Do you play same openings all the time?

Do you stick with well known lines and position that you are familar with and play them all the time OR you are familar with many different openings and you mix them against specific opponents or randomly.

If you play couple openings that you know well.. how did you choosed them? Did you tried all others before that? If not how do you handle the fact that you might be far weaker on position you usually skip due to specific opening choice? 

If you play just chess, many different positions,  no matter the opening... you soon will reach a wall where opponents outplay you in the opening.. Now what? How to choose an opening to study it deep ... you played so many.. but you don't understand them..

 as white yes. as black if opponent plays 1.e4 yes. as black if opponent plays 1. d4 no either KID or QID. against 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 I force them into a queens pawn opening line.

hm good question for me

I would say part of the reason I don't play the same openings all the time is that I change my openings all the time. lol. Particularly as black. But even as white I had a long period where I was playing both e4 and d4, and I've played many, many things against the Sicilian.

But nowadays I have a few pet lines I really enjoy. Most of them probably are not objectively that great. 

Funny though, this past weekend I played an opening as black I have never played before, without even knowing the theory (Blumenfeld Gambit). I had decided before I was going to learn this opening, and didn't get around to doing that before my tournament, and decided to try it out in the game anyway even though I didn't know what I was doing. And then I won vs a 2130 anyway so I guess it worked out  

Congratulations! Strange as it may seem, maybe playing something unknown for the first time and then winging it, and only checking the theory after the game, is the best way to learn (not necessarily best way to win a tournament ). After all, it's hard to commit information into memory when it's all so abstract!

My personal example: I've looked at Fischer vs Fine (1963), the infamous 17 moves-long Evans Gambit miniature from MSMG several times in my life. While I did some analysis during the reviews, I never could remember the key ideas, much less the move order within a week. Pretty sure it was because I used to despise the Evans as a Patzer's opening. But then, I played the Evans for the first time this month, just winging it and managed to finish off a 1750 in the rapid pool here with a rook sacrifice. After going back to look at Fischer vs Fine once more, the ideas and variations all became much clearer to me.

I was a life-long e4/Najdorf/KID player until a year ago, but then a string of 3 weird tournaments (where in total, I never lost with White/e4, but scored 20% with Black in various anti-Siclians against lower-rated White players) convinced me that learning the Najdorf was a waste of time since I wasn't getting mainlines and that I shouldn't be playing unsymmetrical/hypermodern stuff with my weak fundamentals. Since then I've learnt to play the QGD and symmetrical King's pawn defence, and I think it has improved my fundamental play. I hope to break 2000 on chess.com rapid by the end of the year and aim for a podium finish in my city's year-end U2000 tournament.

I tend to play the same openings but they tend to transpose into others or others offer a solution to a development problem and I change.  For a while I played the Queen's Gambit Declined and often had a hard time getting my Q's Bishop into the game after ...e6 blocked it in and made it a Bad Bishop.  So I discovered the Slav defense played ...c6 instead of ...e6 early, letting me get my Bad Bishop outside my Pawn Chain.  But sometimes 1 d4 d5 was answered by 2 e4 and found myself transposed with 2...c6 into the Caro-Kann so I studied that.

As a 1 e4 player as White I had decent luck with the Bishop's Opening, but I seem to do better when it transposes into the Vienna Game, so now I play the Vienna.

As white I'll play just about anything in blitz, including kinda dubious lines like Owen's Defense. For serious games as white I normally stick with queen's pawn or the English. As black vs e4, Sicilian Kan or Najdorf or the French. Vs d4, Semi-Slav or Budapest occasionally. Anything else, I'll often play a Semi-Slav style system with b6, Bb7 and c5, or a Pirc/Modern/KID set up.

To answer the OP:

I play 1.e4, 1.d4, and 1.b4 as White.  I play the French and Caro-Kann against 1.e4, and the King's Indian and Nimzo-Indian as Black against 1.d4.

There are many factors that decide what I play:

1) Mood!  Am I simply just not in the mood to play a French today?  Ok, I'll play my secondary defense, the Caro-Kann.

2) Opponent - I have played in well over 2500 tournament games over the board.  There are many opponents I have played NUMEROUS TIMES.  Do they have a specific weakness?  Are they erratic and can't handle positional chess?  Torre (against Nf6/g6 or Nf6/e6) or Colle (against early d5 lines) is what you get!  Are you of the "safe" type that hates being attacked?  1.e4 here I come!  Are you one that always plays the Modern Defense?  1.b4 here I come and you are out of your comfort zone!

