Ideas?

What openings should I try out for the black pieces?

You are rated 885 (Bullet and Blitz ratings are meaningless).

You are not ready to be focusing on openings. Asking others isn't going to help. You don't think the same as them.

Study your Endgames, Tactics, Strategy, and Opening Concepts (Don't move the same piece repeatedly, Control the Center, Castle to safety, Don't develop the Queen early, etc.)

Once you reach 1600 either Rapid or Over the Board, look at at what you did. Which pawn structures did you understand best? During the opening concepts phase, you should have figured out that against 1.e4, you need to either contest d4 (1...e5 or 1...c5) or e4 (1...c5 and 2...d5 or 1...e6 and 2...d5). Which of those lead to positions that made the most sense to you? When you reach 1600, the answer to THAT question is the answer to your question on Post #1.

I did not become a French player from asking others what THEY think is the best opening. I could care less that Joe Shmo plays the Sicilian Najdorf. The French and Petroff make sense to me, and hence that is what I play against 1.e4. Think of it like raising a baby. A bad parent will force the baby to learn to be right handed. A good parent will allow the baby to establish for themselves if they are left or right handed. A good chess player will let the opening come to them and study said opening in depth when they are higher. A bad chess player will play an opening because the name sounds good, or someone else told them the opening was great, etc.

I see why you're saying what you are, but I actually don't agree. Because the only way you can figure out what lines you like is by trying a variety of lines. You're not just gonna play random moves and somehow, from that, realize you ought to be playing the Tarrasch. For one, you need to know what the Tarrasch is in the first place. Furthermore, you learn tactics by studying openings. And you also learn positional play, assuming you focus on understanding the line. The lines in an opening consist of tactical and positional patterns. When you play chess, you don't figure all the patterns out from scratch over the board every time you play a new game, you are familiar with them.

I have proof that you are wrong!

In 1995, I did not know what an opening was. I knew that you had to fight the center. One guy in college always played e4, the other always played d4. I experimented with 1...e5, 1...d6 and 2...e5, 1...e6 and 1...d5 1...c6 and 2...d5, even 1...f6 and 2...e5. Some way to fight for the center. After MONTHS of play and studying of books on Tactics, Strategy, and Endgames, along with playing tons of games all semester (Fall 1995), I asked early spring Semister "Does this opening have a name?" with the one that lead to the positions that made the most sense. I was probably only in book for 3 or 4 moves total, but my first couple of moves formed what turned out to be an opening. I was told "Yes, it's called the French Defense". My first opening book was some short time after that - Winning With the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann. Spent the rest of the Spring Semister going through that book. But all through the fall semister, I had no clue about any openings or names, just concepts, and low and behold, the French came to be, I didn't come to it!

If you just play random moves without learning any lines, you're going to end up gravitating toward a simple opening like the french - not because it's the best line for you but because you aren't otherwise going to reinvent centuries worth of opening theory on your own. There's a large set of openings you will never be exposed to... lines that lead to very complex, interesting positions which you could never memorize.
The easiest way to escape the opening is to play it out algorithmically, looking for deviations, until you reach the practical limit of what you can remember and you're left with a complex, dynamic position that no player can control. At that point, usually around the early middlegame... you start to think. Before then, you are playing an algorithm. That's how chess is actually played these days. If that's how the game is played, why deny it? Better to just meet chess realistically on its own terms. It's not like you are never thinking about how to make a move. The algorithm stops at some point. It doesn't even have to be very deep. 7-9 moves is pretty sufficient.

The irony of this disagreement is I've landed on the Taimanov and the English Defense / Keres / some Dutch transpositions which I believe you played something similar at some point, didn't you? Or maybe that was someone else on here. But you preferred the french I believe. Taimanov I am 100% on at this point. English system I am pretty confident but we'll see how it goes. It deals with the London and other sidelines very well, and the positions are very irregular. It goes to show that you can approach chess in a variety of different ways and end up at similar destinations.
Taimanov actually isn't as much theory as you think it is. You can avoid the theory. There are deviations, even within known lines. Especially in the sicilian. You just create your own theory and make it 8-10 moves deep and vuala, you're done. It takes a couple months. The real time sink is in figuring out what line you like to play. That's an experimentation process, and one of getting to know yourself. It's not about memorization, really. People don't even play the theoretical lines often. I actually think the french is more theoretical.

