Big time agree with fiveofswords.
Also I think some of the really classical lines (some close to 100 years old!) are... well at least to my amateur eye... are objectively better than what's played today. It's just GMs avoid them because they've been analyzed to death and they'd rather try something new and dynamic on their opponents.
This is like the millionth discussion of this topic in these forums, and all the same responses.
I think that the whole idea of an opening being "too theoretical" is ridiculous. Almost ALL openings have a lot of theory, and the ones that aren't explored so much are either just plain weak or simply tepid.
Let's also forget this notion of "your rating is too low to worry about the opening". Although it's true that the depth of your understanding of whatever openings you play may not be that great at certain levels, it depends less on your level and more on the level of the upper end of opponents that you normally face.
I think that players at every level should be improving in all areas of chess; maybe as a novice player your opening study should be confined to mastering the main tasks and general principles of the opening, but certainly by the time you're an intermediate player, nowadays, you need at least a rough repertoire.
The problem is, if you haven't played many different openings, you lack the experience to be able to select a repertoire, which is probably why you are coming to ask for opinions.
This is my suggestion:
Maybe the best "repertoire" for you right now would be to play the main lines of all of the openings, playing primarily 1.e4 and occasionally 1.d4 as White, and as Black the classical defenses (1.e4 e5, 1.d4 d5) - basically the main lines only. Commit to doing this for a full six months or longer, and only then add the English as White and other main line defenses as Black (Alekhine, Caro-Kann, French, Pirc-Robatsch, Scandinavian, Sicilian versus 1.e4; and the Dutch and various Indian defenses versus 1.d4), and play this extended repertoire for at least another six months (in all cases, memorizing relatively little, but focusing on understanding of general plans and specific tactics only).
Only after that, and only if you absolutely must, go ahead and specialize.
This repertoire is "simple" insofar as you substitute understanding for memorization. At your level, unless you're always playing opponents two classes or more above yours, you don't need to memorize all the theory of the so-called "theory-heavy" openings in order to achieve good results with them. Just know the possible traps and common tactics, and focus on applying sound general principles of chess strategy while accomplishing the three main tasks of the opening (mobilize your army, struggle for (or dominate) the center, and achieve a playable position for the middlegame).
The ghost of Ken Smith is chiding me for not mentioning that you should also be trying out gambits during all of this. So go ahead and throw in an occasional - or frequent - Evans Gambit, Danish Gambit, Goring Gambit, King's Gambit, Belgrade Gambit, Smith-Morra Gambit, etc.
Your repertoire should support your goals. The one I suggested here will support you if your goal is improving for the future, rather than winning the games you play now, at your current level. First of all, you need to master open positions and the logical, general principles that the classical openings are so good at demonstrating; you also need to begin to understand how to handle the initiative and how to operate in situations where you have positional compensation for sacrificed material; finally, you will need to try many different openings, so that when you reach a level where you really do have to develop a truly strong, solid repertoire, you will have some real basis for choice.
This is like the millionth discussion of this topic in these forums, and all the same responses.
I think that the whole idea of an opening being "too theoretical" is ridiculous. Almost ALL openings have a lot of theory, and the ones that aren't explored so much are either just plain weak or simply tepid.
Let's also forget this notion of "your rating is too low to worry about the opening". Although it's true that the depth of your understanding of whatever openings you play may not be that great at certain levels, it depends less on your level and more on the level of the upper end of opponents that you normally face.
I think that players at every level should be improving in all areas of chess; maybe as a novice player your opening study should be confined to mastering the main tasks and general principles of the opening, but certainly by the time you're an intermediate player, nowadays, you need at least a rough repertoire.
The problem is, if you haven't played many different openings, you lack the experience to be able to select a repertoire, which is probably why you are coming to ask for opinions.
This is my suggestion:
Maybe the best "repertoire" for you right now would be to play the main lines of all of the openings, playing primarily 1.e4 and occasionally 1.d4 as White, and as Black the classical defenses (1.e4 e5, 1.d4 d5) - basically the main lines only. Commit to doing this for a full six months or longer, and only then add the English as White and other main line defenses as Black (Alekhine, Caro-Kann, French, Pirc-Robatsch, Scandinavian, Sicilian versus 1.e4; and the Dutch and various Indian defenses versus 1.d4), and play this extended repertoire for at least another six months (in all cases, memorizing relatively little, but focusing on understanding of general plans and specific tactics only).
Only after that, and only if you absolutely must, go ahead and specialize.
