How to choose your Opening repertoire

I like to add. Daily games are perfect for this purpose as one copy the book lines.

Modern Chess Openings (1911) are not... modern.

Just play 1 e4 e5 and 1 d4 d5 as black and 1 e4 as white, think carefully and look after the game where you went wrong.

Agree. Do you know the latest book on openings? Please share. Thank you.

Agree. After you have chosen your opening repertoire. 

Modern Chess Openings is a horrible source.  It is a reference book only.  A watered down version of ECO.

Better approach.

Step 1) Get to 1600+ via studying endgames, middlegames, opening concepts, and GM games from before the computer era (pre-1980)

Step 2) When studying the master games, pay very close attention to which games made more sense while studying.  Note games where you saw the plan before it happened and those where many moves did not make sense.  Observe which openings are showing up a lot in the column of games that made the most sense to you.  You should have at least 30 games in this column before determining which openings are frequent there.

Step 3 - Determine 3 things from number 2.  1) What opening to play against 1.e4.  2)What opening to play against 1.d4.  3) Whether to play 1.e4 or 1.d4 as White.

Step 4 - Buy 3 books:

A) A repertoire book for White based on the chosen first move

B) A book on your chosen defense against e4

C) A book on your chosen defense against d4

Step 5 - Burn MCO

Step 6 - Study the 3 books thoroughly - it should take you at least a year to complete all 3 books.

Step 7 - Play the openings in your games and look for mistakes by both you and your opponent.  Note, just because a move is not mentioned in the book does not make it a mistake.  You should be STUDYING the 3 openings, NOT MEMORIZING them.  This means you should be able to explain in words to someone why a move is a good move or a bad one.

For instance, if you claim to know the French, but after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.b3, you are unable to explain why 6.b3 is a bad move, then you do not understand the French Defense.

Fantastic! 

#6

"Modern Chess Openings is a horrible source.  It is a reference book only.  A watered down version of ECO."
++ It is rather the other way around: ECO is a more modern version of MCO

"Step 1) Get to 1600+ via studying endgames, middlegames, opening concepts, and GM games from before the computer era (pre-1980)"
++ Priority: tactics > endgames > openings. All opening study is useless if you later lose a piece due to middle game tactics. All opening study is useless if you cannot convert a massive opening advantage of +1 pawn in the endgame. Study of annotated grandmaster games is a good way to study opening, middle game and endgame alike. There is no reason to shun modern games. The games of the Yekaterinburg Candidates' Tournament are highly recommended.

"Step 2) When studying the master games, pay very close attention to which games made more sense while studying.  Note games where you saw the plan before it happened and those where many moves did not make sense.  Observe which openings are showing up a lot in the column of games that made the most sense to you.  You should have at least 30 games in this column before determining which openings are frequent there."
++ It is often better to chose an opening that is not mainstream, as opponents are prepared for mainstream.

"Step 3 - Determine 3 things from number 2.  1) What opening to play against 1.e4.  2)What opening to play against 1.d4.  3) Whether to play 1.e4 or 1.d4 as White."
++ That is right and also the priorities are right: first 1, then 2, then 3 not the other way around.

"Step 4 - Buy 3 books:

A) A repertoire book for White based on the chosen first move

B) A book on your chosen defense against e4

C) A book on your chosen defense against d4"
++ Disagree. Opening books are obsolete while being printed. Many opening books contain huge mistakes. The best contemporary resource are databases with grandmaster games.

"Step 5 - Burn MCO"
++ Yes, and burn all other opening books as well.

"Step 6 - Study the 3 books thoroughly - it should take you at least a year to complete all 3 books."
++ No, do not study openings. Just play games and look up in a data base after the game. It will stick better in your memory. Also in a year you can make more progress by training tactics and study endgames than from opening study.

"Step 7 - Play the openings in your games and look for mistakes by both you and your opponent.  Note, just because a move is not mentioned in the book does not make it a mistake.  You should be STUDYING the 3 openings, NOT MEMORIZING them.  This means you should be able to explain in words to someone why a move is a good move or a bad one."
++ Agree, but play first and study afterwards. 

No, your responses are so wrong in so many ways it is absolutely pathetic!

ECO B has been updated recently, the rest have not.  Therefore, it is NOT "more modern".  MCO 15 came out within the last 5 to 10 years.  Some ECO editions have not been updated in 2 decades.

That said, watered down does not mean modern or ancient.  ECO is about 3000 pages now printed.  MCO is like 600 or 700.  Far smaller and covers far less.

