Should we change of openings or always play the same?

Should we change of openings or should we always play the same? What do you think?

After much changing it seems I've now set for a restrict number of lines. But there is also a point in changing, I believe.

First of all, U should listen the song "Should I stay or should I go?" by The Clash!

I used to play every opening under the sun.  I know others that only play 1 opening.  I can tell you from experience, neither is good!

It's best to have multiple openings, or in some cases, multiple variations rather than multiple openings.  They should have some correlation to each other and compliment each other.  For example, it doesn't make sense to play the King's Indian, Benko, Modern Benoni, and Leningrad Dutch.  If you play the King's Indian, and need an opening for situations where a draw is the goal, or your are playing an erratic player and figure something safer would work best against him, play the Nimzo-Indian, or Slav, or something along those lines.

Also, if you play the same players a lot, you don't want to be totally predictable.  You could play exclusively Sicilian, but change it up by playing say, the Najdorf and the Taimanov.

I would suggest 2 to 3 openings against 1.e4, 2 to 3 openings against 1.d4, something against each Flank Opening, and understanding both 1.e4 and 1.d4 as White.

Chess being an imitation of life, we should play the same every day.

Your statement is contradictory.  History is not made to repeat itself!

Plus, what you do on Wednesday is likely not the same as what you do on Saturday!

"I would suggest 2 to 3 openings against 1.e4, 2 to 3 openings against 1.d4, something against each Flank Opening, and understanding both 1.e4 and 1.d4 as White."

Especially if you're in a smaller community, and there's a good chance everybody knows each other and their opening repertoire.  Gotta mix it up!

I agree with that approach. Having 2 options with black might be the more balanced. What about with white?

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

I think that when you're starting to learn, you should understand a few different "opening ideas", and pick one that you feel more confortable with. Do you like to be more agressive, more defensive and counteratack, or to keep versatile? Do you prefer an open game or a close one? These are all things to look out when you're deciding your repertoire.

For me it is difficult to memorize, so I try to get a feeling of the opening, typical moves and plans. It is easier if you always play the same openings.

I find that sticking to the same repertoire gives an advantage and easier play, but it may be boring playing always the same. I heard a grand master saying that changing repertoire every one or two years might be a good idea.

if you are new you should change openings to find what is the best fit for you. If you are not and had enough experience why should you? You can play different opening once in a blue moon which would be better for boredom.

His point is probably that they're too similar in style.

I'm not sure I totally agree with his post

My advise is if you're USCF is under 1600, only play one opening, as its best to spend time on other stuff. However as skill improves I recommend adding to your opening repertoire to keep your opponents guessing.

Also depends on what kind of chess you play. If you play a lot of chess OTB and you know your opponent then mixing up your openings may give you an advantage.

You should have a small repertoire of openings that you use most of the time.  Playing the same opening over and over gives you a strong understanding of the kinds of positions the opening leads to.  At the same time, there may be other openings that suit your style of play and may be less known than the most popular openings, so you still want to explore.  I recently switched from the Bishop's Opening to the Vienna Game - both of which often transpose into each other and I'm finding some good-for-White positions that playing 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 makes available that the Vienna does not in certain variations and some that playing 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 makes available that the Bishop's opening doesn't.  So I'm studying both to see what I'd like best.  A little variation or a totally different opening should be tested a little by you -against engines, unrated games, etc. before making it part of your repertoire.

I think he was mostly getting at they are too different in themes and ideas (KIA and Benoni being almost polar opposites), which reinforces his idea that your opening repertoire should all be similar so that you know what your doing at all times and so that they complement your strengths and understandings.