Should I change my opening?

I currently have the dilemma of whether or not I should switch to the mainlines (see why below) or continue with the opening systems that I enjoy and would love to hear your thoughts.  

I’m relatively new to “serious” chess (studying books and playing regularly) and would like to seek advice from the forum.  I would like to hear from people who are many years down the line, what they think retrospectively about their approaches to the openings and how that’s worked out for them.  Would also like to hear from people who are also in my situation and how they’re getting on with there openings.

Background: I’ve recently begun to delve into the realm of positional chess, which marks a departure from studying books that have mostly been on tactics.  In undertaking this new area of study, I thought I would start playing the main opening lines for a change; the Ruy Lopez (Perhaps 1.d4 is considered more positionally sound than 1.e5 but as I’m new to the Sicilian I thought it would be wise to play it on both sides of the board.) and Open Sicilian as White and the Sicilian Defence and QGD as Black etc.

My Logic being: These are the main lines for a reason; they lead into the middle games that are considered the most positionally sound.  This will aid in my development of positional chess as many of the positions in the games I am studying have arisen from these openings.  Also; I will be generally be encountering my opponents best prepared lines, potentially putting me on the back foot initially but also helping me to develop faster by “jumping in the deep end”.

…however, I’m not 100% convinced if this is the right approach for me or not?

Previously I’ve played The Kings Gambit and an anti Sicilian (as apposed to the Open Sicilian) as White and 1. e4,e5 and the Albin Counter Gambit as Black and now I’m torn.  Deep down I feel that this switch is right for my long term development but I really miss playing these openings and I’m finding that chess has become a little dull since I’ve adopted the mainlines.  I suspect that this will pass once I start to find my feet and begin to appreciate these new middlegame positions -or will it??

So chess is suppose to be fun right, the question is:do I continue to play the opening systems that I love, or do I suck it in and sink my teeth into the mainlines and try and learn to love a new area of chess?

Why not both? Because of the overwhelming amount of theory (particularly the Open Sicilian lines), I don’t have the time and I believe it’s better to commit one way or the other.  I may try the mainlines for a bit and then switch back but then I’m already considering the switch back to the chess I previously enjoyed.  Should I persevere with the mainlines?  Is there anything wrong with becoming a 1. e4,e5 aficionado and never learning a Sicilian as Black?

Thoughts and comments?

I've been playing OTB chess for roughly ten years, and since I've started I've changed my openings so many times that I think I've played every opening at some point or another. I basically would either get bored with my openings, or I would come across something that looked interesting and then start playing it. I'm now almost a master (OTB), and only now in my "career" am I working on building a solid theoretical basis for my openings.

I guess my point is that learning all of the theory is not what's important (Your goal is to outplay the opponent, not the whole of established opening theory!). What is important is that you have some idea of what you are supposed to do with your position in the middlegame. In the open Sicilian, this is not very hard to figure out: usually you just attack his king with full force, push some kingside pawns to open lines, etc. The ideas shouldn't be too hard to learn. If you just play through some master games you should absorb the basics (piece placement and pawn-structure) pretty quickly.

I won't say that you should give up your fun openings entirely (I play the Albin every once in a while too), but at some point it is necessary to learn how to play "simple positions" where you try to exploit a slight/moderate advantage through technique.

Think about it like boxing, a purely tactical player is like a brawler who is tries to brutalize his opponent from the start while a positional player is like a fighter who uses their technique to accumulate a domineering advantage that leads to the knock-out. The brawler style is good when playing weak or intermediate players, but as the competition gets more difficult the "tactics" appear less often.

Evolving from a tactical player to positional player my feel "dull" at first, but you have to keep in mind HOW you are playing.  A positional player, will basically smother her opponent with superior space, pawn structure, and piece placement.  Pressure is gradually ratched up until the opponent buckels under the weight. 

Study the games of Frank Marshall.  He is often thought of as purely and attacking player, but he was very positional player who used his advantages to construct mindbending attacks. Sadly, he never became world champion because he had to play against Jose Capablanca, who was the best positional player EVER. 

You should be "familiar" with at least these openings:  Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit, French, Caro Kan.

Even though, most of the openings played in the Marshall vs Capablanca games are outdated, it is wort studying how a brilliant attacker is basically smothered and never gets a chance to attack.

I didn't read any of what you wrote but I say play what you know and love to play! Play what you think is a fun game, play what you think is a beautiful game! :) If you think losing is beautiful, then lose! :) If you think endgames are beautiful then trade down! If you think drawing is beautiful, then play for a draw! :)

This may be a spin on this topic, but sometimes I think it is good to play something different - get out of your comfort zone, get out of the "same-old" e4-Nf3-d4-Nxd etc. routine.  Try a totally different opening, or at least a different way to open the pieces, than normal.  Even if it isn't the best way, it is a fresh approach.  I normally play 1. f4, but sometimes, if I am looking to have some fun, and play differently, I will play 1. b3, or 1. g3.  It gets your blood flowing, seeing something fresh, evaluating new positions.  In the end, you will have a fresh perspective on chess, and you can later go back to your old horse, satisfied with your new adventures :-)

Thanks BirdBrain

I'm now playing the Scotch Four Knights, increasingly with a 2.Nc3 move order and occasionally veering off into Vienna territory (which maintains the King’s Gambit connection).  I agree with you though, it is nice to play something completely differently now and then.  

Against the Sicilian I’m now playing the Grand Prix Attack but sometimes like to go in for a c3 Sicilian (without any opening knowledge) or even an open Sicilian with f3 and castling on the queenside etc .  

Against e4 I’m now playing the Caro-Kann, which has been surprisingly fun to play and much more active than I had thought it would be.  This later choice is a recommendation from my coach, an endeavour to teach me how to play with specific pawn formations on the board as many thematic pawn formations can arise from the Caro-Kann.  The Caro-Kann is something that I feel I may be sticking with for a while, it’s really growing on me.

Against d4 I'm now playing the Tarrasch defence which also gives me something interesting to play against the English. 

I’m not sure that I will always stick with 1e4 but I still feel like it’s a part of my apprenticeship.  I suspect I’ll move to 1.d4 (which I like to play with friends who don’t know any opening theory) one day but right now I’m a lot more comfortable with my current repertoire and seem to be getting good results in live chess (although still guilty of playing through correspondence chess games too quickly and at times when I really shouldn’t i.e. after a few beers!).

Anyway, just thought I’d post an update.  Thank you for everyone who contributed!

Ben

Ancient main lines are also a great place to look for good ideas.  Sometimes the best players resurrect old ideas, forgotten due to old analysis that is sitting on a shelf in a dusty library.  The ideas are old and good because they were some of the first really great ideas to be explored.  I wouldn't always put my eggs in the recent stuff basket, unless you want to spend a lot of time studying.  

If you're low-rated, playing against low-rated players, I would highly recommend d4.  e4 is totally solid and leads to some incredibly interesting games, but your opponents just won't be as used to seeing d4.  You'll see a lot of QGA and QGD Marshall Defense, both of which score very favourably for white.

play a little of everything and dont concern yourself with openings 10 15 moves deep its to much