How did your opening repertoire evolve as you improved?

I'd prefer hearing from players rated around 1500 and up; I’m curious how your opening choices developed as you got better. Did you stick with one setup that just clicked early on, or did your repertoire change a lot as you learned more?

How many different openings do you actually use these days, both with White and Black? And do you feel like experimenting with new openings helped your improvement, or did it slow you down compared to focusing on one consistent repertoire?

Would love to hear your experiences and what worked best for you.

I'm not sure if I qualify as to the level of player you are inquiring about. However, for me there really hasn't been much evolution in my opening repertoire. I began by playing 50+ blitz games for each of the classical 1.e4 e5 openings and defenses and settled on those that for whatever reason I found appealing. As white I settled on the center Game and quickly moved to the Danish Gambit and its cousins. As Black I just played 1.e4 e5 and had to learn various response to all the popular 1.e4 openings. Later I tried each of the half-open defenses, approaching them as I did 1.e4,with the exception of the Sicilian, Pirc, and Modern Defenses which I deliberately decided NOT to play. Although I did well with the half-open defenses I chose to return to 1.e4 e5, as I considered the half-opens "unseemly", and adopted the Petrov's Defense. I am not skilled enough to play any 1.d4 opening (besides considering them somewhat 'skulking"). As defenses I played the QGD, then progressed to the Slav, and finally settled on the QGA. So .as white I first adopted 1. e4 openings and quickly moved to the Danish Gambit where I have remained ever since, and I quickly settled on the Petrov, where I remained. Responses to 1.d4 took a little longer but settled fairly quickly on the QGA where I have stayed ever since. I only play the Danish Gambit and its cousins, the Scotch and Goring gambits as white. As Black, my sole 1.e4 defense is the Petrov. Against the half-open defenses, I play the Smith-Morra vs. the Sicilian, the Panov-Botvinnik vs the Caro, the main line vs the Scandi and Alekhine, the Fromm's Gambit vs the Bird. Everything else is basically "play by principle". My opening repertoire has hardly evolved.

I learned how to play chess in 1983. An RA in college in 1995 ran a cess event and introduced the concept of the USCF. I picked up mummy first 3 chess books, Winning Chess Tactics by Seiriwan, Winning Chess Strategies by Seiriwan, and How To Win in the Chess Endings by IA Horowitz. Each took about a month, going from mid-September to end of Fall 1995 Semister.

During that time, many of us were playing chess in the lobby late nights about thrice a week. The only "opening" any of us heard of was the Queen's Gambit, and many games began 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Qa4+ and 4.Qxc4. But one of the players, who like the RA, was more experienced (about 1400 USCF), and played 1.e4. I often played him and experimented with structures using opening concepts. I would play e5 and Nc6, e5 and d6, d6 and e5 (allowing 2.d4), e6 and d5, c6 and d5, all of this not knowing what an opening was. The Sicilian was never a factor, nor was anything involving a fianchetto.

After a few months, while I was reading the end game book, one structure I started getting comfortable with. I asked if this opening had a name. I was told "Yes, it's the French Defense".

My 4th book was Winning With the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann, going through all 60 games, usually one a night and then playing when the others arrived.

The French is still in my repertoire today, 30 years later.

The Queen's Gambit I figured out not to take on c4 and played 2...e6, and played the Queen's Gambit as White.

Because of all the dirty habits of Qa4 and Qxc4, the QG was harder to learn than the French. The French came to me like a baby becoming left ot right handed. The defense to d4 and White did not.

This is why I have been all over the place with White and Black against d4 in my 29 years thus far of OTB Tournament play.

White - QG in 1996, KIA in 1997, QG and things like the KID 4 pawns until 2001 where I started playing e4. 1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.b3, 1.b4, back to 1.d4 and e4 all through the years until COVID. Post-COVID, 1.e4 July 2020 to May 2022, 1.b4 May 2022 to Sep 2024, then 1.d4 since with Tromp, Torre, Neo-London.

Black vs d4 - again, all over the place. 1...d5, Nimzo, Grunfeld, Leningrad Dutch, then about 10 years of KID, but the 13.Rc1 line of the Mar Del Plata has made me abandon it during COVID for the Stonewall and Classical Dutch instead, which is what I play now.