This repertoire is "simple" insofar as you substitute understanding for memorization. At your level, unless you're always playing opponents two classes or more above yours, you don't need to memorize all the theory of the so-called "theory-heavy" openings in order to achieve good results with them. Just know the possible traps and common tactics, and focus on applying sound general principles of chess strategy while accomplishing the three main tasks of the opening (mobilize your army, struggle for (or dominate) the center, and achieve a playable position for the middlegame).
The ghost of Ken Smith is chiding me for not mentioning that you should also be trying out gambits during all of this. So go ahead and throw in an occasional - or frequent - Evans Gambit, Danish Gambit, Goring Gambit, King's Gambit, Belgrade Gambit, Smith-Morra Gambit, etc.
Your repertoire should support your goals. The one I suggested here will support you if your goal is improving for the future, rather than winning the games you play now, at your current level. First of all, you need to master open positions and the logical, general principles that the classical openings are so good at demonstrating; you also need to begin to understand how to handle the initiative and how to operate in situations where you have positional compensation for sacrificed material; finally, you will need to try many different openings, so that when you reach a level where you really do have to develop a truly strong, solid repertoire, you will have some real basis for choice.
Sounds like good advice, and I actually was planning on responding to e4 with e5 and d4 with d5 most of the time. However, what is so magical about leading off with 1.e4 as White? I am planning on leading off with 1.d4 most of the time. OK, 1.e4 leads to open tactical positions. Why not lead off with 1.d4 though? The way I look at it is that my opponent is going to lead off with 1.e4 half the time anyway, so I will still get the experience of the open and tactical games when my opponent plays 1.e4. Am I missing something?
THIS GUY IS REALLY STUCK ON HIMSELF
Sounds like good advice, and I actually was planning on responding to e4 with e5 and d4 with d5 most of the time. However, what is so magical about leading off with 1.e4 as White? I am planning on leading off with 1.d4 most of the time. OK, 1.e4 leads to open tactical positions. Why not lead off with 1.d4 though? The way I look at it is that my opponent is going to lead off with 1.e4 half the time anyway, so I will still get the experience of the open and tactical games when my opponent plays 1.e4. Am I missing something?
1.e4 is the best move. This is coming from a mainly 1.d4 player.
Who is stuck on himself?
>> 1.e4 is the best move. This is coming from a mainly 1.d4 player.
I'm going to ask the obvious question. Why are you a mainly d4 player if you believe e4 is the best move? Why do you think e4 is the best move? Or was that a joke?
1.e4 is the best move on principle. Chess principles indicate that moving a center pawn forward 2 squares is best...and the most forcing way to fight for the center is to start with 1.e4, as it is the unprotected pawn push. I prefer 1.d4 for reasons that Korchnoi can sum up better than me:
"I consider both moves of equal worth[1.e4 and 1.d4] but prefer the closed positions arising after 1.c4 and 1.d4 because they offer more scope for the strategic player. 1.e4 produces many forced sequences of moves and thus compels a player to learn far more variations."
The thing is, the amount of variations between either move at lower levels is irrelevant, so just playing 1.e4 is better for improvement.
The problem with 1.e4 e5 is that after 2. Nf3 Nc6 it can go in a lot of directions (Scotch, 4 Knights, Giuoco) even after 1...e5 you need to at least be familiar with the Gambit. Nothing wrong with that but it may not be as "simple" as other alternatives.
Leading with 1.d4 might also be more complicated unless you go with the Colle or Torre Attack or something. It seems to me that it can go in more directions controlled by Black than 1.e4 where the Sicilian, French and Caro-Kann suggests the KIA might be considered and on 1...e5 one of the above mentioned might be employed.
It's often not the play that makes it complicated but the number of offshoots. Maybe I'm way off but that's been my experience OTB but the only way you're going to know is to try them out.
Yes, I think you are missing something - or rather, you will be, if you avoid playing 1.e4.
First of all, playing 1...e5 when White plays 1.e4 doesn't necessarily lead to open positions. For that matter, answering 1.d4 with 1...d5 doesn't necessarily lead to closed positions (the QGA and Tarrasch Defense come to mind). So by playing 1.e4 e5, you may or may not get to defend some open positions.
Secondly, open positions and closed positions aren't simply different, the latter build on the former, because many closed positions can become open. Closed positions are thus more complex, and this is why most good players suggest learning the open games first. It's like suggesting that you learn addition before multiplication.
