How the chess opening begins depends on the character of the person.

I have noticed more than once that the choice of a chess opening depends on the character. Different friends of mine play different chess openings. However, similar in character people play similar openings. Perhaps the choice of the chess openings depends on the style of the game, and already the style depends on the character. In general, you can tell your character traits and how this is reflected in the choice of your openings.

There is no correlation between opening and character or personality traits.

 

It's not like an innocent, kind, and beautiful young lady plays one opening and a drunk drug lord that has committed crimes plays another opening.  She may play something aggressive like the Modern Benoni and he may play the Berlin.

 

Like post 2, it's got more to do with which middle game positions a player truly understands that drives which opening a player plays.

I think it matters, for example, my friend plays Philidor's defense for black and for white stonewall attack and the London system are solid, very well studied and passive openings with the same positions about his friend I can say that he is a conservative and hoping for proven methods, in this case you can draw an allegory between the character and features of the game in these openings and they are quite similar

I would question whether that generalization applies to lower level players … maybe it does for more advanced or experienced tournament players. Some folks play in accordance to their personality (safe/solid/defensive versus risky/aggressive, narrow/focused repertoire versus wide/unpredictable repertoire, etc) while others play what they wish their personality was, since the worst consequence of playing any particular opening is merely losing a game. Still, others have no real clue as to why they play what they play, and simply try to follow the advice of superiors, coaches, and standard chess instruction (open with a central pawn, control the center, etc).

I think you're right, but I also think that after all, the individuality in the game and the choice of the debut does not depend on the rating or the strength of the game, but rather on the person himself. someone looked at the debut played by Magnus Carlsen and decided only to play it, but still sooner or later a person will choose the debut that suits them best in the style of the game, and the style of the game depends on the character

Yes, what opening you play changes your character. Playing the King's Indian makes you paranoid, playing the French makes you judgmental, playing the Modern Defense makes you shifty and eventually criminal.... Choose your openings wisely!

I hope this is a joke, I'm even sure it's a joke, but just in case, the choice of the debut does not affect the character, but it depends on certain qualities of a person

UKRANIA FREEDON!!!

Maybe if I played different openings my jokes would be funnier.

Yes, I agree with the Original Poster. For my opening preferences, I'm very much drawn to gambits. I want a fun game, where I've got the initiative, and I don't worry about being a pawn down. In my real life, I also don't mind a certain amount of risk and uncertainty. Moving to new cities, switching jobs, carrying minimal insurance, etc.  

Is chess more fun for people if they play openings that agree with their characteristics? (amateurs, I mean. The pro's can play everything well). 

I don't see the point of such comments here what is happening in Ukraine is very sad and it doesn't matter who and when started there are deaths and I hope that both our countries will end this genocide as quickly and peacefully as possible

well, yes, the features of your character suit your choice of openings, gambits are closely related to impermanence and the desire for new unusual positions, although I would like more concrete examples (well, the connection of a certain favorite gambit of yours and a certain personality trait manifested when playing in it)

 

Your logic is highly flawed.  If playing the London System equated to being conservative, then liberals would all be playing the Modern Benoni and Latvian Gambit while moderates (like me) would be playing the Black side of the Ruy Lopez and Semi-Slav.  So is that my issue?  Playing aggressive defenses like the French Winawer and King's Indian is too "liberal" for me?

my analysis is not accurate, so do not be offended if I said something wrong or even insulting in your opinion. if you like to play for black so much, then you are a person who does not like open competition if there is a cliff in front of you, then you will rather bypass it and not jump, you are a person who does not like to go head-on, you are far-sighted and refined, it is more pleasant for you to surround an opponent and attack from several sides than to attack strongly directly. if you like to play for white so much, then you are a fast-moving person, fully having the available space if you are given the opportunity, you will use it to the fullest if you have a goal in front of you, you will try to get it as quickly as possible, but at the same time you do not forget about what is happening inside you and even if the goal is close, you will first solve the problem and then achieve the goal

I'm sorry if I offended you. Naturally, my logic may be wrong, but it is based on several facts. I don't divide people into 2 types by their character. Just specifically about my friend, I can say that he is conservative and does not easily accept something new. The same goes for openings, the strict, proven, solid London system fully describes such a person in terms of style and strategy of the game, but naturally it's all vague and there may be mistakes, a person does not necessarily choose openings because of the style of the game. The opening can be chosen, for example, because of popularity.

It is likely true that ones tolerance for risk and boredom come into selection at some level. Beyond that, there are 10,000 other factors.

for the most part, the opening is chosen based on the style of the game and the style depends on the character, someone is more fearful and apprehensive about this, chooses the Uytelki system (Hippo defense), and someone is active and likes to go ahead on this plays a system of 4 pawns

Nah, I don't think there's much correlation

 

I used to play d4 and boring and now I play e4 and gambitish. And I didn't change at all the way I am irl

To me this sounds like a buzzfeed post: "we will guess your personality based on your opening of choice! click to begin" 

CAN YOU HEAR ME? I told you, it doesn't change the choice of discovery, personality. The choice of opening depends on the character. You got bored playing d4 because this debut didn't suit your character. You want attacks, rapid development and an early victory, right? And these are all features of character traits. If you want to defeat the opponent in endurance, make him tired of the game, so that he makes a mistake - you will play the Viennese game or Petrov's defense - this is the opening strategy. If you like this strategy, you can say that you are a persistent and patient person who will pass through any obstacles no matter how difficult and long it is.

I have a set repertoire based on getting playable and enjoyable positions or middle game.

Sometimes, it’s a matter of mood. For example, I play e4 the odd time instead of c4. Within c4, there’s options of various Reversed Sicilian games or Botvinnik  System.

As black, the Sicilian is my only reply but I bounce around with the Dragondorf, e6 and O’Kelly depending on what white is trying to do and where I target counter play.

For the most part, it’s instincts for me to counter attack than defend.