1) I never said study openings.  I said opening concepts.  Two TOTALLY different things.  Opening concepts are important to a beginner.  Opening Concepts, not opening theory, is understanding things like gaining space in the center, control central squares, develop your minor pieces first, keep the Queen back until later, get castled, connect Rooks, do not move the same piece multiple times unless attacked, etc.  It has NOTHING to do with learning Dragon theory or French theory.

The reason for older games is they are driven by human understanding of grandmasters.  Modern games theory is driven by artificial intelligence.  Older games will make more sense to a beginner.

2) Wrong again!  It is best to choose main stream openings.  Getting better at chess is not about getting cheap wins.  Sure you may lose more games than you win at first.  However, by playing sound, main stream openings, in the long run, it will pay off.

This is a true story.  I learned how to play chess in 1983 at age 8.  I did not play in competitions.  I simply learned how to play.  In fall 1995, Junior year of college, the person known as KassySC on here ran an event on campus.  There were 8 of us.  I was, before this, playing against a couple of guys in the dorm lobby around midnight to 2 or 3am each day.  After, I picked up my first book, Winning Chess Tactics, followed by Winning Chess Strategies, and then How to Win in the Chess Endings (I A Horowitz).  During this time, I was playing games each night.  Eventually, I was playing, as Black, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 and 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 along with 1.d4 and 2.c4 as White.  I knew the first couple of moves of the Queen's Gambit just from the words being thrown around a lot.  I asked someone that knew a little more than me if 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 had a name, after playing it numerous times.  I was informed it was the French Defense.

So after reading those first 3 books over the fall of 1995, Spring 1996 I am reading Winning With the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann and the rest is history.

3) No, all 3 are of equal priority!

4) You are wrong again!  You are confusing database dumps, like John Nunn's books, with legitimate opening books that explain the ideas, like the First Steps, Starting Out, and Move by Move series.  We are not talking about the latest novelty on move 17.  We are talking about books that will explain the Defense to the reader.  A book like First Moves: The French will explain why moves like ...c5 are so important, not what the latest novelty is on move 19 of the Winawer.  You are confusing learning an opening from keeping up with the latest theory.  First you need to learn the foundations of the opening, not novelties.

5) Wrong!  Read the other responses.

6) WRONG AGAIN!  Here you go with memorizing crap again.  DO NOT MEMORIZE!  Also, databases explain nothing!  Databases are for the experienced, not the beginner!  A beginner should not be using reference books like MCO or ECO or NCO or FCO, and they should not just rely on databases either.  So what you are saying is if after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Bb2 that if 9...Be7 is played 364 times and scores 53 percent for White and 9...Bd7 is played 279 times and scores 54 percent for White that 9...Be7 must be better?

You look at this and do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL what the point is behind each move?  If you cannot explain in words, and know the best response for both, you have made no progress.  You go keep on staring clueless on your database!

Look at the position.  What does White want to do if it were his move right now?  If you UNDERSTAND and read a lower level French book, it will explain stuff like this to you.  White wants to play 10.Bd3.  If it were his move, that is what he should play now!  Why?  It is more active than 10.Be2, and Black cannot take 3 times on d4 because after the 3rd capture, then Bb5+ wins White the Queen.  He wants to follow up 10.Bd3 with 11.Bxf5, wrecking the pawn structure and looking for a good knight vs bad Bishop scenario.

So now why 9...Be7 or 9...Bd7?  First let's look at 9...Bd7.  This move prevents 10.Bd3 because now Black can take 3 times on d4 since there is no check with the Bishop after that.  So what should White do?  White has only 1 good move.  He must not play the passive 10.Be2?!.  He needs to dislodge the Knight and get it off of f5.  10.g4!  This is best because the knight is forced back to h6 (a problem square that will take time to get the knight back in the game) or e7 (blocking in the Bishop until the knight moves again).  Advancing the g-pawn does not weaken the King as the center is blocked.

So now what about 9...Be7?  Black wants to continue development and get castled.  Also, 10.g4 is a very weak move now as Black has 10...Nh4!, since the square is now protected by the Bishop, and Bkack trades off a key piece, White's f3-knight.  A trade Black would take any day.

The correct move here is 10.Bd3!, since again, Black cannot take 3 times due to Bb5+.  White intends to follow with 11.Bxf5 if Black does not spend time moving the Knight away.

