Opening for 1700 player?

FloatingRook

As you can see my rapid rating is about 1700 and until now i never really thought about what opening to play. Is it still to early to think about an opening reportoire? Because most players I play against seem to already have some sort of plan for the middlegame. And if I should learn an opening, what would you recommend for a still learning but not complete beginner player like me (my playing style is quite normal and balanced I would say, but maybe a master can interpret something else out of my games)?

MaDLife37

Of course, you must pick the opening which fits your playing style. If you want to improve your chess at this level, you must pick an opening reportoire. If you are a player who starts with 1.d4, you must have a knowledge about Black's choices such as 1.c5, 1.g6, etc... If you play 3.Nf3 against "1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6", then you must have a knowledge about Black's choices such as Queen's Indian, Bogo Indian, QGD, etc... This is a vital way to improve.

Aleksandr_Medved

Focus on "d4", you have a decent positional understanding and are not afraid of reaching an endgame, while you don't have a lot of "book" knowledge you have the intuition necessary to play this positions. Try to develop your endgame skills and you will improve a lot thanks to your technique.

 

You don't really need to worry on your opening repertoire but here is a suggestion: use a program like SCID or chessbase to make a database with your games, play through them and analize them, see where you were comfortable and where you weren't, investigate the positions you know and try out new ideas, understand the positions you are trying you reach and the price you have to play in order to reach them. Keep an eye on recent chessgames at international level so you can see new ideas and disasters alike.

 

This will take time and dedication but it is the best way to get a taylor-made repertoire that suits you.

 

here are some players that might interest you:

Capablanca/Rubinstein: their games are clear and simple (plus Capablanca was perhaps the greatest endgame player to ever exist)

 

Petrosian: Not until Kramnik had such a solid "d4" player achieved World Champion status

 

Kasparov: Managed to play very offensively with "d4" which is always interesting.

 

Mamedyarov: anothe agressive "d4" player who is ready to "go off the book" as soon as he deems necessary.

 

FloatingRook
Aleksandr_Medved hat geschrieben:

Focus on "d4", you have a decent positional understanding and are not afraid of reaching an endgame, while you don't have a lot of "book" knowledge you have the intuition necessary to play this positions. Try to develop your endgame skills and you will improve a lot thanks to your technique.

 

You don't really need to worry on your opening repertoire but here is a suggestion: use a program like SCID or chessbase to make a database with your games, play through them and analize them, see where you were comfortable and where you weren't, investigate the positions you know and try out new ideas, understand the positions you are trying you reach and the price you have to play in order to reach them. Keep an eye on recent chessgames at international level so you can see new ideas and disasters alike.

 

This will take time and dedication but it is the best way to get a taylor-made repertoire that suits you.

 

here are some players that might interest you:

Capablanca/Rubinstein: their games are clear and simple (plus Capablanca was perhaps the greatest endgame player to ever exist)

 

Petrosian: Not until Kramnik had such a solid "d4" player achieved World Champion status

 

Kasparov: Managed to play very offensively with "d4" which is always interesting.

 

Mamedyarov: anothe agressive "d4" player who is ready to "go off the book" as soon as he deems necessary.

 

Thanks alot for the advice!

Did you go over a game of mine or how do you know that I'm a positional player? I'm not sure if I want to go this path, as a more aggresive and tactical approach to the game seems more fun to me. When i want to start playing more attacking chess, do i need to have great bookknowledge or is my "intuition" still enough?

 

Aleksandr_Medved
FloatingRook wrote:
Aleksandr_Medved hat geschrieben:

Focus on "d4", you have a decent positional understanding and are not afraid of reaching an endgame, while you don't have a lot of "book" knowledge you have the intuition necessary to play this positions. Try to develop your endgame skills and you will improve a lot thanks to your technique.

 

You don't really need to worry on your opening repertoire but here is a suggestion: use a program like SCID or chessbase to make a database with your games, play through them and analize them, see where you were comfortable and where you weren't, investigate the positions you know and try out new ideas, understand the positions you are trying you reach and the price you have to play in order to reach them. Keep an eye on recent chessgames at international level so you can see new ideas and disasters alike.

 

This will take time and dedication but it is the best way to get a taylor-made repertoire that suits you.

 

here are some players that might interest you:

Capablanca/Rubinstein: their games are clear and simple (plus Capablanca was perhaps the greatest endgame player to ever exist)

 

Petrosian: Not until Kramnik had such a solid "d4" player achieved World Champion status

 

Kasparov: Managed to play very offensively with "d4" which is always interesting.

 

Mamedyarov: anothe agressive "d4" player who is ready to "go off the book" as soon as he deems necessary.

 

Thanks alot for the advice!

Did you go over a game of mine or how do you know that I'm a positional player? I'm not sure if I want to go this path, as a more aggresive and tactical approach to the game seems more fun to me. When i want to start playing more attacking chess, do i need to have great bookknowledge or is my "intuition" still enough?

 

I believe you are mixing a solid style with positional understanding: A solid style was what characterised the games of players like Petrosian, patient strategies and a tendency for closed positions. Positional understanding could be roughly defined as: A players capacity to identify and tend to the needs of the position.

 

I've looked at several of your games and it seems that while you do indeed aim for the initiative you like to do so without large risks involved and under the guidance of good positional principles.

 

You have expressed you desire for agressive play, once again I reinstate that d4 suits you well. You could look at games of players like Kasparov, Alekhine and Mamedyarov whose style is slightly similar to yours (the three of them are very strong attacking players with deep positional understanding). and played a significant amount of games with "d4".

FloatingRook

thanks alot for your answer. it's really nice of you that you looked up my games to tell me my playing style, because as odd as it sounds, for myself it is very difficult to see where my strengths and weaknesses lie. I will try those players you listed. I would also really like to hear your thoughts about what opening to play as black in that context.

HorribleTomato

Whats your style?

FloatingRook
HorribleTomato hat geschrieben:

Whats your style?

 

I was never quite sure myself, but Aleksandr_Medved looked up some of my games and interpretes theme as more on the solid and positional side.

 

KennethUnderhill
Wanna play