am often a fan of common openings I just think that is beautiful! Nice game indeed. There was at least 2 mistakes.

Not 15...Nc6? but 15...Ra6 is totally even and Instead of 18.Rac1 the 18.Rc5 would have kept the slight advantage

Wow, thanks for sharing your wisdom with us. Somehow I had the wrong impression that the games are won by the better player, and that in "money tournaments" the rules of the game are not different.

Ok, so was your opponent playing purely on principles after the first couple of moves? I never find that to be the case at my level.

Since my openings are the worst part of my game, I am almost invariably the first out of book. And its a bad move, of course. Winning or drawing for me OTB mostly depends on whether I can fight my way out of an inferior opening. I am trying to change that.

Endgames are the strongest part of my game relative to people my level.

To be clear here, in responding to my post you are saying I need to deliberatley make bad moves in the opening, in order to become a good player.

I assume this is in addition to the bad moves I play anyway because I am typically the first to leave book. Got it. Thanks for the advice.

"Winning or drawing for me OTB mostly depends on whether I can fight my way out of an inferior opening."

You're in good company since Emanuel Lasker and Tigran Petrosian also had to do so even as world champions.  How to Defend in Chess by Crouch is ripe with examples.  It doesn't mean you should continue stinking in the opening however but realize that it isn't the end of the world (usually).  Do you embark on attacks before completing development?  Rarely is someone's issue the opening but rather their positional understanding and calculation. 

It looks to me that white has a slight advantage after 15...Ra6 16.d5 Rc8 (isn't that your idea?) 17.Re1! - admittedly it's not much, but the game isn't flat level, either.

18.Rc5 does look better than 18.Rac1, but in the game Black hasn't equalized, either- say 20...b4 21.Rc4 f6 22.d4 and white has all the fun.

Where the heck did you read that? What's your definition of a "bad move"?

You responded to my post where I said "Deliberately making an early offbeat move is just counting on my opponent not seeing whats wrong with it. Why should I try to play chess like that?"

With : 

"Why you should try to play chess like that? Errr, quite simply, because if you don't try to play like that, you will become a good player the day pigs fly."

I am a class player. If I deviate from book early, its not going to be a good move. Anyway, I really dont need help deviating. If I am playing a young player with the same rating that I have, chances are he knows the book moves about 6 or 7 moves deeper than I do.

It does not matter at all, if it's not a direct blunder. Just learning the basic opening principles and HOW to put them into praxis properly is all you need to know about openings right now.

Do you really care if player ABC knows the opening 7 moves deeper than you, and then blunders on the eighth? Just keep the game playable, and wait him to blunder. A little provocation also works, but I never told you to deliberately play bad moves. Of course the opposite also applies: It does not matter at all if you get a massive opening advantage according to the books, and then play a crapload of nonsense, because you don't understand the position.

See the above game: White played 1.a3, which is something between "offbeat" and "silly", and demolished a Grandmaster in less than 30 moves.

You want to learn how to play the opening? Fine. Get a book with Capablanca's best games (ideal for new players, since his moves were always simple and clear) and study them thoroughly- ALL the game, not just the opening moves. It's the best opening study you can afford.

Ubik, I am genuinely curious about something.

If you took your last 20 losses against players around your level, how many of them were actually lost because your opponent knew the opening better? You said 'nearly all of my recent losses were in the opening' so if you could provide examples (complete games) I'd appreciate that.