By playing 1.d4 always, you will be missing lessons on how to handle the initiative in open positions. Playing 1.e4 with a goal of opening the position would help you to play 1.e4 e5 better as Black, since you will sometimes be able to seize the initiative. This is an amazing lesson that you can learn.
I have in mind a repertoire similar to what Kaidanov recommends in his "Comprehensive Repertoire" videos: exchange variations, open central files, etc. Beyond what Kaidanov suggests, I'd recommend playing the whole variety of what are called the "open games" as White - the Center Game, Bishop's Opening, Vienna Game, Four Knights (particularly the Scotch Four Knights), Italian, Spanish, Ponziani, King's Gambit, all of them. It's just something that I consider to be the "classical education" of chess. If you really insist that I recommend just one, it'd be the Scotch Four Knights.
Here's my minimal White repertoire to support mastering open positions:
1.e4
But remember I suggested playing both 1.e4 and 1.d4; my preference would be for a 90-10 to 75-25 distribution in favor of 1.e4, but since you're already well advanced (I recommend the open game only repertoire for novices) and seem to prefer 1.d4, I recommend a 50-50 split, but no more focus on d4 than that, even in your case, for the reasons I gave above. My recommedation for 1.d4 is either stick to the main lines or use a system combining the Colle, Torre, London, and maybe the Stonewall. The main lines support general principles and logic and usually gain more freedom for White's pieces, while the combination of Colle, London, Torre, Stonewall supports simple outpost (e5) lessons and pretty straightforward piece play.
Wow. Great answer. I have a friend who is a Candidate Master who told me I should make sure I play both e4 and d4. I wanted to see what others thought. Thank you very much for that level of detail, too.
Do you have some similar lines you could suggest for:
(1) playing White with 1.d4; and
(2) playing Black against various openings such as, for example, e4 and d4 etc?
The problem with 1.e4 e5 is that after 2. Nf3 Nc6 it can go in a lot of directions (Scotch, 4 Knights, Giuoco) even after 1...e5 you need to at least be familiar with the Gambit. Nothing wrong with that but it may not be as "simple" as other alternatives.
Every first move response to 1.e4 other than 1...d5 has pretty much the same complexity in terms of plausible options on each succeeding ply. This is irrelevant. You don't need to remember move-response pairs or variation trees at this point; you can get by learning only 3-6 moves deep in the most important lines, along with the possible traps and common tactics, and apply general principles from then on, and in case of earlier deviations.
"There's too much to know" is a statement that comes from an error in thinking; the error of focusing on memorization rather than understanding.
I advocate the Open Sicilian for novices; most grandmasters advise you to avoid it because "there's too much theory". Well, at the intermediate level, you can successfully play the Open Sicilian as White or Black without knowing most of that theory. The important thing is that you get maximally open positions and attacking chances. All you need to do is apply general principles and learn the typical tactics and possible traps.
Remember ... the repertoire I suggested supports the goal of improving over time. It is not what I'd suggest to someone rated 1400 who wants to win more games at that level.
Wow. Great answer. I have a friend who is a Candidate Master who told me I should make sure I play both e4 and d4. I wanted to see what others thought. Thank you very much for that level of detail, too.
Do you have some similar lines you could suggest for:
(1) playing White with 1.d4; and
(2) playing Black against various openings such as, for example, e4 and d4 etc?
1) I recommended playing either main lines or some combination of Colle, London, Torre, and maybe Stonewall.
Main lines basically means playing 1.d4, 2.c4, 3.Nc3, and from there basically playing the first line mentioned in any general work on the openings against each specific opening.
Otherwise, I recommend the combination of Queen's Pawn systems. Combination because although they are all systems that can be played against almost anything, there are reasons you might not like to play them. The Colle, for instance, really only has bite if Black plays an early ...e6, shutting in the queen's bishop. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5, 3.Bg5 loses its normal purpose since Black can play 3...Ne4. The London System really does poorly against 1...d5, 2...e6: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Bd6 is supposed to be immediately equal, and it's a really dull kind of equal (4.Ne5 is simply met by 4...f6, since Black hasn't played ...Nf6). If you go this route, I'd recommend Dzindzi's 1.d4, 2.Nf3, 3.Bg5 against the Dutch. So this all gives us:
1.d4
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3
2) As Black versus 1.d4 d5 2.c4, I have in mind the QGA (2...dxc4) and Tarrasch Defense (2...e6 3.Nc3 c5). Against almost everything other than 1.e4, I'd aim for the TMB setup with ...d5, ...e6, ...Nf6, ...Be7, ...O-O, ...c5, ...b6, ...Bb7, and ...Nbd7 or ...Nc6.