Case in point, I have been playing this lately. It doesn't run into any anti-sicilians people have prepared. Which means it doesn't require me to drill very much theory at all, really. People usually respond in the same way. Creating your own repertoire like this is trivially easy nowdays with the AI engines. No reason not to do it -

Hi

The fact that you are referring to going for deviations until you reach "as far as you can remember" just proves you are clueless.

Chess is not a game of memory. You must UNDERSTAND what you are doing. Memory doesn't do you jack bleep.

Proof Again! Just like how I showed you how the French came to me and I didn't come to it, I have played it successfully for 30 years.

Against d4, the opposite has occurred. I started with the QGD because it was the same structure as the French. Results were mediocre at best. What do I do? I pick random defenses to d4, study like you say, trying ro memorize, and while I have played the QGD, QGA, Slav, Semi-Slav, NID, KID, Grunfeld, Dutch, etc, not one of them lasted even 10 years (KID 2012-2020 being the longest stint of any defense to 1.d4).

Memory? I can reel off 12 moves of the Grunfeld Seville Variation - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 O-O 9.O-O Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+

All memorized, no need to reference any books or Websites or databases.

Guess what? If Black plays 7...O-O and 8...Nc6 (instead of ...c5), or if Black plays some other sideline, I have no clue what to do. If Black figures out these first 12 moves, now what?

Memorization doesn't do you jack. They deviate and you have no idea, or you reach what you call your max point and you have no idea what to do because all you did was memorize moves.

You need to UNDERSTAND ALL MOVES BY BOTH SIDES! Why 8.Ne2? Why not 8.Nf3? Why did Black leave his Bishop hanging? Why is the indirect Bishop trade bad for White? As Black, how does 9.Rc1 differ from 9.O-O? Why did you castle? Don't just say because you need to castle early - tons of lines in the French Black delays or avoids castling (i.e. 7.Qg4 Kf8 in the Winawer).

By UNDERSTANDING your opening moves and not just bullbleep memorization of them, you understand why other moves are inferior. I faced 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Ne2 instead of 5.Nf3. He got CRUSHED! Losing position at move 18 with no difficulty for Black and resigned around move 30. If all I did was memorize the French, I'd be lost as to what to do that game.

I have lately played the Mexican Defense (a.k.a. The Two Knights Tango), and have gotten decent results with decent understanding of what I am doing, but it still doesn't match my understanding of the French and Petroff. I will always be better against 1.e4 than 1.d4 because I took the right approach against 1.e4, and just forced the issue with the same BS you are advertising against 1.d4. I have played chess since 1983, studied since 1995, and played tournaments over the board regularly since 1997. I think I may know a bit more than most people on here. Now don't even ask why I am not a GM. You don't need to be a GM to know what is right and wrong. Those GMs started playing seriously at age 5 or younger. I started at 21. They were coached. I self-studied and took the wrong approach against 1.d4. It doesn't take being a GM to know what you did right and what you did wrong. Sheer memorization is the wrong approach! Even now, if I try to learn an opening, if the moves don't make sense, I don't play it. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 makes sense. It has nothing to do with the knight. You are fighting for e5. Get your Bishop out and control the dark squares. If White prevents ...e5 with 3.Nf3, you play ...e6, and if 4.Nc3, then 4...Bb4 and play for d6 and e5, going for a dark-square setup.open up your other pieces.

In response to the second half, I have played the Taimanov for about 3 years or so, early 2010s. The "Long Variation" and the English Attack both made perfect sense. Often times in the English, you'd even give up a pawn to get in on f4 with the Knight. But when what was then a fairly new idea became popular, I couldn't make sense out of what Black needed to do. That is the lines with 7.Qf3. I went back to the double king pawn lines that I knew (Petroff/Berlin) along with the French. Memorizing moves in the Qf3 lines of the Taimanov is insufficient. You need to understand Black's approach, and I couldn't make sense out of it at the time. If I went back, maybe I could, but at less than 2 weeks shy of 51 and the French and Petroff success I have, it is a waste of my time trying to find other defenses to 1.e4. I am more focused on non-opening books and then my White Openings and Defenses to 1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3. My studying the Taimanov, as one that plays 1.d4 as White, would be a waste of time at this point in my life.

