Building an opening repetoire - should i learn English for white, Sicilian for black?

When I was a child and first learnt to play chess, I exclusively played the Guico Piano, which everyone seems to now think is a bit rubbish.  I'd love to do other stuff, but just feel that learning umpteen variations is too much hard work.  Is there any sense to learning the English and the Sicilian so that I can adopt a similar system whatever side I'm playing?  If so, I'd love a few pointers on these.  If not, can people suggest openings for either colour that aren't too theory-heavy and lead to middlegames with some attacking chances but don't compromise king safety too much?  I appreciate that's a big ask, but you all seem such lovely people.

Build an opening repertoire is hard and may take a few years to have a real solid repertoire. I personally don't study the opening, in my level I can make the moves, but without understand they perfectly. The sicilian has a lot of theory, so I suggest you to study the kan or palsen sicilians wich has less theory. When I studyed the  english my problem was with the transpositions, who happened a lot in my games.

In general, 1800- players will not play the lines in book, and your study will be "useless".
Good luck! Sorry for the bad english

It's a lot better than my Portugese.  So would you suggest I just stuck to basic principles - centralisation, rapid development, avoid weakening squares or compromising king safety etc rather than overly focusing on theory?  I suppose what I'd like to know is what I'll be looking to do in the middlegame with these openings.  I'll take a look at the kan and palsen variations though.  Cheers.

Yes, you got it!

The book Modern Strategy in chess cover a lot of middle games themes that can help you. You'll be able to handle a lot of middlegames, not only these from specific openings. And take a look at tactics, it's the most effective area of improvement in the begining. Also It's very hard to find books that cover the middlegame of the openings.

 The basic principles can guide you to middle games that you are confortable with. Some months ago I played a 12 years old FM and folled something like Lasker variation of the caro-kann until he went off the book. And I've never played against a caro-kann. I was simply using the principles. (and had some lucky too, of course I lost the game)

Good luck!

Although the Sicilian and the English are similar, they can be completely different.  The English often transposes into Queen Pawn openings.  I advise you to study enough theory in every opening that you might play against to avoid the traps and pitfalls.  But there is absolutely no point in memorizing lines 25 moves deep with deviations at every turn.  Concentrate on tactics and the endgame.  They will help you more than openings.

The giuoco piano isn't rubbish, it's a solid opening. 

Giuoco piano (a.k.a the Italian game) is very solid and good to play.  As a beginning player myself, everyone has told me that opening principals are most important.  I believe they are correct, but it doesn't hurt to look at openings.

The important thing to remember is the ideas behind the openings, not just memorizing moves.  Anyhoo, here is a link you might like.

The problem with 1. c4, for a beginner in the theory of openings, is that black has a lot of good various plans to chose. He/she can play 1... c5, 1.... e5 or 1... Nf6 (and also 1.... e6, 1.... f5), with  diferent positions. You need to study all of them. It is easier to study, as a white, 1. d4 or 1. e4. Italian defence (Gioco Piano) is not enough for a good reportoire - so the best is to study Roy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5). In the main variations, white usually has a small, but durable advantage - as you like! (Beware of Marshal attack!)

My opening repertoire: 

(e4-white) ruy-lopez/petrov/phildor/... (depends of black choice).

(e4-black) petrov/four-knights. (very solid) in Kramnik style.

(d4-black) eslav/semi-slav. (very solid) in Anand style.

My advice is that you have to use the more dynamic responses whith white pieces and the more solid and easy to learn black defences. 

Killabeez is right that while the English and Sicilian look similar, they can lead to very different games.  My English games tend to be more positional, while my Sicilian games are very aggressive and sharp -- playing styles I'm not fully comfortable with.  I've had a lot more success playing the English than I have with the Sicilian.  I have to disagree with Lydiablonde, though.  If you're opening with the English, you can play 1.c4 2. g3 3. Bg2 4. Nc3 against pretty much any response, the exception being the so-called English defense 1. . .b6 or against 1. . .c6, you've got to plan for an early Nf3.  One of the good things about this formation of the English is that it is so flexible and can meet any number of replies. 

newagex wrote:

My opening repertoire: 

(e4-white) ruy-lopez/petrov/phildor/... (depends of black choice).

(e4-black) petrov/four-knights. (very solid) in Kramnik style.

(d4-black) eslav/semi-slav. (very solid) in Anand style.

My advice is that you have to use the more dynamic responses whith white pieces and the more solid and easy to learn black defences. 

---

I would recommend exactly the opposite!

