Chess repertoire and Opening synergy

Polgars 5000 problems is very good.

I didn't say they were system openings. You say such random bs "you said this, you said that". Learn to read properly.

You can explore the game and the openings whenever you want. People can learn, play and enjoy the game how they like. Your "regime" of chess learning is strict and patronising. "Don't play this. Don't play that. You can't even calculate 3 moves ahead. Play the openings I tell you to."

You can see how many people dislike what you're saying. You just get upset and start lashing out lol.

Relax its a game and just that. You two have very different opinions on this and that's not bad, but arguing rudely like this is not very effective.

samuelajedrez this dude is a gotham stan you should not value what he thinks for all of it comes out of ¨Daddy Gotham¨

if a person were to ever play the 4 knights limit it to the scotch or halloween.

but agian i must heavily recommend the ruy lopez as white

and the nimzo/benoni agianst 2.c4/2.Bf4 for black agianst d4

and to play e5 as black and learn all the opening variations untill you are comtroble with them or encounter them

I was thinking more like the Petrov for e4 because I do sidestep a lot of theory and will have to learn to play an endgame because it seems more drawish but also holds tactical promise in some lines. And then for d4 the QGD because it just seems like the most solid and decently beginner friendly. I always thought the Nimzo was very difficult because it was a setup opening that required a lot of theory memorization and it's a hypermodern defense. Would it be better for me to play more classical openings or hypermodern openings as a beginner?

Also, im going with the Spanish for White

The Nimzo is a great choice.

Hypermodern doesn't encompass one style. King's Indian is hypermodern but aggressive, risky and imbalancing. Black allows white to occupy the centre to later attack it with pieces or break out on the kingside with f5.

Nimzo-Indian is hypermodern but very positionally solid. Black doesn't allow white to play e4 with pieces instead of pawns. The advantage of playing the Nimzo over the QGD is that the Nimzo is far more flexible and focuses on development.

This development by black is beautiful. Black has developed 2 minors and is ready to castle on move 3. The 2 minors do a brilliant job of controlling the e4 square. With the knight pinned, the square is currently controlled by black.

As black has not committed to d5, it allows black many more options to change the structure. d5, c5, b6 are generally all options. This means that you choose the lines you like against each variation. You are not just playing the Nimzo-Indian, you are playing your Nimzo-Indian. It has sharp lines, positional lines, closed lines, open lines, everything. This is the beauty of the Nimzo. You play it to your style.

This flexibility of the hypermodern Nimzo gives black more chances for imbalance and counterplay.

The QGD is very solid, rigid and neutralising.

Both are very good. It depends on your style and what you're looking for out of the opening.

How do you guys feel about the Trompowsky? It looks very imbalanced and avoids lots of opening theory for d4.