Opening repertoire - what is yours, and what should mine be?

For someone seeking help with openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

Even if you do not like his specific recommendations, they might at least give you a feeling as to what you would like to try next.

We should finally turn this Frequently Asked Question into a useful thread to which everyone can contribute for a definitive answer in all such future threads. The answer seems to always depend on which attributes the given player prefers. The attributes of which I'm familiar that affect the choice of the answer are...

(1) tactical opening vs. strategic opening

For example, 1. e4 c5 tends to be more tactical, 1. e4 e5 tends to be more strategic. Related to this is how much the player likes gambits.

(2) amount of memorization required

For example, the Nimzo-Indian Defense requires high memorization, the Colle System requires little memorization. Related to this is whether the player is looking for an opening versus a system.

(3) speed at which the game evolves

For example, 1. e4 openings tend to evolve faster than 2. d4 openings. Related to this is how quickly the endgame arrives.

(4) forcing vs. lax

For example, 1. e4 is more forcing, 1. Nf3 is more lax.

(5) traditional/bookish vs. offbeat/out-of-book

For example, 1. e4 is more traditional, 1. b4 is more offbeat.

(6) school of thought

For example, traditional vs. hypermodern.

(7) patience required to reach a better endgame

For example, the French Defense requires great patience, the Sicilian Defense does not.

(8) the type of endgame preferred

This probably isn't very predictable until the variation is known, but it's something to consider. For example, a game with a N+B trade for R+P at f2 is going to produce a mismatch of piece types, whereas the Four Knights Game frequently ends in a highly balanced rook-pawn endgame.

(9) drawishness vs. decisiveness

For example, the Exchange French tends to be drawish, the Budapest Gambit tends to be decisive.

(10) denudation rate

For example, the Ruy Lopez retains most pieces for a long time, the Austrian Defense trades off pieces quickly.

(11) favorite players

If the player has a favorite player, then he/she will most likely want to adopt the same openings. For example, Fischer fans will tend to want to play the Najdorf Sicilian, whereas Karpov fans will tend to want to play the Caro-Kann.

(12) presence of traps and types of traps

Some openings probably have more traps than others, and the types of traps vary. For example, the Grob aims at a simple trap based on an unprotected b7-square, the Ruy Lopez has the hard-to-see-coming Noah's Ark Trap, the Four Knights has a very-hard-to-see trap if Black plays symmetrically for too long.

What other factors might be important in making a decision about which opening to adopt?

If you're new to chess--

The Italian game, the Ruy Lopez, and the Four knights' game. More complex and dynamic openings should come later but keep it simple for now.

I play the Russian opening in which I often try and gambit my e-pawn but that often transposes to the Traxler counter-attack which is a variant of the Italian game in which black sacrifices a bishop and maybe even the king-side rook for a deadly assault on black's king-side. If you want, you can try practicing this one whenever you get a chance as it is quite fun to play. But be prepared for failures.

Other openings I like are the bishop's gambit, the Tarrasch defense, the English symmetrical, etc.

I recommend trying these opening and deciding for your self and maybe with the useful comments above whether you like the openings or not.

Here are some well known openings:

Sicilian Defense 1.e4 c5

This a very rich and diverse tactical opening so you should try several variations as it is arguably the largest opening in chess.

Ruy Lopez

A more classical approach very well known and should always be considered.

Queens Gambit 1. d4 d5 2. c4

This very stable gambit is a reasonable gambit which takes a solid approach to the game.

The English 1. c4

An opening with focused strategic ideas and can be flexible.

Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4

A good choice for the Black side.

Hope this helps.

Sqod, the list of openings attributes in your post is very interesting and enlightening. Thank you for it!

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ten-rules-opening

Read just the first ten rules, and spare the rest- they are interesting, but unnecessary. It should take you ten minutes to read them carefully.

Congratulations, now you know everything you should really know at your class about the opening.

Have in mind that the application of the theory you have learned is more difficult: It can take you ten days, ten months, or ten years to apply your knowledge properly- it depends on how serious you are about chess.

After you are able to apply all the above in a game of chess with good results, you are ready for further openings study.

To the OP: read the page linked by IM pfren and ignore the rest of the posts. At your level opening study will only lead to wasted time and frustration. What you need is the grasp of basic middlegame ideas and an intensive tactical training.

For the former, you can start with the good old "My System" by Nimzovich.  For the latter, there are three components:

1) Do a lot of basic problem solving - starting with mate in one and working your way up. The are a lot of good problem collections, like Laszlo Polgar's "5334 Problems, Combinations and Games". After you solved at least 500 of these you can start with #2 (without abandoning #1 completely).

2) Study games by old masters in the classic attacking openings like King's Gambit, Scotch Game and Danish Gambit.

3) Play a lot of blitz and don't worry about survival. You need to lose at least 100 games to stop blundering away pieces.

newengland7 wrote:

If you're new to chess--

The Italian game, the Ruy Lopez, and the Four knights' game. More complex and dynamic openings should come later but keep it simple for now.

I agree about the first and the last recommendations, but the Ruy Lopez? There are few more complex and subtle openings than it. There's little sense in recommending a world-championship caliber opening to a beginner.

I play the Russian opening in which I often try and gambit my e-pawn but that often transposes to the Traxler counter-attack

Now I'm genuinely interested. The Traxxler's key move is ...Bc5, while in the Russian/Petroff White typically plays d4 within the first few moves. Can you list a couple of lines where such a transposition can occur?

Wolf_Rayet wrote:

The English 1. c4

An opening with focused strategic ideas and can be flexible.

Right, the perfect choice for a 1000-rated player to exercise his strategic prowess. By the same reasoning a six-year old math student should start with logarithms and matrices.

After reviewing 6 of your last games, the sicilian is the last thing you need to be attempting to play.  You suffer from the same defects all beginners suffer from - you hang pieces, miss simple tactics, dont follow opening principles, make random moves.  

At your level all you need for now is to dollow the Opening Principles:

Control the center

Develop your minor pieces toward the center

Castle

Yea...I know its not sexy, and yea i know its not an opening, but for now that will be what you need.

The primary purpose of the 2006 book, Discovering Chess Openings, was to discuss basic opening principles, but, along the way, author, GM John Emms, did give some information about various specific openings. At one point, he wrote, "If you find an opening here that appeals to you and you wish to find out more about it, the next step would be to obtain an introductory text devoted entirely to that subject."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

Pete Tamburro wrote his 2014 book, Openings for Amateurs, saying that it was for "club players." ("... the outside boundaries for the group will be defined here as between 1100 and 1900, or people who want to be there.")

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

Starting Out: The Sicilian, 2nd Edition by John Emms (2009)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627122350/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen123.pdf

Starting Out: Ruy Lopez by John Shaw (2003)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627024240/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen53.pdf

Starting Out: The Queen's Gambit by John Shaw (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062050/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen45.pdf

Starting Out: English Opening by Neil McDonald (2003)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627024240/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen53.pdf

Starting Out: The Nimzo-Indian by Chris Ward (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627075509/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen42.pdf

Starting Out: Open Games by John Emms (2010)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626232452/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen134.pdf

I think newengland7 was thinking of 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 Ng5 Bc5.

Thank you ylblai2, didn't consider 3.Bc4. That's a clever way to divert Black into the Two Knights.