Do I need an "Opening Repertoire"?

I am starting to take chess more seriously and just recently became a USCF member and will start playing OTB tournaments soon and join my local chess club. I'm obviously not a very strong player and was wondering at the 1500 - 1600 level is it necessary to have multiple responses to say e4? Right now online, I exclusively play Alekhine and would guess that in 70% plus of my games I have an edge by move 10. This is because I've really studied the opening hard and know it well. I've listened to the advice on here to not fall into the beginner's trap of learning so many openings and just learn one solid response to e4, one solid response to d4, and then as white know how to play e4 OR d4. Spend the rest of your study time on Middle game / End game stuff.

But live in tournaments and then in my local club I'm worried this approach may not work, as well because people will learn I play the Alekhine and prepare super well for it when they know they are going to play against me. Thoughts?

That also brings me to a second totally newbie question. Is there a way online to scout my openents who are USCF members to see their games (and by extension, for opponents to do the same for me once I have games under my belt)? I just joined a few days ago and I was trying to play around on the website to figure that out but couldn't seem to. I listen to Hanging Pawns (who plays in Europe) and he is always talking about how he scouts his opponents, and while I underestand how to do that for chess.com, I don't know how to do it for OTB games.

Who told you to only learn one opening as black and one as white? You should know at least two. 

The Alekhine is very tricky but objectively not so great, it's best used as a surprise weapon. I am sure you would have tremendous success with it if you wait for an opportune time to unleash it at club level. However learning the ins and outs of e5 would be a good idea. 

In the old days a lot of even the world's best would only play d4 or e4, eg. Fischer. Nowadays it is quite rare. You are better off in playing different openings, you won't be so predictable then and I think it's psychologically better than just playing the same opening every time. THIS DOES NOT MEAN you play the Grunfeld one day and the Benko the next, then you give the Belgrade Gambit a try, it means you have two-three openings you have studied in depth you can use over many years. One idea that makes sense is having a solid opening (eg. queen's gambit declined) and an aggressive one (eg. dutch).  

It's good to have back up openings.

I think you should have two defenses against 1.e4 and two defenses against 1.d4, if not three … and also two or three different lines against each defense.

Naturally, playing black requires less study.

Anyway, no rush as this isn't going to happen over night. Usually a back up opening is acquired after deciding to switch from one defense to another. A player will always be able to resort back to the previous defense, then it becomes your 2nd defense. 

As much as they prepare, if you know it, and I mean know it, NOT memorize it, they can prepare all they want.  They still won't win if you know what you are doing.  Quit worrying about them.

At the club I attend, everyone and their grandmother know that I play the French religiously!  Does that stop me and make me play something else?  Uhm, NO!

Here's the other catch.  Do you know A LINE for each variation?  Or do you KNOW THE ALEKHINE?  For example, in the exchange Variation, do you know both ...cxd5 and ...exd5 and play them both?  Classical, as in 4.Nf3, do you know 4...Bg4 AND 4...dxe5?

That is why they can't out-prepare me in the French.  Let's say you have a 3.Nc3 player.  First time I face him or her, I play the Winawer with 7...O-O, next time I play the Rubinstein, the next time I play the Winawer with 7...Kf8, the next time I play the McCutchen (or Steinitz if 4.e5), the next time I play the Portisch-Hook, etc.

Next, take the Tarrasch player at the club.  Open with 5...Nf6, then Closed, then Open with 5...Nc6, then Rubinstein, etc.

The solution for you is to know the Alekhine in its entirety, do not play other openings just to avoid opponent prep.  He saw you play 5...cxd6 in round 2 as he was at the board next to you, you face him in round 4, play 5...exd6 instead.  His prep is shot.

Once they know you mean business and play various lines, good luck trying to prepare every line!  If my opponent has prepared the Classical, McCutchen, 7...O-O Winawer, 7...Kf8 Winawer, 7...Nf5 Winawer, Poisoned Pawn, Portisch-Hook, and the Rubinstein, well, congrats, it will still be a fight!

ThrillerFan, that's much too committal for people these days.

This is awesome. And no. I am guilty as charged. I know the lines that I play in the Alekhine very well but I don't play different variations. I don't really have to when I play online and I'm somewhat anonymous. That's why I was listening to feedback and I'm glad to hear what you said. That makes a lot of sense.