Against 1.e4, play mainline 1...e5 defenses, usually with ...Nc6, ...Nf6, and ...Bb4 or ...Bc5. Against the Spanish choose one line without 3...a6 (Steinitz, Berlin, Classical, Cozio, Barnes) and one with (open, closed, Moeller, Archangel), and play them both. Against the King's Gambit, play 2...exf4 and if 3.Nf3, then 3...g5. If you're like me, this will be the most difficult line for you, but it's a good education. If you really need something else, play either the KGD or 2...d5 3.exd5 exf4.
@jlconn: Thanks much. A couple of quick questions, and I apologize if the information is contained in the above as I am getting tired and you have given me a lot of information to digest. I don't intend to make you repeat yourself.
(1) I just want to clarify...When I am White and opening with d4, are you advocating getting into a QGD situation: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6? If so, would you advocate 3.Nc3 next? I think that is what you are saying, which is a system that John Watson advocates for White. Are you familiar with his writings?
(2) When I am Black, do you ever advocate the Slav or Semi-Slav for a response to 1.d4?
(3) What are your thoughts (when White and/or when Black) on implementing the Gruenfeld, KID, Nimzo-Indian, Bogo, KIA, Queen's Indian, miscellaneous gambits, the Hippo, or unusual irregular openings (the latter to throw off opponents)?
(4) Are you familiar with Kaufman's Opening Repertoire for White & Black, and if so, what are your thoughts? I own the book and it looks good, but he does not implement the Slav or Semi-Slav.
Thanks.
1) I am advocating either the main line 1.d4, 2.c4, 3.Nc3 or something similar to the combined Colle/London/Torre that I detailed in my previous response. 3.Nc3 is the most flexible and also the most forceful move after 1.d4, 2.c4, so yes, I recommend that, because it is what general principles tell us the best move should be. But don't worry about specific move orders; your knights will go to c3 and f3, bishops to b2/d2/e3/f4/g5 and e2/d3/c4/b5, and you will castle kinfside in the classical main lines, which is what I recommend you play. Because of the complexity of ideas that arise via the Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian, Gruenfeld, Modern Benoni, Semi-Slav, etc., I think I'd steer towards my Colle/London/Torre proposal if I were you (because strategy revolves around achieving the e3-e4 central break and/or an attack based on control of the central outpost e5). Remember, the emphasis should be 1.e4 and open positions.
2) Slav, yes, Semi-Slav, no. Mainly QGA and Tarrasch. Since the earliest books on modern chess, the three ways to handle the Queen's Gambit have been to accept it, to decline with ...e6 and play along the lines of what we now call the Tarrasch, and to decline by ...c6. Play all three, but I don't recommend playing anything else, and don't specialize on any one of the three at this point.
3) Let's start with "throwing off your opponents"; this is exactly the type of thinking I'd advise you to avoid. The opening is the stage of the game in which you mobilise your army ... you may do that effectively or ineffectively, but if your opponent is unfamiliar with something like the Hippo, but accomplishes the three opening tasks while following general principles, the only person you've thrown off is yourself. Until maybe 2000 USCF (and maybe not even then), games aren't won or lost because of opening choice, they are lost because of blunders.
But your question makes me pause.
Remember that my recommendation is for the case where your goal is to improve, not to win more games now, at your current level. A desire to throw your opponent off belies the desire to win more at your current level. That's a different goal than improvement. My advice is to support the goal of improvement.
As far as the non-classical defenses to both 1.d4 and 1.e4, I recommend you add the main lines of those to your repertoire only after you've played the main line classical defenses for a long time and are comfortable with those.
I want to make clear that my intention is that you wouldn't memorize any moves other than the ones I have given. To "learn" the opening, you will play over master games that reach those "tabiya", and learn the possible traps and typical tactics. Get a feeling for how they're played, and play them a lot OTB and in correspondence a la aww-rats.
4) The previous version of Kaufman's book actually did recommend the Semi-Slav for Black.
Both books were written for strong players. Candidate masters and up, I'd say. The idea is to present a tight, solid, strong opening repertoire. That is not what an improving class player needs. I don't mean to sound insulting by this, but those books are beyond your level.
In fact, a great many chess books are beyond the level of players rated under 1700-2000, especially opening books, even though they're written at a 6th grade level.
