Did You Have Fun Building Your Opening Repertoire? Really? Teach me How!

I have never studied openings.  I know the first 3-4 moves of the major openings and their names, and I know General Opening Principles, and the goal is to reach a "playable middlegame" but that's it.  And that was enough to get me to 1762 OTB rating 30 years ago and about a 1300-1400 Chess.com blitz rating.

But I need to change my attitude about openings.  (I always tell my kids that it starts with attitude, lol).  

So I'm going to invest mega-hours into building an opening repertoire.  But I'm dreading it.  Like I always have.  I need to have a better attitude.  For those who have enjoyed building and crafting their opening repertoire, how was it fun for you?  What did you do to make it fun?  I want to be happy doing this.

Also, here are my tentative preliminary thoughts.  First of all, style.  Craft an opening repertoire to fit your style is what I've heard.  Well, you know what?  I don't know my style.  Call it Patzer-style for all I know.  Tactical, positional, strategic, I lack in all areas.  So this is my thinking.  Go Classical.  1. e4 as White.  Meet 1.e4 with e5.  And meet 1. d4 with d5.  Gotta learn tactics and open games.  Transition to closed games later.  Huge weakness is tactics.  So let's tackle tactics since that's the largest area needing improvement.  Ergo, 1. e4 as white and open games.  Queen's Gambit Declined against 1. d4.

Maybe KID setup against 1. c4 and 1. Nf3.  

Anyways, I'm thinking 3-5 hours a week on Openings, and it'll take a lot of weeks to get a classical repertoire up and running for use in OTB play.

But How Do I Make it fun?  And what tools and resources should I use?  Thoughts, please!

Hi Daniel,

I suggest Steve Giddins' book, How To Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire.  Though the book receives a total of three stars out of five at Amazon, I'd read all the reviews, good and bad, and then decide.  You may also want to check out this review by Jeremy Silman.

Best,
Bob

Thanks for the suggestion, Fighting Bob!  I read Silman's review first which was quite positive.  Then I clicked over to the Amazon reviewers.  Lo-and-behold, I read Milliern's highly negative review first!  I am a chess.com "friend" of Milliern and I highly respect him, and he hated the book, lol!  So then I looked at the price, and it's really quite affordable, so I will buy it.

Lol!  I've been accurately diagnosed immediately!  I will confess that I did get a book on 1. d4 because I thought at my age and ability it's better to play positional, strategic games.  But the more I thought about it, I have to face up to my weaknesses, and cross swords in tactical play and thereby, Open Games.  Hence, the decision to go with 1. e4.  

I changed my patzer mind from 1. d4 to 1. e4, and you caught me!

I just read this quote from WCM Mary Kuhner in the thread to Louisa Thomas's first tournament:

"I quit playing competitively in 1987 with a rating of 2170.  In 2014 I decided to play in a tournament, and had a performance rating of...around 1300.  I'd played a couple of years of online chess to get ready, but that didn't do the job.  There's nothing quite like a face to face tournament.  (Things got better after that, though I am not back at 2170.  It seems to have gotten tougher!)"

Her experience confirms my concerns about jumping too quickly back into OTB play.  FWIW, I inquired WCM Kuhner about helping me with opening repertoire issues.

Interesting, Daniel, I didn't know Milliern wrote one of the negative reviews.

Though not a repertoire book, I still think Emms' Discovering Chess Openings: Building Opening Skills from Basic Principles is worthwhile because many players at our level get you out of your repertoire quickly unless you are playing an "opening system."

Well, it's very simple. You pick something, the way I hear it probably something interesting, and you stick with it. When I started I only had one opening book from 1972 and there was no internet. That was a huge advantage, because although in hindsight the book was a bit outdated at least I was done studying quickly. My opening book works according to the universal principle with overlap. So, you play 1.e4 with white and you play 1.e5 with black. That way you always know the lines. If you're up for it, you can play the Sicilian or the French or the Caro Kann with black, but the overlap method is a smart solution.

With black, against d4 you can either go 1...d5 or play the King's Indian against everything. If you play 1...d5 you need to study the Queen's gambit a bit and all the non c4 lines. Most of the time, that means: If white plays weak sauce you go d5, e6 and c5 and blow him up. I always do that and I barely remember any lines and it works well.  

When you've decided, the big question is, what to do next. Study? NOOO! Of course not. That is way too much work. Play a serious game, so with notation or online chess, lose it, and then look up the line you should have played. This way you will probably retain the information. Keep doing this until you've memorized your lines. There is no need to make a fuss if you can get a decent position out of the opening anyway. The theory is there to help you, not to memorize for the fun of it.

You will probably notice there is no need to remember the specifics of every opening, unless the play is very sharp. So, if you're committed to saccing a pawn you probably want to know that or avoid that line. (Of course I'm referring to the 2 knights or the open variation of the Spanish)

I hope that helps and have fun!

Daniel Naroditsky covered how to choose and develop an opening repertoire in depth in his series "The Naroditsky method". A bit pricey, but I think it is worth it.

https://thechessworld.com/supercharge/naroditsky-method/

If you get it from IChess.net and message carlos, he might be able to give you a 50% discount as it has been on sale multiple times.

Geez, why didn't I think of that?  That'll change my attitude and make learning and developing my opening repertoire fun.