If I am traveling to a major tournament, and don't know my opponent, I tend to play my "bread and butter" unless I specifically in the mood to play something else, or if I am psychologically defeated after taking a bad loss in said Bread and Butter opening, like if I just got Shalacked in the King's Indian, have to play Black again, and face 1.d4, I may just throw out the Nimzo/QGD (3.Nc3/3.Nf3) or defend the Catalan.  Otherwise, it's typically French and King's Indian.

3) Need.  Do you need a win at all cost where a draw is as good as a loss (typical in final round)?  I'm playing the KID.  Would a draw suffice?  Would a draw actually win the whole thing?  Nimzo is more likely!

1. I usually play the same openings (till I get bored or unhappy with them)

2. With White I am happy with a playable position that I understand. With Black (especially against e4) I tried almost everything  till I found an opening I feel comfortable with: Ruy closed (too complicated) -->  Open Ruy (my queenside was too weak) --> Ruy sidelines (too unsound) --> Sicilian (Did I play 1 ...c5 to face all those Anti-Sicilians?) --> French Rubinstein (solid) --> Scandinavian (a simplified version of the French)    

Currently im frustrated and right now will temporary skip some ofyour replies cuz i want to ask this question - big problem of mine..

То 1.e4 players with white... How do you play for the win,  against the one million possible anti-sharp lines that black might reply... I mean so many lines in 1...c5 , so many vs 1..c6 or ..e5 russian/berlin.. that just kills your attack on king side.. Is my aproach wrong? Do i have to forget all the rage and agressive play that i know from blitz and play slow positional chess to win in classic time controls?? But players just wait to me to blunder specially if i push too hard or counter attack.. and i lose..

Do you have specific system that is almost universal vs all of them...

For example 1.e4 c5.. I play Grand prix attack.. But is impossible in most of the lines if black goes e6/a6/Nc6 etc some anti grand prix.. what then.. do you switch to positional aproach(but less likely to win)..Do you still know and follow theory EVEN if it leads to position you don't like?

Do you know exactly what you have to do in every single diversion and are you comfortable with it?

Do you still push same ideas somehow.. and just play chess even if you dont know lines after move 6 or 7..... 

What you do if black transpose to position you don't like...

IN COMPARSION with  1.d4 for example LONDON SYSTEM ... 90% of time YOU DON'T CARE what blak plays.. you always go your well known system and you play chess and win... i mean wtf..

Why they say play 1.e4.. for U2000.. so much theory is useless to memorize... tactics and calculation is way more importhant than those opening knowledge.. but is so bad when you dont know opening and your opponent knows it...

In 3 min or 10 min  i don't care.. i can play every position and win.. But in 60+30 or longer is just PAIN if you have to strugle after 5-7 moves and to have to play position you never played before and same time your opponent knows it and have confiedence.. you burn energy.. time.. and you might blunder... no fun and you dont want to lose.. You start playing solid passive and you are feeling how you are getting outplayed.. you say enough , start to attack and you blunder and game over anyway...

I pretty much play the same openings as White and Black because I don't know anything else (I don't even know the stuff I play as Black particularly well).

Most people shouldn't worry at all about getting drawish positions out of the opening. Players well into the 2100s make really dumb mistakes in some of the simplest of positions. It's kind of a cop-out answer, but if you follow fundamental principles and don't blunder, you just win  Though this is easier said than done and some people find it more natural than others.

Against 1...c5, you could consider *the* Closed Sicilian. It looks similar to the Grand Prix, but with more potent options although a bit more theory. Still much less compared to the average mainstream opening.

I'm not a fan of playing against Berlins (is anyone?) so against 1...e5, I just play 2. Bc4 and occasionally 4. d3 against the Berlin instead of 4. O-O.

I have taken to heart the counsel to not spend serious study on the openings until I hit 1800.   Or was it 2000.

My goal out of the opening is to just reach a playable middlegame.  Given that goal, I am usually the first player  to deviate and the both of us are in murky waters.    Which I think is good.

Given that, I do what the commenter above says, it all depends on my mood.  

Important caveat:  I have only played 10/0 blitz.  Haven't played a real tournament in many years. 

Depending on mood:

For white I open either 1.e4 or 1.d4 (1.e4 to lead to Italian Game or Evan's Gambit or play accordingly a Two Knight's setup vs semi-open or closed game, or 1.d4 Colle-Zukertort, 150 as circumstances dictate)

For black I will respond to 1.e4 with e5, lines like Two Knights, Berlin, or Fishing Pole. Sometimes Latvian Gambit. I will almost respond with 1. ... e5 as long as white does not attack the e5 square on the first move. Against 1.d4 I go into King's Indian setup. Sometimes Tchigorin's Defense and sometimes Albin Counter Gambit.