Does it make sense for a 1700 Elo player to play both 1.e4 AND 1.d4 ?
Sort:
9 hrs ago
0
#2
No repertoires are not good for intermediate players, just get one opening you like and play it for white and one opening you like and play it for black. The difference between a GM and you is that gms after making a single mistake will never get a chance to comeback because their opponent is too good
I don't know whether I should play 1.e4 or 1.d4, so I thought: why not play both? Would it be too much work? What might make the problem even worse is that the 1.e4 repertoire and the 1.d4 repertoire that I designed are each already wider than usual (compared to the repertoires of other intermediate players), and they are almost entirely composed of mainlines (except against the Sicilian, where I play the Alapin). My Black repertoire is narrow, so it is only my White repertoire that would require a lot of work.
It would make me impredictable. It would make it very difficult for my opponents to prepare against me. It would dissuade my opponents from even trying to prepare against me. At least, when I have the White pieces.
In the computer age (21st century), GMs usually have wide repertoires. Many GMs play both 1.e4 and 1.d4. But intermediate players almost always have narrow repertoires: they either play 1.e4 or 1.d4, not both. If wide repertoires are good for GMs, are they not also good for intermediate players?