None of this would you find in a database!  This is also not a concept that is MEMORIZED.  It must be UNDERSTOOD!

You clearly have a long ways to go there tygxc in terms of understanding how to understand openings!

#9

No, YOUR responses are so wrong in so many ways it is absolutely pathetic!

MCO (1921) and ECO (1975) have been updated, but the concept is obsolete. The right intended use of ECO was to use it as an index to the games in Chess Informant hence the references like 15/144 which is game 144 of volume 15. A games database does the two in one: the games and the context.

1) "understanding things like gaining space in the center, control central squares, develop your minor pieces first, keep the Queen back until later, get castled, connect Rooks, do not move the same piece multiple times unless attacked, etc." I fully agree

"Older games will make more sense to a beginner." No, wrong. Good moves are good moves regardless of what source they come from. From study of old games with old annotations you will make old mistakes again and take old dogmas as truth. Nimzovich said 1 e4 d5 is wrong. Botvinnik said 1 c4 e5 is wrong. They both were wrong on that as we know now.

2)  "It is best to choose main stream openings."  Wrong again! "Getting better at chess is not about getting cheap wins." Yes, that is right.
I advice against mainstream openings like Ruy Lopez Marshall Attack, Open Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Dragon, Sicilian Najdorf, Sicilian Sveshnikov, French Winawer, Grünfeld Indian Defence, King's Indian Defence, Nimzo-Indian defence... There is too much theory about these and you risk to play something that has been refuted.

I also advice against bad openings like Englund Gambit, Stafford Gambit, Nakhmanson Gambit, Boden Gambit, Milner-Barry Gambit, Budapest Gambit, Albin Counter Gambit, well everything with Gambit except Queen's Gambit.

I do recommend sound openings that are not mainstream, like Vienna Opening, Four Knights, Ponziani Opening, Sicilian O'Kelly, Sicilian Hyperaccelerated Dragon, Sicilian Rubinstein Variation, French Rubinstein Variation, Dutch Defence...

"I asked someone that knew a little more than me if 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 had a name, after playing it numerous times.  I was informed it was the French Defense." ++ That is what I mean: play it first and look it up later.

3) No, all 3 are not of equal priority!
First priority is to stay alive as black after 1 e4. You need some guidance so as not to stumble into 1 e4 e5 Nf3 f6, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 Nxe4, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 etc.
Second priority is a defence against 1 d4. 1 d4 is not as sharp as 1 e4, therefore it is of lower priority.
Third priority is an opening for white. As white you are in no danger and you can afford more than as black, therefore this is the lowest priority.
I recommend for simplicity to play reverse systems: play as white the same as you play as black with colors reversed. If you play the King's Indian Defence as black, play the King's Indian Attack as white. If you play the Sicilian as Black, play the English Opening as White. If you play Dutch Defence as black, then play Bird Opening as white. If you play the Queen's Indian Defence as black, then play the Nimzowich-Larsen-Fischer attack as white.

4) A good opening book consisted of annotated grandmaster games within a context framework. A database now offers both: the games and the context.

5) Books are obsolete just like clay tablets, papyrus scrolls and parchment. In the 21st century websites, YouTube, and databases have replaced the books.

6)  "Here you go with memorizing crap again." No, I did not say that, I am against memorization. "DO NOT MEMORIZE!" Yes, with that I agree.  "Also, databases explain nothing!" Wrong again: the data base gives you the context of who has played what when. Study of the games tells why. Databases i.e. grandmaster games are good for all, experienced, and beginner alike.  "So what you are saying is if after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Bb2 that if 9...Be7 is played 364 times and scores 53 percent for White and 9...Bd7 is played 279 times and scores 54 percent for White that 9...Be7 must be better?" ++ No, I am not saying that, please put no words in my mouth. On the contrary, the data base shows games how leading French players like Nepo treat the French Advance. Study of those games will learn more than an obsolete book.

"You look at this and do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL what the point is behind each move?" ++ study the games in the data base to find the ideas.

You clearly have a longer way to go there in terms of understanding how to understand openings than I.

1) I never said old games by old analysts.  There are updated, more modern books on the games of older players.  Capablanca Move by Move, for example.  Was written in the last decade, but the games are from the early 1900s.  This is ideal for a beginner.  Trying to Study Kasparov's or Anand's games will be way too complicated for a beginner.  Simple concepts executed by players like Capablanca, Steinitz, and Lasker is what they need, though analyzed more recently!