Right now, I am mostly going through the following:

Korchnoi Year by Year Volume III (1981-1991)

Beyond Material

Veresov, Trompowsky, French, Caro-Kann for White, Mexican, an Anti-London system, Modern against 1.c4, etc.

You seem, for whatever reason, adamant that a) rote preparation cannot be done while also developing understanding, which is nonsense. For starters, you have to remember what it is you're understanding. I suppose a person can just memorize and not understand, but that isn't very natural and most people don't do this. I've annotated the games where I've recorded my lines. Distilling the ideas is part of the processing of developing a line, b) you fail to recognize the defacto reality of how chess is played - with preparation, this is true all the way up to the top, c) simultaneously you acknowledge that you have infact memorized your openings, which makes even less sense, d) and yet ignore when I acknowledge that the game always diverges from memory at some point.. 
 
In chess, the opening is largely pre-planned. Nonetheless, in the process of learning your lines, you typically think very deeply about each move and all the tradeoffs of them. 
Learning openings exposes people to new ideas. It doesn't reduce understanding. Every opening has its set of unique ideas.
Somewhere in the early middlegame, or if the opponent diverges, chess principles and calculation begin to take over. No, people do not play chess while not memorizing or preparing anything. There is no need for doing that. And you don't even do that. So I don't even really see what your point is here. Other than to just be an ornery old person.
Carry onward!

Hi

When you recite the Grunfeld, and ask what happens if black deviates - for starters, you should be the one deviating first. That's how you extract value from a line. I tend to view the lines that you cite as too theoretical. It's one reason that I would never play the Grunfeld. It's why I play the Van Geet, I'm *really* liking the Quinteros, and I'm quite happy with the English Defense. They're lines where I am deviating first, in the vast majority of cases. My preparation yields me a significant advantage in almost all cases. In reality that is worth something. We can see it in the statistics, in lines where black outscores white by 10 points or even higher (like most lines in the Taimanov).

As far as games "making sense" is concerned - if the position is easy for you to understand, it's very likely easy for the opponent to understand too. What I'm looking for is complexity, asymmetry, and novelty that allows for an acquired understanding. That's the kind which yields an advantage over an opponent.

Regarding the Taimanov Qf3 lines - it's not that common to see this line statistically, but you should just deviate early to solve this problem. I play Nf6 O-O-O h5. The engine is a little blind to h5 at first. The only good move white has is Nxc6. It's not even that good, like +0.27 by leelas estimate. It's positional and a line where no one is going to maintain the engine line for a very long time. I have equalized in every other case. So it's a positional taimanov game like any other line. No Ne5, no pin on the queen... no very sharp prolonged continuations. So often people are struggling for 3 or 4 centipawns of an advantage and playing right into known lines. I don't understand why people do this. Dogma and tradition. I never do that.

But you're correct - if my entire game started and ended with the opening, that would be a bad thing. The midgame is a different beast and must be approached on its terms. This is where a very heavy emphasis on the sort of things you're describing becomes important. Chess principles. Very strong focus on ideas, etc.. Of course I have acknowledged this repeatedly. What I object to is the suggestion that there is no place for memorization in chess, it is just nonsense, it denies the manifest reality of how the game is played. It even denies how you yourself play the game.

People study these things in segments. For example, people spend time studying endgames. It's a distinct area of chess. But if you're not in the endgame, that knowledge doesn't apply... etc., etc.. The opening and early midgame are just distinct areas and they should be approached differently.

Here again, you are wrong, particularly what you said about endgames.

Just because you aren't in the endgame doesn't make endgame knowledge useless. In fact, having that endgame knowledge is critical in middlegame decisions!

