A GM who plays in our local league reckons you should know a lot about something and something about everything. There's obviously a balance to be struck. Playing different openings gives different pawn structure experiences.
Should we change of openings or always play the same?
Sort:
MickinMD wrote:
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.
yes, I agree. Stick to one repertoire but try changing a little once in a while within the same kind of structure.
"You should know a little about everything, and everything about something". Meaning, have a few main lines you focus on, but also try something new every now and then, as it develops your intuition.
I try to play universally, but I have my pet lines that I know I can rely on when I need a good result.
Sep 17, 2021
0
#26
It is all depending what your opponent plays. With d4 you could play a Kings Indian and against e4 you could do a French, or do the Pirc defense but with the King Indian setup.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#27
I am a 70 yr old uscf 1350 player that's played in tournaments since I was 45. I have collected about 100 chess books and half are opening and different repertoire books. I will never be a master so for me it's all about having fun. I play 1.e4 ,1.d4 , e5 , Sicilian and gambits.
I think that if you are white, you should have an easy opening that you can understand, and possibly switch it up depending on what your opponent plays. However, if you are black, your opening should slightly depend on what your opponent plays first.
If you want to stick to the same opening every time, that is fine. However, I think you should at least have some other options on what you would play. I think that the opening that you choose should depend on what your opponent plays.
I play Sicilian against e4 and Dutch against c4, d4 and nf3 as black. Usually know where I am in those. Anything else I will develop as it seems to call for. As white I play e4, but I am to inconsistant in the openings. If I try to get better at one it is forgotten by the time I get to play it, or the person plays so random I am thinking on the spot. I keep it fairly narrow, one variation for each possible game and a fall back system. Not sure if it is doing me any good as I might learn more playing with variety. Still blundering is my biggest problem, not the opening.
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.
Are those defenses bad or what?
His point is probably that they're too similar in style.
I'm not sure I totally agree with his post
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.
I dunno; what I thought he was getting at was that if you're gonna have too many openings they might as well not all be so aggressive. But I have no idea really. I guess you can ask him