How many Openings do you play???

Apparently I only play 6 different openings and 2 of them, the English and Sicilian, I decided to just try out for the heck of it (according to chess.com).

Four different openings really enough to be able to play both sides of the game? I play the Bird's opening as White and occasionally mix it up and play the Queen's Gambit. As Black, I play either the Scandinavian against e4 and Dutch Defense against d4.

Could having a low # of opening choices/repertoire hold back someone from getting better? 

In real life club chess I play about 4 really (I’m ecf 130, about 1650 elo) I prefer e4 with white and love the Vienna gambit (I really like the King’s Gambit, but am a bit anxious about playing it in 90 minute league chess. With the Vienna you can then go for a kind of better protected Kings Gambit or move into easy to play Guico Piano or Ruy Lopez. I play the Morra Gambit against the Sicilian - also attacking and it gives great tactical chances. As black v e4 the Alekhine, v d4 ideally the Albin Counter Gambit, but there are loads of natural development ways to play v Other d4 openings. If you play good developing moves in unusual situations you aren’t ready for you’ll at least get going and be able to have a chance in the middle game. Too much opening work as a moderate player isn’t really worth it. You just want to be able to get into the game, rather than rely on opening tricks and traps which will only catch out the unwary or newer players.

I was advised by a teacher to stick to a few which suit me - you get relatively expert in, in my case, relatively offbeat attacking openings, you always avoid getting crushed in the opening and you can start to feel like you are getting the initiative, even against much stronger players. Extra book research is also simplified, if you want to do it, as you are looking at fewer lines (I don’t - I’m better off spotting tactics in the middle game and working on endgames at my improving level, I think.) This approach has served me well. I get few draws, but a lot of wins and very exciting, satisfying games. It allows me to enjoy my chess, and you can learn more from defeats in your favourite openings. I’d recommend it, unless you are a much stronger player, perhaps, and you want more variety against players who have prepared specifically for you in a league match.

It's a falacy to say how many openings you play.

For example, if you play 1.d4/2.c4, you have to play the King's Indian, Dutch, Grunfeld, Benoni, Either Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, or Catalan, either QGD or Catalan, QGA, Slav, etc, but in each case, you only really need to know one line.  For example, if you know the Exchange Grunfeld, you don't need to know the Russian Variation (4.Nf3/5.Qb3)

 

As Black, let's say you play the French against 1.e4.  You need to know the Reti Variation (2.b3), the KIA, the Two Knights, the Exchange, the Advance, the Tarrasch, and something against 3.Nc3.  If you play the Winawer, there are all the anti-winawer lines (no 4.e5).  If you play the Classical or McCutcheon, you have to know the Steintiz as well (4.e5).  So here, you need to know a bunch of variations, but only one King Pawn opening.  You would also need a defense to d4, of course.  But you don't need to know a bunch of different openings.

 

So in both cases, you need to know a ton of variations.  In one case, it's knowing a variation or two of a bunch of different openings.  In the other, it's knowing a bunch of variations of one or two openings!

 

Like in my case, it's predominantly French and King's Indian as Black, but as White, it's a bunch of openings, but specific variations of each.

Thriller is correct, with some exceptions. If you're an e4 player as white, black can often dictate the terms. If black plays c5, you have no choice but to play the Sicilian. If black plays d5, you have no choice but to play the Scandinavian, and so on with the Caro, French, Pirc, Owen's, Modern, etc. While black can often choose the opening, it's usually white who can choose the variation.

This is one reason a lot of people choose system openings like the London because you don't have to learn as much. Instead of having to learn how to play in a variety of positions, you can just narrow it down to a few safe options that can pretty much guarantee you a reasonably comfortable game with decent winning chances. If you're not feeling enterprising as black and you see e4, you can play the Scandinavian and not have to worry about a zillion variations.

So yes, if you're an ambitious player and like sharp games with lots of possibilities, you have to be prepared for anything. If you are unambitious, and just want a nice safe game, there are things you can do to limit the number of possible ways that you have to play.

Bird's opening as white, Alekhine's defense against e4, and I don't face d4 often enough to have a set response, though I've sorta tried Old Benoni with mixed results. The idea of having less openings is that you can actually master those openings, and obviously many of its variations, structures, and ideas, so in that way it shouldn't be an impediment to getting better. On the other hand there is always the risk that by narrowing your focus you might miss important things in positions you're unfamiliar with.

Too many variations 😂

#1
"Apparently I only play 6 different openings and 2 of them, the English and Sicilian, I decided to just try out for the heck of it (according to chess.com)."

Four different openings really enough to be able to play both sides of the game?
++ It is too much.
You need 1) 1 defence against 1 e4, 2) 1 defence against 1 d4 and 3) 1 opening for white.

"I play the Bird's opening as White and occasionally mix it up and play the Queen's Gambit. As Black, I play either the Scandinavian against e4 and Dutch Defense against d4."
++ That is too much. Scandinavian, Sicilian: pick one. Dutch Defence: OK. Bird Opening, Queen's Gambit, English: pick one.

