Openings and variations

I have played some games where both of us (me and my adversary) followed a strict opening pattern, almost copied from an opening book. Sometimes I won and sometimes not, but I found them rather boring due to the strict positions required by the book. In the contrary I found the games more amusing when both of the players were looking for much different variations that demanded more creativity and reasoning than the stereotypical opening positions. So, let me ask you what do you prefer, an strict opening pattern or the exploration of different moves in order to enjoy a game? Why?

I like to play an opening a FEW moves in. I don't like deviating in the first move or 2, but I don't like mainline for more than 5 moves.

I see your point... for a non-GM is not safe to dwell far from home in an unexplored land. That hurts!

I tend to play theory only as long as it feels right.   In the KID, that may be 12-16 moves.  The French, 10-12 moves.  But if I get a feeling otb that my opponent hasn't done his homework on a line--I deviate right at the point where I can feel him wince.  That's what makes this game fun.

On the other hand, if you stay in the book and your opponant gets out first, there is a very good chance that he's made a weak move that can exploit -- or it would be in the book!  My motto is F.O.O.T.BO.L.  First One Out of The BOok Loses!

That's interesting motto. Thanks MrZug!

I was remembering a post regarding an opening made by Garry himself (according to a witness). He opened 1.h4! and followed with 2.h5! Still he won against an International Master. I am trying to find this game and the place I read it within this huuuuuuuuuge forum but I cannot find it. It would be very interesting to analyse the game.

I think as non-GM (let's not say begginers... ) we have to stick to the book if we want to secure our necks and livers.

There is hardly such thing as book openings. All it means is that certain opening sequences tend to be fairly logical and popular. And there is certainly nothing restricting about them. You can play what you like as long as it makes good sense. While there are usually hundreds of sub-variations for every major opening, you might even find the rare occasion to improve on a variation or contribute new ideas (probably not at our level).

No serious player takes up an opening because it's book or not. They play it mostly because they are drawn to its ideas and the positions that arise. It doesn't matter if a certain move has never been played or played a million times as long as its reasons are well-founded and you are comfortable with the positions. Similarly, we're not about to start trying to make computers out of jello because we don't want to go over the beaten tracks of silicon. Popular openings are such because they're logical and sound. This is what good chess players look for. Striving to get out of book is generally a poor idea since the goal is not to play strong chess. It's really just laziness, fear and shying away from the natural responsibility of playing your best. It's also reckless. What kind of general goes to war with no plan and no preparation? Please don't bring up Iraq! You will get out of book sooner or later anyway. There's no need to set that as a goal.

Additionally, it is not more creative or demanding to go and play something like 1. h3 just to get out of an imaginary book. Playing main line openings will often give much more complex, demanding and interesting positions than anything you're ever likely to dream up yourself in the first few moves. Main line openings are typically ambitious and give even more scope to outplay your opponent. Just consider the King's Gambit, Najdorf, Semi-Slav Botvinnik, King's Indian, Grunfeld, Benko, Modern Benoni, Nimzo-Indian, Marshall Attack, Tarrasch etc. All are extremely involved positionally and tactically, with distinct ideas. Notice the immense difference in the approaches and structures of the Grunfeld, Nimzo-Indian or Tarrasch among others. Unlike 1. h3, they can teach a lot about chess.  

So what do I prefer? I prefer the only route that any serious and aspiring chess player considers: playing good moves. Sometimes I go for rarely played sidelines and other times for the main lines. Popularity is rarely a factor in my choices. After all, even the most involved openings are the easy part in chess. Once they're understood, theory comes naturally and with several months of experience, it all starts to come together. Since chess is a lifelong game, this is hardly any work at all. Openings are only difficult if one takes the silly road of rote memorization.

I believe the only way you learn and get better is if you play NOT following the book moves and deviate anyway you wish, that way, you tend to learn from your mistakes. It also allows you to practice I suppose the art of chess. I prefer not following book moves for more than required. We are only human afterall.

 I agree with this in principle, however I am just now trying to delve into opening theory and the most frustrating roadblock I come to is when my opponent deviates, and I know what he should have done according to book, and I still can't see how his error strengthens my chances.  Sometimes, when I am lost as to how to respond, I try to think of the sorts of moves that I would make regardless of which book line my opponent follows.  Sometimes this helps and sometimes it does not.  My rating went up dramatically when I started studying a few opening lines, but I still take my worst losses when my opponent deviates first.  I lose the thread of what I am doing and I lose the initiative.  My rating is between 1650 and 1750 here but it is likely closer to 1450-1500 OTB.

That's exactly how I feel. The deviation causes more devastation when is unexpected. I experienced the same things although my ratings are not so high...