Lifetime Repertoire, Passive or Massive?

  Hi, dear chess lovers!  How are you? There was plenty of time to research chess openings during the pandemic period. I learned some things, let me get into the topic without further ado. For example, half of the Dragon games go to the rook endings. Likewise, the minor piece endings occurs in most of the Benoni games. I learned that in the Sicilian Moscow variation (1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 d6, 3.Bb5+) it is necessary to play 3...Bd7, because exchange same minor pieces is comforting for black. If black 3...Nd7 plays, he may be under pressure. Anybody that understands the Berlin, at all shouldn't be jumping for joy with the bishop pair, actually black would like to trade his dark squared bishop for the white knight. If you have such information based on statistics results, please share it with us. There are many experienced masters here, their ideas are important and valuable. IM pfren, who loves classical openings, ThrillerFan, who likes French and QGD, and finally SmyslovFan, who knows everything.  I want to talk about them because I learned a lot from their articles.

  If we don't have the opportunity to participate in continuous tournaments, we should prefer more practical and reliable openings. If it's impractical, it doesn't matter if it's theoretically great. (I may be thinking wrong, please give your opinion.) Building a lifetime repertoire isn't easy, schematic and structural openings should be preferred for this. I think 1...e5 for 1.e4, but should will be Berlin, not Petroff. I thought Caro-Kann a lot, but it is accused of being passive. What do you think? Passive or massive? I like to play queenless middlegame positions. So which one should be preferred against 1.d4? Nimzo-Indian, QID, Slav, Semi-Slav, QGD (Especially Tartakower variation!) It is necessary to use an hybrid. For example, if white doesn't move 3.Nc3, you cannot play NID. You have to choose QID or QGD, maybe Semi-Slav depending on the situation. (I don't like Bogo.) Can we also prefer these against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4? At least with similar ideas, for example, Grünfeld is a theorically and idea-based opening. But it's not just a ton of theory that matters, Grünfeld players can play 1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.Nc3 d5 or 1.c4 Nf6, 2.Nc3 d5. Of course there will be differences, but it is more important for us to master the typical plans, ideas and pawn structures rather than the engine-made opening preparations. I think it's kinda sensitive issue, the writings here are very superficial, a detailed and specific preparation should be made for each variation. I liked playing Modern Benoni very much, unfortunately it's not solid and flexible enough.

  That's enough for black, let's talk a little bit about white. I've been playing 1.e4 since I started chess, I wanted to learn to play 1.d4 and I read John Cox's book. It's important to have good resources about what you want to learn. For example, Marin's books for 1.c4, Khalifman and Wojo's books for 1.Nf3 are very good. Avrukh's books are excellent for 1.d4. Which one should I choose for the repertoire I mentioned above? 1.Nf3 is a nice move, it doesn't allow 1...e5. It can be transposed to the 1.d4 variations, and eliminates some options for black. However, it also has disadvantages. For example, 1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.c4 b6 and black has no problem. 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 e6, 3.g3 are more effective to activity. These are very small details, but need attention. I love Catalan, but in order to use it, a very good positional understanding and knowledge is required. I would be glad if you share your ideas, thank you for reading, best regards! I wish you all healthy days... 

I can play anything except queens gambit and grob  from the white side, but only play Alekhine, pirc, and Budapest from the black side.

Uh, post 1 is not correct!

I am fully "capable" of playing the QGD, but I don't exactly "like" it.  I am far more likely to play it if White has committed to an early Nf3, like 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3, I might play 2...Nf6 and I might play 2...d5.  I will play 2...d5 against 2.Bf4 because the best line against the London features an early d5 IMHO.

But it is by no means my main defense to d4, and I actually HATE playing the Black side of the Exchange QGD with Nge2, hence why I only play it occasionally when White has played an early Nf3.

After 1.d4 e6 2.c4, I play 2...Nf6 and if 3.Nc3, I play the Nimzo-Indian (3...Bb4) and against 3.Nf3, I will usually play the Bogo-Indian (3...Bb4+), but I have occasionally played 3...d5.

So not sure where the OP gets the idea that I like the QGD.  I am a French player who has recently transitioned from the King's Indian back to the Nimzo-Indian that I played about 10 years ago.

@OP well what in the HECK are you talking about in much of that post? First, you got @ThrillerFan’s opinion on the QGD wrong. Second, you incorrectly assessed that 3...Bd7 is the only move against the Moscow. Nc6 and Nd7 are both fully playable. Third, as a Dragon player I have no fricking idea what u are talking about saying that half of all Dragon games end in a rook ending or what u are talking about with Benonis ending mostly in minor piece ending. I think u are making absurd generalizations. Also, when u talk about the Berlin yes, Black would like to to Bb4xc3 but that cannot be achieved easily. Instead Black will try to use the bishop pair and avoid giving it up unless he can ruin White’s pawns. I think u are the one who doesn’t understand the Berlin (among other things). Ur Lifetime Repertoire stuff is generally accurate to ur credit.

Actually, you have an incorrect assessment of the Berlin.

The Bishop pair is not what Black wants.  He actually does want to play Bb4xc3, not to double the pawns, but to dominate the light squares and to avoid one of the horrifying endings for Black.