No one has answered my other question. As a USCF member when I start playing in tournaments how can I look up what other people play or have played in the past and how will they do that for me? Is there somewhere where I can view past games from people.?

How so?  You want him to learn a whole new opening against 1.e4.  All I am saying is learn the Alekhine, not just sub variations of it.

If anything, it is far less work mastering an opening rather than learning bits and pieces of multiple openings.  If he already knows the 5...cxd5 Exchange and the 4...dxe5 Classical and the ...d6 Chase, which is less work?  Learning the 5...exd5 Exchange, 4...Bg4 classical, 4...g6 classical, and ...b6 chase?  Or learning the Petroff and all of White's offshoots, like the Kings Gambit and Vienna?  Or learning the whole Caro-Kann just to get a second defense?

He'd be much better off expanding in what he already knows!

Where to find games depends on the player.  Below 2200, they are few and far between.  I think I have something like 10 of my games floating in databases, and I am an expert.

Sometime state sites will have more, like NC streams many of their games on a streaming site, which you might find a link to from their state site.  So if you are facing a TX player below 2000, maybe look at Websites by Texas chess organizations, like the state site and local club sites.  It is hit or miss.

If you are facing an IM or GM, online database sites, like 365chess, should work.

Okay so at my level it sounds like it will be fairly difficult to see the previous games of my opponents and they will have difficulty seeing mine. This brings me back to my other point. Is it really worth the time to focus on opening or should I be spending more of the time on middlegame in endgame given that I know my pet lines for my opening pretty darn well? Everything I read or listen to suggests people typically err on the side on spending too much time on openings.

That was a sarcastic joke aimed at the youth of today.

ThrillerFan has a habit of being a contrarian. What might work for him may not be applicable to others. I think vast majority of people will advise that you learn more than one opening.  

I'd say if you are going to spend time on the opening, play over GM games of that opening.  Try to understand the plans of the positions that arise.  

You do want to spend time on endgames.  At the 1500+ range, your endgame skill will be a huge factor in deciding if you win or lose.

And all uhohspaghettio1 does is continuously contradict anything I say, not matter how wrong his own statement is.  I could say the sky is blue and he's say it was red, or I could say potatoes grow under the ground and he'd say they grow on trees.

Trust me on this one - Expanding within your own opening of choice rather than starting over from scratch with a whole new opening is the way to go.  It does multiple things:

1) It takes less time to expand on as n opening you already know than it does to learn a whole second opening.  This leaves you with more time for middle games and endgames.  At your level, no more than 25 percent of your time should be spent on openings.

2) It makes you just as unpredictable as someone that plays 3 openings

3) It will help your own game as it will diversify the positions and force you to think and analyze every game rather than getting in a rut and playing moves out of habit and then when someone switches the move order on you, you don't get complacent and blunder in the opening.

I would advise this approach to anybody, whether it be Alekhine, French, Najdorf, Caro-Kann, Dragon (i.e. learn both the regular and Chinese Dragon), Pirc, etc.

I understand entirely what you're saying, ThrillerFan, and for the most part, I agree.

It's definitely not good to make such a radical switch, but what you're doing is probably a little easier to do in the French than with some other openings.

I've been playing the Sicilian since 1995 or 96 and I switch from one Sicilian to another, but that's almost like switching to a whole new opening.

Also, switching from one line to another could be switching from one line that equalizes to one that is just downright inferior.

I agree with the guy that said the Alekhine is a good surprise weapon, but it would be better stated as a back up opening.

Even still, someone can play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6!? and get into some Alekhine like positions. There are several lines black can play against two or three anti-Sicilians that result in Alekhine like positions.

I think it's good to play multiple openings that lead to similar pawn structures and positions with the same strategic ideas.

I don't think that it's ideal, but good.

Also, sometimes a single defense can lead to wildly different and diverging pawn structures. Ultimately, the player is going to have to learn a lot more to play something like the Nimzo-Indian than to take up two or three defenses against 1.d4 ...

There are reasons why people pay chess coaches.

Sooner or later it helps.  Depends on where you are in your chess strength.

Notice I said Najdorf, Dragon, etc.  Not "Sicilian".

1...e5 and 1...c5 are too big to cover the whole thing.  I wouldn't even switch between Sicilians.