Black vs e4 - French by birth. Now I dabbed over the years with the Caro, Pirc, 1...e5/2...Nc6, Najdorf, Taimanov, Modern, even the Alekhine in 2 games. I was looking for a second Defense. Also, the French Advance went under a bit of a crisis in 2007 in the Advance. I played the Berlin most of 2008 and the Taimanov most of 2009 to 2012. In 2012, I brought the French back after the issues in the Advance were resolved. From 2012 to 2014, it was French with some Taimanovs thrown in. In 2014, my secondary opening changed from the Taimanov to the Petroff after a phenominal performance in the 2014 US Open in Orlando where I scored 4.5 out of 5 with Black and had a win, loss, and 2 draws, both the draws against 2300s, with White playing 1.b4 then. So the Petroff became my backup to the French. In September 2024, when I realized the phenominal results in the French exchange and "eh" results in the Tarrasch, Advance, and 3.Nc3, I flipped. The Petroff became my primary and the French my backup.

So today, now in my 50s and not looking to play every opening under the sun, I play 1.d4 as White heading into a neo-London or a Torre or Trompowsky, depending mainly on whether or not Black has played d5 in the first two moves, and as Black, it is the Petroff, French, and Dutch. I play the Petroff 95% of the time when White plays 1.e4 with maybe a French thrown in once in a blue moon. Against 1.d4, I play 1...e6 to avoid the Gambits and 2.Bg5 against the Dutch, and this is more often how I get into a French - 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5. I also play this move order as White. If Black goes 1...e6, I play 2.e4.

And that is how today I arrived at a Torre/London/Trompowsky, Petroff, French, and Dutch repertoire that I play today as a senior player.

As far as rating, I have been in the 2000s or 2100s for the last 24 years with an occasional dip into the 1900s over the board. Have never reached 2200 USCF. 2185 is my high.

i had a super broad opening repertoire until about 1800, then i narrowed down, till NM, and now that i have come back to playing after an 7 year tournament break, are adding a bunch of stuff slowly.

Thanks to all for the responses. @ThrillerFan Can you elaborate on the "French advance crisis"? The French defense is actually at the top of my short list for black openings I'm going to commit to. I've already started in on the book "The Flexible French".

In 2007, there were a lot of things found in the French Advance that favor White and shortly after that, a line that isn't great for White, but is VERY complicated and you REALLY need to know your theory.

The biggest problem for Black comes in the 6...Nh6 line. Once upon a time, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Bb2 was the ultra-main line of the French Advance, where Black had 9...Be7, against which ONLY 10.Bd3 would maintain a slight advantage, or 9...Bd7 (my preference), against which ONLY 10.g4 (otherwise 10...h5!) would give White a slight edge. 9...Be7 10.g4 is answered by 10...Nh4! and 9...Bd7 10.Bd3 loses to capturing on d4.

However, a cold rain has hit Black's Back when they updated the theory and found that White has a SIGNIFICANT improvement with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.a3 Nh6?! 7.b4 cxd4 8.Bxh6!! - You must play 7.b4 first and not go for the "old" 7.Bxh6, which is dubious at best and probably worse than that.

So now, Black has to resort to 6...c4.

The other issue was in the 6.Be2 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nh6 line. Here, 8.Bxh6!!, allowing ...Qxb2, is very strong for White. Black instead needs to play the Modern 7...f6 or else 7...Nge7, which the latter still prevents 8.O-O?? As 8...Nf5 still loses the pawn, but 8.Na3 Nf5 9.Nc2 is possible, which it's not after 7...Nh6.

Those 2 lines have caused headaches for those that play the 5...Qb6 line (or 4...Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6, in order to avoid the 5.Be3 line). If you play ...Qb6, combining that with ...Nh6 is now a problem for Black.

As I am sure you can imagine, I was amongst those that played those Nh6 lines. Now I play 6...c4 against 6.a3 and 7...Nge7 in the 6.Be2 line.

The complicated line that you need to know all theory was popularized by Gaiwan Jones (he was not the "inventor" of the line) when his book on coffee house openings came out. It starts out like a milner-barry gambit, but when Black takes on d4 with the pawn, you don't take back. You castle! 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.O-O. Very, VERY, complicated.

In addition to the previous post, you will see changes in his more recent books. The Flexible French was 2008. I actually do not own that book. I own The Even More Flexible French from 2015 and The Fully fledged French from the early 20's, along with many other French books, including Sveshnikov's 2 books on the Advance French. If you look at Moskalenko's latest one, The Fully Fledged French, he also acknowledges there that ...Nh6 is no good, not by bluntly saying it, but now he gives ...Nge7 against 6.Be2 and ...c4 against 6.a3.

I have not seen anything to cause doubt in 5...Nh6, a line from Dangerous Weapons: The French, but mixing ...Nh6 and ...Qb6 is causing problems for Black.