I was kinda imagining in my mind that serious chess players were like mad scientists cooking things up in the privacy of their labs/homes, chuckling madly as they develop and concoct lines to spring upon unsuspecting and hapless victims when OTB time comes.  Rubbing their hands in mad glee, trying to maintain poker face as the lure works in baiting the fish to bite.  Like Dr. Nefario!

Dr. Nefario has fun prepping his opening repertoire.  I just want to learn to have fun too, so I can do it without hating it.

Thanks Logozar!  

Also, do you enjoy and have fun in studying openings and building up your repertoire?  If so, can you articulate why that is, and how you make it enjoyable?  What do you imagine?  Or what pleasure motivates you to eagerly study openings?

Play 1.g3 2.Bg2 and c4!! against almost everything as white and 1...g6 2.Bg7 and 3...c5!! against almost everything as black.  This is my have fun, no theory, no haters repertoire that will make you skip about like a spring lamb full of the joys of life.  Have fun!

Neh, most club players know a couple of lines 10 or 15 moves deep after years of play. So, suppose you know the minimum to survive the Spanish, Italian/2 knights, the Russian/Petrof, the King's gambit, the Sicilian, the French, the Caro Kann, the Scandinavian and the Pirc and forget the rest unless it is played, then you can start with no more than 150 moves. For example, add 30-45 more moves for the KID and you have an eloborate club player's repertoire of less than 200 moves. I'll bet if you actually make it to 200 moves you'll know more than most people in your area.   

Everyone is telling you how to study openings. but I'm not sure anyone has actually answered your question - how to have fun studying them.

For me, the fun in learning openings has come from enjoyment of the particular positions that arise and excitement about getting these positions in my games. The first time I saw some of the variations that come up in the Marshall in the Ruy Lopez, my eyes lit up, and I knew this was what I wanted to play with black. I've been a life-long Marshall player, with a nearly 100% win record with it (in part because IMs and GMs have universally avoided it against me).

A corollary to this thought is this: opening lines are generally dry. There is nothing fun about memorizing lines. Understanding the principles behind the lines, which you should obviously be doing, is a bit more fun, but still... not really. It's like studying physics or chemistry or anything from a book and doing problems on paper - not exciting.

What is exciting? Seeing actual games played in the opening, and playing it yourself. Whatever book you choose for your opening study (I'm going to stay away from that debate), make sure you look not just at variations, but at games played by GMs and others in those lines. Are KID lines fun to learn? Not really. Are the KID games of Bronstein, Kasparov, and Nakamura, where they sac half their pieces and give mate with the other half, fun to see? HELLZ TO DA YEAH!

To go back to the science metaphor - I didn't really ever enjoy learning biology from a textbook. But the first time I did an experiment and it worked - oooh yeah. Different world.

As far as what openings best suit your style - no one knows that better than yourself. A coach could help you here, but in the end it'll come down to what feels right. For example, I've tried 1...e5, 1...c5, and 1....e6 against 1.e4, but only 1...e5 has ever felt good. I've played things like the KID and the Dutch against 1.d4, but the Gruenfeld is my one true love (and the Nimzo on occasion - a man's gotta have variety ).

Hope this helps. Good luck.

I have spent many hours studying the opening, often enjoying it very much (sometimes analyzing/preparing a line for multiple hours in a row).

I'd be happy to discuss studying the opening/having fun studying with you, but I'd prefer to do it in a live-chat. Can you send me a friend request, and possibly meet me in live chess sometime?

This is an excellent point. One of the main reasons why I often like to study the opening is I have multiple openings that I like to play very much.

We are all different. When I was starting I'd get defeated a lot in the two knights, so then I'd spend a long time figuring out the best reply so next time it would not be that easy! So I would know a lot of lines or methods of play even when I was very young. If I could ''solve'' the problem to my satisfaction and win some practice games, I'd be happy.

I have never had this typical aversion to theory, so if I was browsing and looking at the semi-slav or the noteboom, I'd think, well that is so awesome some time I need to play that! And I do!

That being said, I would still focus on learning ONE thing at a time. I have a decent memory but even I can't remember everything at once. So that is my main tip. 

By far the best post here, Mr. Chudnovsky.  Some learn well from books because they are naturally studious while others learn by doing.  At lower levels I still think open games are the best to become familiar with because closed positions often transition to open ones.  However, as you said, Daniel will have to figure out what middlegames he likes to play best and which openings take him there.  For example, Alekhine didn't do well with the Caro-Kann, which he tried in his younger years; it just didn't fit his aggressive nature.

Chess is no fun!!!!

Opening preparation has always been my main weakness, so I shouldn't be a talker here.  That said, I know the main lines of all popular openings, 5-10 moves in usually - although my repertoire may be outdated, as I prepared it a long time ago, by reading very old (from 60-s) books, and since then I only learned, at best, a few dozen new lines.

The way I did this was by reading a couple comprehensive opening books written by Soviet GMs (I don't remember the exact books now, sorry). I would read about a few lines, with detailed explanation of the ideas behind then, and then look at master games played with those lines, paying special attention to the way they developed their pieces and what pawn structures they strived to obtain. This ingrained the knowledge in my head, because I didn't just memorize the lines, but I understood why those lines were what they were - so, even when my opponents would deviate from those lines, I still understood what my goal was and could easily adapt to the novel situation on the board.

Again, my current opening preparation is severely lacking, it is way below what people at this rating are supposed to know, so take my comment with a grain of salt.