There are even entire books on Transition. Secrets of Chess Transformations, and a book by I believe it was Joel Benjamin, specifically on transitioning to the endgame. For example, let's say White is a pawn up with a Kingside majority - 3-on-3 on the queenside, 3-on-2 on the kingside. White's King is on g1, Black's is on a7. Both sides have all heavy pieces and a knight each. Knowing what to trade is a critical skill. Sure, if White can mate the king, by all means do so. But the idea of trading pawns and trading all pieces except 1 rook each also comes to mind. This would not be a good idea if the Black King were on g8, but if the king is cut off to the queenside, Lucena's position comes to mind.

Another possibility. You are in a late middlegame. You are White. You each have 2 rooks. You have a Knight, he has a dark-squared Bishop. You have a rook on c7 and can take a7 or h7. Black has a rook on f2, and can take on a2 or h2. Whichever pawn you take, the rook protect and Black gets the other one. So if you take a7, Black will take h2 and if you take h7, Black will take a2. Which pawn do you grab? There are no direct tactics or threats in either case. I will take the a-pawn and give you the h-pawn. Why? An endgame idea. If I trade off the rooks, and get into a minor piece endgame, Bishop vs Knight, even if I get in trouble, I can sacrifice my knight for a pawn IF it leaves Black with the h-pawn. Wrong color Bishop and rook pawn. If he has the a-pawn and Bishop vs King, he wins.

So if the rooks get traded off, and it's say, B+3p (one of them the h-pawn) vs N+3p, I might win, but if I don't, I need to capture 2 of his pawns for my 3 and the knight to survive. So I have something to fall back on. I have drawn games like this before, eliminating the correct pawns earlier on in the game so that his slight advantage becomes useless later on. Let him win material even, and leave him with DSB and h-pawn (He's Black, You're White - if you flip the colors, and it's DSB, then leave White with the a-pawn).

Being able to envision winning (Lucena's Position) and drawing (Philidor's Draw, Wrong color B and RP, etc) techniques before they actually arrive on the board is a major skill. I have drawn many lost games and won many drawn games because of this skill and the Oppenent's lack-thereof because they don't think endgame until the endgame arrives. I am thinking endgame long before that, especially if I don't have a direct attack on the opposing King.

Yes! Thank-you!

Here's one that probably won't surprise you. I consider that I win more than my fair share of miniatures, And I haven't studied a line in years. You get these guys out of their carefully (painfully) constructed repertoire quickly, and they haven't a clue.

I am also taking an increasingly dim view of the "one best move" repertoire approach, and for that reason most repertoire books. I do NOT think they are appropriate for the average player. Sorry to sound cynical, but the fact that most repertoire books are written by mid-level IMs and GMs trying to supplement their meagre income does nothing to shed light on this situation.

There are decent Repertoire books, but if you take that approach, it should never be "one and done". Take the French for example. Over the course of the last 30 years, there have been a few books published "objectively" and are complete. Then you have repertoire books that favor one side, in most cases, Black.

If you study at least one Objective book on the Subject at hand, reading repertoire books won't hurt you. It can give you sometimes a deeper perspective of a very specific line. Like one book may only cover the Winawer with 7...Kf8 and all deviations up to that point (The Fully-Fledged French - the section on the Winawer). Another may cover poisoned pawn instead. Another might advocate the Classical and Steinitz, another the McCutchen and Steinitz (The Fully-Fledged French). Others may cover the Burn Variation.

What you have to do is understand the French and be able to pick out the ideas that are legit and which are bogus propaganda! Oh, this is clearly better for White, and yet it's not.

But yes, if your expectation with a Repertoire book on the French is to be "one-and-done" and have a legit repertoire, I'm with you - dream on!

The endgame knowledge isn't being applied to the position on the board, it's being applied to a future endgame position which you aim to reach. It's obvious that you can anticipate transitioning into an endgame and I am not suggesting otherwise. But in order to use your understanding of the endgame to guide how you transition into it, you have to first understand the endgame, which means dedicating study specifically to the endgame. The techniques you use to study or play the endgame are not the same as those in the middlegame. These are areas we recognize as distinct within the continuum of the game. The distinction is how you're able to refer to one or the other. Your response doesn't undermine my point at all and you go on about something I already know, again, as if you are teaching me something which is completely self-evident, while just ignoring what I have said. You seem to want to hear certain things and ignore what I'm actually saying.