And with your babble about databases and UTube, you are again wrong.  You again are thinking from the perspective of move 15 novelties.  Yes, a move 15 novelty in the French in 1986 may be a refuted line in 2021.  However, for someone learning the French for the first time, the basic premise of the French has never changed.  Attack e4 to entice e5 out of White, weakening his control of the light squares and taking all pressure off of d5, and then attacking the pawn chain at the base, which for the moment is d4.  In some lines, like the winawer, in order to get e5 pushed, Black sets himself up to part with his Bishop to eliminate the knight to take over the light squares, and now the base is c3.

A lower level French book is going to explain that better than looking thru any database.

Videos are what is called passive learning.  Flipping quickly thru moves in a database is passive learning.  The best way to learn is analysis on a 3-d board on a table where you have to physically make moves yourself, not click buttons or watch videos.

Yes, database dump opening books are obsolete, like John Nunn's books for Batsford in the 90s with variation C4b62b.

But books like the Move by Move series or First Steps series are extremely valuable.  This does not replace keeping up with current theory after that.  You are not done keeping up with the French at book completion!  That is a life long task and that is where databases come into play.  I could go thru 300 unannotated French games from a database and be fine.  If I tried to do that with the Grunfeld, forget it, I would be lost!

Your approach is like having a 7 year old pick up a Guitar for the first time and having him play Living on a Prayer (Bon Jovi).  I am having him play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, Old McDonald, and Silent Night!

What are you on about? MCO 15 was released in 2008. Recent MCOs (13, 14, 15) are well-written pieces of chess literature and very fine ways to study chess.  

The opening essay before each opening is an immaculate summary of the opening and a very nice and interesting read, I know some parts of them by heart. MCO is a great way to learn and understand more about openings.

Databases have context while grandmaster annotations and explanations do not - are we living in backwards land or something? The databases and computer outputs are what lacks context. 

MCO is NOT a "database dump".  

#11
I believe we agree more that you seem to think.

"Simple concepts executed by players like Capablanca, Steinitz, and Lasker is what they need, though analyzed more recently!" ++ Yes, study the classics! That is why "My Great Predecessors" by Kasparov is a great book: classical games with up to date analysis.

"Videos are what is called passive learning.  Flipping quickly thru moves in a database is passive learning.  The best way to learn is analysis on a 3-d board on a table where you have to physically make moves yourself, not click buttons or watch videos." ++ Here we disagree. I also studied chess books with not one but two 3-D boards: one for the main line and one for variations. However, a clickable website is so much faster: it allows to absorb more content in the same time. There are also excellent video tutorials where a top expert explains the ideas. I came to embrace the new technology. I bet that when two equally gifted beginners study chess, one with books and 3-D boards, the other with websites and video tutorials, then the latter will progress more.

"A lower level French book is going to explain that better than looking thru any database." I bet that when two equally gifted beginners start, one with a book on the French and the other with recent games from a database, then the latter will progress more.

"Yes, a move 15 novelty in the French in 1986 may be a refuted line in 2021.  However, for someone learning the French for the first time, the basic premise of the French has never changed. " I doubt that: all heavily played lines evolve fast. What does your Uhlmann book say about 7 h4 in the Winawer variation? Do the Uhlmann conclusions on 7 Qg4 still hold? What does it say about 5...Bd7 in the French Advance Variation? Like MVL says about the Grünfeld: "it is now a completely different opening as compared to when I first played it" This is also the reason why I recommend to stay away from the tier 1, heavily played and analysed openings like Ruy Lopez, Grünfeld, Sicilian, King's Indian Defence. A less popular tier 2 opening changes less and is lesser known and studied by opponents, e.g. Four Knights Opening, Vienna Opening, Ponziani Opening, Dutch Defence...

There is still stuff you are not getting at all:

