Opening selection...

I've been away from chess for a number of years and now that I'm back in I've started to assess different opening variations.

Chess writers always say "don't memorize the opening variation but get the ideas."  That's great advice of course but not followed up with practical ways of doing that.

What I've found lately though is if I look at an opening and then decide on what move I think is appropriate I can then look at a databased of moves to see if I get it right and for the right reasons.

There are openings that I get right quite a bit of the time.  There are other openings where I consistently get the moves wrong.  Not too hard to choose which one to lead into.

What are other's experiences with practical means of selecting openings for play? 

How about those who are a bit stronger?  Your criteria for an acceptable opening may be a bit different.  The moves can't just come to you naturally you are also going to look at end game and other issues.

Anyone have ideas on how to put together an opening repertoire or select individual oepnings?

A lot depends on your style of play.  Brains think differently.  The Najdorf makes no sense to me at all.  The Petroff and many other 1...e5 defenses make perfect sense to me.  For other players, it's the other way around.

Don't let reputation decide for you.  As White, I've tried almost everything under the sun.  Believe it or not, what makes the most sense to me is actually 1.b4.

Here's a prime example from an Over the Board game played last night (Time Control was Game in 75 Minutes - I of course had White):

Others can say whatever they want about 1.b4.  Games like this are not unusual for me.  Sure there are spots where Black could improve, most notably ...f4 instead of ...Nf7, but even there, nobody could find a way to bust White.

Play what works for you, and let the others say what they say.  I have little to no respect for the King's Gambit for White or the Benko or Alekhine for Black as I tend to beat all 3 of those.  At the same time, I hate the Najdorf because it makes no sense to me.  That should not stop anybody else from playing the Najdorf, Benko, Alekhine, or King's Gambit just like how others talking trash about 1.b4 doesn't stop me from playing 1.b4!

The biggest things to look at are any typical positional ideas that exist. I like the French and Caro-Kann as Black because they give me a rather clear method of play. I stray from the Sicilians usually because those openings are wildly unclear and tactics usually override strategy to a great degree, though sometimes I may play the Scheveningen.

I score much better in dull, positional lines than I do in sharp, tactical ones, for some it's the opposite.

Usually what this means is Closed vs. Open. I love closed positions because I'm better at maneuvering my pieces to critical squares than I am at attacking in the more direct fashion of open positions, though when I do play open positions, it usually means an opponent has chosen the exchange variation of some line and probably they have given away their advantage.

Then there's Classical vs. Hypermodern. I usually prefer a more Classical style of play, since I find that there is a real onus on you to counter attack if you allow your opponent to own the center, and this isn't something I'm too comfortable with, but still there are exceptions--I'm having a good time playing the Grunfeld with Black pieces.

Probably, you can find a GM who plays in a similar style to you--you probably already know who that is because you enjoy going over their games, and see what opening systems they choose. For me it's Karpov and Capablanca--like both of them, I really like the Caro-Kann.

With White pieces I play 1.d4, Classical Nimzo, Bayonnet Attack KID, and main line Slav/Semi-Slav. Unfortunately those are mostly the only openings I ever see at my level with White pieces.

With Black pieces I play either the Caro-Kann or sometimes French, though I may add the Open Game to my repertoire, and I play Slav or Grunfeld vs. 1.d4, somtimes Nimzo.

I am extremely busy, and so if you are willing to do 7-day instead of 3-day, sure, but 3-day won't work for me at this time.

@fireflashghost

I agree about it being a matter of style.  One reason I switched from 1 e4 is that I don't find the moves come that naturally to me in many lines.  The only one that really feels right  to me is the Ruy Lopez but the chance of playing that is pretty low actually.

So my attempt at putting together a repertoire for both white and black has been guided so far by three principles:

1) The standard moves and ideas are intuitive or at least easily learned.

2) There's a high likelihood of being able to play the opening.

3) Openings have similar ideas.

As an example the French has a high degree of probability of entering play and the bad bishop theme is shared with the defenses to 1. d4 that I play.

That's easy to explain how I like both 1.b4 and the Petroff - I play one of them as White, and the other as Black!

I prefer a more offbeat game as White, and the attack for White in the Sokolsky just "makes sense" to me.  It's often times an attack on g7 and/or h7.  I hate sterile equality as White - I feel that White is the time to try to win.  It's like baseball - road team plays for the win, home team plays for the tie.  So if you are down 1 in the top of the 9th with 1 on and nobody out, you try to score a homer with one of your next 3 players.  At home, because of having the advantage of going last, you play for the tie, and instead of going for the homer, you try to bunt the runner to 2nd, and then take 2 shots at getting him home on a hit.

It's the same here.  As Black, equality is what I look for.  If the game ends in a draw, it ends in a draw.  If White slips, I push on to win.  Therefore, normal, solid openings like the Petroff and QGD are easy to play as Black, but both I find very difficult to beat as White, so I play something that requires a different wavelength in the brain, and even against those that know the theory and players rated over 2100, I've often gotten really good positions and won with the Sokolsky.

If all I want is a draw as White, I could just as easily play 1.d4 or 1.e4.

I guess I am interested in the criteria and mechanisms folks use to make the decisions. Certainly playing an opening well enough and feeling challenged is important. I've studied opening I've liked and would play but realized there was little chance of getting into it.

Recent examples of the later - - Cambridge Springs defense. Tartakower defense. Those are booth openings that I like but won't spend a lot of time on as I think the likelihood of getting them over the board on a regular basis is low. I don't want to spend a lot of brain cycles spinning hoops games up. By contrast the French is clear has common ideas and known strategy. Many of those strengths, weaknesses and themes are relevant to other openings. I'm studying the Ragozin and the Nimzo with possible inclusion of Tartakower. But the Ragozin and Nimzo just slide one into the other.

One other criteria. I have to believe it. There are plenty of openings that don't convince me but are valid. Vlad played the Petrov. He drew almost every game he played with it. How much to own a defense that draws at will

viva españaa

Nice game Thriller Fan!!

@Dunk 12. I totally agree with you. I try to play Caro-Kann and French too as Sicilian and Roy Lupez moves are memorized by most of my opponenents up to move 16 and c6 or e6 games lead to lot of interesting positions.  With white I am leaning toward d4 or Nf3 games. But I prefer to differ a bit from the main lines. I studied too Karpov's Caro-Kann games, he had some nice ideas.

@mrtampa2

The French is a good example of an opening that I've switched to now because I find that I can "guess" at the "right" move.  Sometimes the move i select will be a second or even third in order of what theory recommends but there are sign posts - do something about the bad bishop, c5 and e5 pawn breaks, and make sure you strike back in the center so that you don't get smothered.

I find it gives me something to calculate toward. The calculations have something concrete to revolve around.

I think it was Neil McDonald who wrote that in the French or GQD you can make small mistakes and perhaps a suboptimal move or two and not get slammed like you can when playing the Sicilian or KID or some other wicked sharp opening. 

He said that when he used to play the KID he was either pushing forward relentlessly or getting pushed back relentlessly.  A small misstep and you find your attack stall on one wing and the opponents attack raging on the other wing.

I know exactly what he means.  If I make a mistake in the French I can pretty much figure out what I did wrong and adjust.  Not so much when playing the Sicilian.

@dunk12

I think you pretty much sum up my thoughts about that matter.  I'm learning the French but feel a confidence with it that I never did when playing the Sicilian.  The Sicilian always felt like there was a clearly "right" move and a lot of wrong moves. And heaven help you if you pick one of the wrong ones because the door could slam shut fast.