Najdorf - Against 6.Bg5, don't just do 6...e6, but also 6...Nbd7.  Against Be3, you have lines where you go for a full Queenside attack, and you have the early ...h5 lines, etc.

Dragon - Chinese, Regular

Accelerated Dragon - Against 5.Nc3, you have 7...O-O, 7...Qa5.  Against the Maroczy Bind, you do not quite have the flexibility

Taimanov - Take the "Long Variation", that is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 a6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.O-O Bb4 9.Na4.  Now, you have 9...Bd6, 9...Be7, and 9...O-O.  It would not be hard to learn all 3.  There is also a point where Black has 2 legit options in the English Attack, but do not recall what those moves are.  I want to say it is in the early teens for move number.

I think what you are thinking is that deviations need to be early.  They do not!  For the French, it may be move 7.  For the Najdorf, it may be move 6.  For the Taimanov, it might not be until move 9 or double digits.  Not saying go from the Najdorf to the Taimanov.

That's not what I was thinking … I was thinking more like the Qa5 lines in the Accelerated Dragon are statistically sub-optimal and you're better off just playing d7-d6 and transposing to a Dragon.

The Najdorf has numerous lines that are good against every line white has.

The Sicilian, in general, wouldn't be a good example of how one line is clearly superior.

However, it's a good example of how switching from one Sicilian defense to another is not comparable to switching from one line in the French to another.

Also, switching from one line in a particular Sicilian defense isn't comparable to switching lines in the French.

Obviously, something like the Sicilian Dragon in it's entirety isn't as vast as the French as a whole.

Anyway, the first switch I made was from the Accelerated Dragon to the Dragon, and there is certainly a little over lap there. Other than the ability to meet certain anti-Sicilians is a requirement, it's important that if you're playing the Accelerated, you don't allow white to transpose to the Yugoslav attack, just as if you're trying to play the regular Dragon, you don't let white transpose to the Maroczy bind ...

There is also a 6.h3 line against the Dragon and h2-h3 in the 5.Nc3 line of the Accelerated that lead to the exact same positions.

Of course there are a lot of fianchetto set ups for black against anti-Sicilians … so this wasn't much of a switch.

Later I switched from the Dragon to the Sveshnikov.

One important note … I play the open Sicilian, and that definitely makes it easier for me to switch from one Sicilian defense to another. Quite often, I've switched lines as white against the different Sicilian defenses, so I've learned numerous lines before switching from one defense to another with black.

If you are playing long time controls it would be crazy to not know which lines you prefer at the very least... I would suggest alekhine is a great choice as it is forcing, sound and rarely encountered. You will know it much better than your opponent and only in a small minority of your games will they play critical lines to move 10.

Study the lines a little bit... Play it in blitz... Check where you went wrong... You will get E4 nf6 on the board in 30% of your games and learn very fast! 

10 moves deep isn't very deep in the Alekhine. Remember, that knight gets moved two or three times before either side even start to move pieces off their back rank. By the time the position just looks 10 moves deep, in comparison to another opening, it's more like 20.

I learned the exchange variation fairly well before I started playing the Alekhine with black. You will run into players that know the line they are playing much better than you do. The thing is, you're having to learn every line and white is only having to learn one. Of course white is having to learn a line against every possible black defense, but that is idealistically. In reality, people neglect one area of study and over do it in another. So some people you will run into, and they know nothing about the Alekhine Defense, and then there is that one guy that knows nothing about the French but everything about the four pawns variation against the Alekhine Defense.

A lot of chess players choose a defense based on the false premise that their opponents won't know it as deep. The more and more you improve, and the better and better competition you play, the better and better they are with the white pieces.

I can remember playing a guy and he was beating me so badly in the Nimzo-Indian, I asked him if he was cheating. Of course he was angry, but the next game I switched to the Grunfeld and obliterated him … well, that answered that. He definitely wasn't cheating. I suspected that maybe he also plays the Nimzo and maybe that's how he knows so much. No … after checking his games in opening explorer. That was not the case. He must have just specialized in stomping the Nimzo-Indian Defense. Maybe his/her abusive step father played the Nimzo and he/she was on a life mission to trounce everybody that played it against him/her. Who knows? But the person was lower rated than me, didn't play the Nimzo with black, but knew the opening much better than me.

Some people just have an expert or chess master friend and playing against this friend will cause them to have to know specific lines very deep.