Thanks for the explanation. No, none if that is taken as an insult. I need to tailor what I do to my level and not to what a GM would do, obviously. You've given me an excellent place to start (and even something I could probably play for life if desired).
I've haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone has mentioned this repertoire - as white play the London System and as black play the 3...Qd8 Scandinavian and the Baltic. It's a bit passive but that's as simple and limited in theory as it's going to get.
I believe Jlconn original post was bascially to ask you to try a bunch of different lines so that you become a well rounded player which he also said the side effect is you might lose some games in the short term but long term you will be more well rounded which in a way is a nice suggestion. I personally didn't do this approach when I was a lower player and strangely enough now that I'm intermidate I have started doing this from time to time trying to expand repertoire
I just had a few things to say lol the First thing is OOOO you scally wagg lol **Not trying to be offensive or insult you just took a peek at the lines you play against 1.e4 d6 lol I'm a Pirc player from time to time and I like to talk smack to 150 players lol**
Second thing that I wanted to say was nice suggestions. I just had a question about the London system line you are mentioning because I have ended up getting into a heated debate about that line in 1 of my forums. I play the London system as well from time to time and I use to play Nf3 alot as well but apparently that is not so good.
The London System really does poorly against 1...d5, 2...e6: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Bd6 is supposed to be immediately equal, and it's a really dull kind of equal (4.Ne5 is simply met by 4...f6, since Black hasn't played ...Nf6) I do not think this position is relatively as bad as it seems you could just drop the bishop back to g3. It probably is equal though but it doesn't seem like a huge problem.
However, I have had some high levels point out another dangerious line that can arrise with a c5 pawn break by black which demonstrates some danger if whites plays the Nf3 move to early. With out any proper understanding apparently it is not recommended as such. It can be playable but OOO man them high levels sure did put me in a pickle lol on that forum and the position looks like it is hanging by a thread its probably playable but hanging on by a thread man. Apparently the best move order is 1.d4 d5 2. Bf4 not moving the knight out so early. I can show you what happens if you do move it out early
It has a high draw percetnage but man black gets a slight edge in winning percetnages which is why they recommend delaying the knight
In the book Play the London System the author Cyrus Lakdawala doesn't like the line that pushes the white queen from b3 to c2 to c1. He says to play 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c3. If 3...c5 4 dxc5. Kamsky, who used to play the line that pushes the white queen to c1, switched to 3 c3. Also, according to the book possible is 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4 c5 4 dxc5 playing it like a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted.
In the book Play the London System the author Cyrus Lakdawala doesn't like the line that pushes the white queen from b3 to c2 to c1. He says to play 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c3. If 3...c5 4 dxc5. Kamsky, who used to play the line that pushes the white queen to c1, switched to 3 c3. Also, according to the book possible is 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4 c5 4 dxc5 playing it like a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted.
Thank you for your view points it is very instructive I might have to give this a try
2 Bf4 is the preferred move order for the pure London player (someone that doesn't also play the Colle or the Torre). As you probably know the tempo not spent on developing the white king's knight can be used on the queenside if black comes at white fast on that side with ...c5 ...Qb6 stuff. White can either use the tempo to get in Nbd2 so that ...Qb6 can be met with Rb1 in lines if black has locked his QB in with ...e6, or if the black QB isn't locked in white can go down the Qb3 ...c4 Qc2 line and black will have to use a tempo with ...g6 to get his ...Bf5 move in. After ...g6 comes white may at that point play dxc5 if he still doesn't want to deal with the line even with black having spent a tempo.
If black tries to be clever in the ...c5 lines and plays with ...Bf5 first before playing ...Qb6 white can anticipate ...Qb6 with Qb3 (a forte of the London player - anticipating what the opponent is thinking and reacting before the opponent even does it, such as h3 against a possible ....Nh5 or playing Bh2 later before the bishop is even attacked) and when black plays ...Qb6 (white Queen is already on b3) then white goes dxc5. the ...b7 pawn may be loose compelling black to play ...Qxb3 instead of ...Qxc5.
I'm keeping an open mind. I have only tried KIA 1.Nf3 a couple of times. I typically open with 1.d4 (used to open with e4). Maybe I should learn KID. I need more input from people, articles, etc. I'm still at the point where I can be molded...I don't know what my repertoire should look like (not that I can't change it later).
As a KID player, don't learn the KID. Not yet. There are less demanding options for fighting 1.d4...use that extra time you'd need for learning KID theory and use it on endgames.