Could having a low # of opening choices/repertoire hold back someone from getting better?
++ No, on the contrary: the narrower the repertoire the better you get.
Fischer and Kasparov played Najdorf, King's Indian Defence, Ruy Lopez against everybody. Opponents were free to prepare. MVL plays Najdorf, Grünfeld Indian Defence, Ruy Lopez.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee:
I do not fear the man who has played a thousand openings;
I fear the man who has played one opening a thousand times.

i strongly disagree with this post. Improving players should try to be exposed to many different types of position  . This is perhaps the main reasons beginners are discouraged to play the london. Not because it is bad but because it becomes a lazy bad habit of only playing one thing as opposed to expanding their exposure to different positions. 

If your repertoire has too much width and not enough depth this will become apparent as you improve and can zoom in later on.

 

Both sides dictate, not Black.

In your example, 1.e4 c5, you say White has no choice.  He can play the Alapin (2.c3), Closed, Grand Prix, Open Sicilian, etc.

 

If he plays the open Sicilian, it does not become a Black dictatorship either.  He goes Najdorf?  You could play the English Attack (6.Be3), old main line (6.Bg5), the positional line (6.Be2), the Freak Attack (6.Rg1), etc.

 

As far as the London, it is not smooth sailing for White.  You have direct attacks on b2, you have fianchetto defenses, you have the Dutch, you have the Modern Defense (against which the London is bad and gives Black a slight edge), etc.

 

The London is actually very complicated, and many amateurs mistake it as an easy White opening and just assume you can close your eyes and play the same first 7 moves no matter what provided a piece is not directly under Attack.  That is so far from the truth!  This is why players that try to cookie-cut their way onto the London on the basis of figuring they can play that way all the time is why they never get past 1800 or so over the board.  Those that use the opening properly proceed further up the ranks in rating.

 

The English Opening is another such opening.  There are those that use it as a genuine opening, like Marin, and those amateurs that try to use it like a system - close your eyes, play c4, g3, Bg2, Nc3 and then open your eyes - these people FAIL!

To the contrary. Having a limited repertoire is a very logical idea, if you're hoping to improve at each opening.

You can expand your repertoire later, once you gain more experience. But in the beginning, it makes more sense to keep things limited, while you're still learning the ideas behind each opening.

When I was young I played everything. Coming back to chess after 40 years, I first looked thru my old games to see what I did well playing. Now I try to specialize because I'm old. I play 1 defense vs e4 and 1 vs d4. My d4 defense can be used vs most c4 openings.  Against trash I figure it out as I go.  As white, I need an idea of how to play vs Sicilians, Ruy Lopez's, various Frenches, Caro Kanns, .... .For each choice black can make I have 1 or 2 ideas how to play as white to get an interesting middlegame. Against trash I figure it out as I go.

what "thrash"?

I keep it simple, I play e4. And as black I play e5 or d5 depending on my opponents first move. 

Generally stuff that people play in blitz and would never try in an OTB game. 1. b3 : not trash but 1. b4 trash [IMO]. It's arguable of course but I think Schliemann: not trash, delayed Schliemann : borderline trash. Smith-Morra: borderline but BlackmarDiemer: trash. All just my opinion,-Bill

London and Modern defense.

Once I finish my studying regime on those 2 I’ll begin studying Caro and Vienna.

That’ll probably be it for most of my chess life.

Personally I’d rather get near mastery on 1 or 2 openings for white/black than dabble in a bunch.

I think I play 2 opening, It's Indian game and Four Knight Game 

I am often to play Indian game or King's pawn opening, absolutely

 

Contrary to chess.com's moronic naming convention with many error, the most glaring being the "French Variation" of the Sicilian Defense, which there I'd no such thing, I hate to break it to you but there is no such thing as the Indian Defense.

1.d4 Nf6 has no name yet.

There are the Nimzo-Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, King's Indian Defense, Bogo-Indian Defense, Grunfeld Indian Defense (New In Chess codes as opposed to ECO codes call it this), the Old Indian Defense, but there is no "Indian" Defense or "Indian Game".

 

It is just like you have the Queen's Gambit, King's Gambit, but there is no opening called The Gambit.

 

In fact, not all openings that start 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 have "Indian" in their name.  A few include:

 

The Benko Gambit

The Budapest Gambit

The Mexican Defense (also known as the less formal name, The Two Knights Tango)

 

oh no you didnt!

1.b4 is fine. Black can get easy equality, but this is offset by the fact that white will be extremely familiar with the positions while black will have faced it 1 out of every 1000 games.

To combine a few pieces of advice already given, I think it goes like this...

When you're new, focus on a few solid openings with clear ideas. Like queen's gambit declined.

When you're past the beginner stage, it's good to experiment with a lot of different types of middlegames (i.e. openings).

But after acquiring a well rounded knowledge, it's best to focus on a few openings again, and this time learn them deeply.