Unlike the Exchange Ruy Lopez, White has already played e5 in the Berlin Endgame.  Therefore, f4 is almost forced to hold on to the pawn at e5.  The break for White is f5.  Problem is, since e5 has already been played, there is no e4 pawn to help White with that.  So White has to get in g4, advancing his majority.

White has already given up his LSB for a Knight in the opening.  Both are pieces that can compete for control of g4 (a light square).  Black's DSB cannot directly control g4, but what it can do is eliminate a Knight, giving White only 1 piece that can compete for control of g4, namely his other Knight, while Black has two, his remaining Knight and his Light-Squared Bishop.  This is where the whole concept of the "Berlin Wall" came into play.

Also, there are many endgames in the Berlin that Black should absolutely avoid!  One of them is a same-color Bishop ending, which would automatically mean dark-square bishops since White's light-squared one was traded off in the opening.

Another ending that Black must avoid at all cost is White Knight vs Black Dark-Squared Bishop!

Straight King and Pawn endings are out of the question for Black.  As are pure Knight endings!

The two ideal endings for Black are Opposite Colored Bishops or a Knight for Black versus White's Dark-Squared Bishop.  These are the two minor piece endings that give Black the best shot of winning.  If he can't achieve this, he should be targeting a Rook ending, which will usually be drawn with best play.

Black's Light-Squared Bishop vs a White Knight tends to be a draw in most cases.

Almost any ending with Black having only his DSB and pawns is usually lost for Black.

  First of all, thank you for your interest. ThrillerFan's previous writings made me think like that, I knew he liked French very much, but I learned something new, he chooses QGD if white plays Nf3. That's why I'm writing here. I want to learn new things, not argue. But I am not making absurd generalizations. I learned everything I wrote here from books and statistical results, and my coach say they are correct. He is a Grand Master and Fide Trainer!  FizzyBand you think you know everything, but you're a stuffed shirt. I didn't claim to understand Berlin, of course other variations are playable too, I didn't say bad or unplayable for anything. Anyway never mind, it doesn't matter. It is very true what ThrillerFan said. Don't just get stuck on a topic, please write about other topics. 

Wow, that´s a lot of amazing info on the Berlin. Especially for a French player! Thanks for the post.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but I'm leaning towards sarcasm.

  Yeah! I'm not saying it in vain, he's really knowledgeable. Instead of making blank criticism, I wish everyone would write informative things like him. If we go back to the issue, Sveshnikov and Classical Sicilian seem to meet the above criteria, but if I am going to play Sicilian, I prefer Najdorf!

I like the dragon. Honestly, I would play An opening just because it has a nice name.

  Ahaha, yeap it's a cool name.  My close friend is a Dragon lover, we did a lot of work about Dragon with him. He always say, you don't cry when dragon dies! It's definitely a very fun option, but it doesn't look appropriate for the high level nowaday. I asked my coach the reason for this, and he said, Dragon you have to spend a lot of time working, you take a serious risk but there is no reward for it. Because your opponents can easily draw a result thanks to forcing variations, you should spend your time on something more reliable. But still a very effective opening at the amateur level. Also, players who want to improve their tactics should definitely try. I hope your dragon's fire will be powerful!

Well...Ok...so Firstly, on the Berlin, while I think many of ThrillerFan’s comments are correct, when I was referring to the Bishop Pair I meant more in the middlegame, where of course Black would be willing to give up the DSB if he gets something in return. I think the Bishop pair can be useful when the position is still very complex and White is making his initial kingside push. Also, I said that Black would like Bb4xc3 as well, I just noted that it was not to be easily achieved as White can generally go Ne4. Also, while I can’t object to any of your ending evaluations, you have to admit that it depends on the exact ending (middlegame decisions can drastically effect the position and make a typical ending better for one side or another) Nonetheless, thanks for your input on the Berlin.

Next, let’s get to @Farilya ... Well, I’d love to see some proof of a few things

1) Prove to me that half of all Dragons end in rook endings with evidence

2) Prove to me that most Benonis end in Minor Piece endings (I wanna see >51 % of all games be shown to end in minor piece endings)

3) Show me your refutation of 3...Nd7 and 3....Nc6 since you said that Bd7 is “necessary”. I play 3...Nc6 after studying Kotronias’ great book on the Anti-Sicilians
Basically, I want u to prove with evidence that your claims aren’t absurd as you say they aren’t.

I hate to break it to you, but you have to know quite a bit of theory no matter what opening you play. Also, when playing Black, it is kind of hard to keep White from forcing a draw or at least reaching an equal position. In the Dragon White can obviously get full equality many ways if they are looking to draw but I can only think of one “forced draw”. Objectively, the thing is that Black can’t “force a plus position” no matter what they play.

Lifetime repertoire? Imagine being condemned to playing the London System over and over again for the rest of your life! Take me now, Lord!

  Yes, it would be better to say "more appropriate" instead of "necessary". If you look at Endre Vegh's Modern Benoni book and Chris Ward's Dragon book, you can see the statistics results I mentioned. I don't want to argue, but I don't like your attitude. No need to continue, good luck.