One should play solid openings as white, to maintain white's initial advantage without risk.

One should play riskier, more dynamic openings as black to try to complicate the game and create situations where mistakes are more likely.

My advise is to play the opening that appeals most to you. When I started playing chess *seriously* (lol) I wanted to play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack because I had learned about it many years ago and it appealed to me for reasons which I do not understand. I was afraid people would poke fun at me and tell me I was stupid. But I have won 60% of my 144 NLA games and had a great time with it. Due to transpositions I also learned about the English, the Bird, the Reti and others and my repertoire is expanding in a very natural way. But it takes time. With the Black pieces I have avoided the Sicilian because everyone plays it. I haven't yet established a good repertoire as Black but I am improving. For the player at the average level, the choice of opening doesn't matter as much as middlegame tactics. And you can't win the game you survive unless you know how to walk a pawn down the board. Learn the endgame first, like Capa said. In Chess, as in life, you will do better if you play the game you enjoy.

To my understanding, the criticism with the Giuoco Piano is that it is possible for a player with the black pieces to equalise - given a sufficient understanding of the theory. So, against very theoretically strong players this may be a consideration, but I don't know that that is your greatest concern.

 Regarding your other considerations (reasonable attacking opportunities and king safety), there is nothing wrong with the opening. 

 That said, an interesting exercise may be to compare the positions that arise out of the Giuoco Piano to those that arise from the Ruy Lopez and think about the strengths and weaknesses, positionally, of each. I may actually do this myself as I think I would benefit :)

 Whether to stick with Giuoco Piano or not may come down to the psychological considerations. If you have convinced yourself that you are heading down a dead end, then you will more than likely switch. If you are happy that it will serve you well for the foreseeable future then no doubt you will keep playing it. 

rednblack wrote: I have to disagree with Lydiablonde, though.  If you're opening with the English, you can play 1.c4 2. g3 3. Bg2 4. Nc3 against pretty much any response,

---

 

 OK, u can, I agree. But it sounds so dully! I don't like fianceto. OK, it is is a mater of taste!

When I first started, I would play nothing and nothing but Ruy Lopez. Then, I started to go for the Italian game. Now I play Scottish if e4. I play Queen's gambit if I'm in a mood for d4. As for black, I never play Sicilian because I'm rubbish at it, and if someone plays sicilian while I hit e4, I get demoralised.

Well, I've tried learning it a couple times but the theory is so extensive that I always couldn't remember much. I wish someone would give me a good crash course (got someone helpful once, she taught me the closed variation to get rid of complication, but I'd like to know the whys and why is this move better than the last, why this variation better?)...

If given a choice, and if I know my stuff, I'd like to play it. Heard that it was a good defense to e4 and I was getting sick of the normal e4 e5 variants already.

What you need is to build up on tactics. Some chess guy once said, learning openings is for masters. You get your basics right, play what you're comfortable with (all openings have their pros, you know. and cons). and improve.(:

Just want to mention, as other posters have already done, that English opening and Sicilian defence usually lead to quite different games.

The tempo is worth something in these positions... 

I think I want to agree with the general tone of most of the posters here. When I started out, I chose my opening repertoire on the basis of what my opponent might play - ie variations in openings where I thought my opponent's freedom to deviate was minimal. This was attractive because it seemed to reduce the quantity of memorisation required. 

For example, I memorised lengthy variations in the 'one size fits all' Reti (Nf3, g3, Bg2, c4 etc).

In practice, this was an almost complete waste of time.

In my OTB experience with opponents between 1200 and about 1900, I never got to play beyond about 5 or 6 moves of the theory I'd memorised. More importantly,  I found myself playing games which really bored me, and which were often closed and cramped. I got obsessed by the thought that I shouldn't play 'incorrect' moves.

As a result, I played few open and dynamic games. It was a recipe for restricting my understanding of the game.

I now feel that pattern recognition (especially in the middlegame) is the key. By this, I mean that the winner will usually be whoever is more familiar with the kind of middlegame structure that arises.

 Examples would be realising the features of a Kside fianchetto that make it vulnerable to the h pawn push and B exchange or the Q side pawn structure that one can undermine with the 'minority attack'.  

I have given up buying opening books. 

Instead, I put my time into drilling patterns into my head - tactical training, endgames, etc.

This means that I feel more comfortable with a range of middlegames.

I suspect that to get seriously strong you do need heavyweight opening theory. But beneath this - nah, play what you feel comfortable with and understand - not what the book tells you! And improve by increasing the range of positions you understand. Not by memorising more opening variations.