1) Yes, a click able Website is faster, but absorption is not about speed!  You do not study for your Calculus AP Exam by speed-reading the Calculus book, do you?  Do you ever do something like watch the news for an hour, and the next day, someone ask you "Did you hear what Margerie Taylor Greene (worst arf arf in America) said about AOC?  If you watched the news the other day, you did hear it, but you may have only actually absorbed that the CDC changed its tune about those fully vaccinated and mask use, the Rays beat the Mets 3-2 last night, and it will be mostly sunny Saturday in the Carolinas, and the rest went in one ear and out the other.  It is because watching a video (Television is a video) absorbs less detail than reading print because it is a very passive form of learning.  I come from the transitional generation.  The time when videos were starting up and books were highly popular.  People from the final 5 years of Gen X (1974-1978) probably have the most objective outlook at what is better in print vs electronic.  Email, and then Social Media via the internet (Twitter, Instagram, etc) is better, cheaper, and more effective than Snail Mail.  The newer technology wins there.  Manufacturing of toys, done faster today than in the 70s and early 80s, while more is produced now, it is total crap.  If you ever had a game from the early 80s, like Trouble or Hungry Hungry Hippos, back then, it was very sturdy plastic they used, and in Trouble, the quality of the Pop-o-Matic that rolls the die or the lever that makes the hippo eat worked like a charm.  Today?  Cheap plastic that warps just from sitting in the truck - board wobble and do not sit flat.  After 2 games, the pop-o-matic does not work right and it takes 5 tries and emphasized pushing to pop the die, and the levers on the Hippos get stuck.  The 70s and 80s win there.  QUALITY OVER QUANTITY!  Same goes for learning chess content.  You may have an e-book with electronic board, and I may have the paper copy of the same book with pieces, let's say Positional Decision Making In Chess, and you are thru the entire first chapter, and I just got thru the game on Squeezing, and still have more than half of chapter one to go.  You just flipped thru the moves and read the text.  I analyzed the text and analyzed the position at every critical juncture.  It takes me 90 minutes to go thru that 9 to 10 page game.  It took you 5 minutes, but you absorb very little!

2) The 2 people studying the French example you gave, the one reading the book will get the explanations of all the nuances, like why 3...c5 after 3.e5 or 3.Nd2 but not 3.Nc3?  The first is similar to the Kings Indian where Black must entice d5, eliminating the dxe5 option, before weakening the diagonal with f5.  After d5 is played, f5 undermines e4.  Same with the French, after e5 is enticed, c5 to pressure the center is necessary.  After 3.Nd2 it is also good as the knight has committed to a passive square that does not attack d5.  But after 3.Nc3, 3...c5 is terrible due to problems with d5.  Another item - what are the pros and cons of keeping or trading off the LSB with ...Ba6?  It can often be a critical defender of e6.  When should the Black Queen go to a5, b6, c7, or e7, the 4 most common squares to place the Queen in the French?  A beginner's French book will explain that.  A database will not.  Sure you will know the milner-barry trap on d4.  But you will miss many helpful details that will alter the thought process.  You might get to 1800 before the other guy does, but then you will stall and he will slowly progress.  Better to be 1400 today and 2100 in 5 years than to be 1800 today and 1820 in 5 years.

3) You missed the whole point in the Uhlmann example.  That book was written in 1991 in German and the English translation with edits to mistakes came out in 1995.  This was 1996 that I read that book.  Of course, things have changed between 1996 and 2021.  I said specifically that just reading the book does not end your journey.  You must continue to keep up with the theory.  Without reading that book as a basis, I would not be where I am today with the French.  That book is not my main source today, but it was back then.  I read more complicated texts on the French over time.  Psahkis's 4 books from 2002-2004, Sveshnikov's 2 books on the Advance French for White from 2007, Collins's book on the Advance from 2006, the Wonderful Winawer from 2010, the Moskalenko book from 2015 - there are 2 more hot off the press in 2021 on the Exchange and an update to the 2015 book by Moskalenko - I will be getting both.  And then periodicals, Correspondence Chess databases, etc.

Someone learning the French TODAY (not 1996) would not read Uhlmann's book from the 90s.  First Steps: The French from a couple of years ago, or The French Defense, Move by Move from a couple of months ago.  That is where today's beginner of the French should be going.  Not a book from the 90s.  It is a never ending cycle.  A single book does not do it at all.  A single book is the best way to start your journey.  It is not the complete journey itself.  You are WALKING (yes, not flying or even driving) from Los Angeles to New York.  The first book gets you to the next town over.  You still have a long way to go.  If you start with a database, you are not going to know how to use it and you are not going to get the critical information you need, and rather than walking to the next town over in the direction of New York, you instead walked into the Pacific Ocean!

Databases have their time and place.  They are not useless by any stretch.  But they are not the place to start!

learn an opening againsr e4 d4 c4 eg siclian dutch caro kann and play the london when white there u have an oepning repertoire and its ez 2 learn

#69

Read something that will actually teach you chess instead of a 300pages essai of dudes fighting in the forum section about how you should learn stuff although there is obviously some personnal preferences and approches

xD

just go 2 google look up good openings n ur good