Studying chess openings

I have largely neglected the study of chess openings for two basic reasons 1. I think it damages my creative abilities. - I don´t feel that I am following the history of my game whilst playing it. This puts me alone in the woods once my opponents play some different idea.

2. I wouldn´t know where to begin the study.

Any suggestions for a player with agressive inclinations?

For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.

https://www.mongoosepress.com/excerpts/OpeningsForAmateurs%20sample.pdf

Perhaps Sharenktbts would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006).

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

"Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.

For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)

Also, perhaps look at:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/picking-the-correct-opening-repertoire

http://chess-teacher.com/best-chess-openings/

https://www.chess.com/blog/TigerLilov/build-your-opening-repertoire

https://www.chess.com/blog/CraiggoryC/how-to-build-an-opening-repertoire

In a 2006 GM John Nunn book, in connection with opening study, it is stated that, if a "book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first", and the reader was also advised, "To begin with, only study the main lines - that will cope with 90% of your games, and you can easily fill in the unusual lines later."

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

In one of his books about an opening, GM Nigel Davies wrote (2005), "The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line."

Perhaps, look at: https://www.chess.com/blog/alexcolovic/learning-openings

GM Simon William's (ginger) articles are always interesting - that was one of the many

I've always blieved that most people play book openings. The only question is how long do they stay in the book. A quick review of your games show you normally play the following: The French vs 1.e4, The Queen's Gambit as white. The Morra Gambit vs the Sicilian.

My suggestion is that you study the openings you are already playing

Hmmm, Wow man, you beat a FIDE master. I personally don't think I could offer you much advice , lol. I checked over a few of your games, if you never studied openings, and don't know where to begin, perhaps study your own games more in depth, and the games you like the most will give you the biggest clue, which opening to study more deeply. For example did you like the game when your opponent played black and played c5, when you played e4, this is an example only.

Higher level players usually like more positional games, that doesn't mean there can't be exceptions, perhaps if you have access to a data base is to go through top players you like, and study their games more deeply. Most know basically all the main openings, yet some still have their favorites.

For example Bobby Fischer loved e4, however his undertstanding was such that he could also play d4, or even c4. As white, these can all lead to open games eventually at least. However some higher level opponents  out there   actually like very complex positional matches, and are masters at that type of play (Karpov, and Menas as examples). You have to be able to play against that type of player as well at higher levels. Edmar Menas  and Karpov comes to mind, lol. Good luck, I believe you will be successful, no matter what you choose.

I had to add this, perhaps this might also be helpful. Sometimes what we should study isn't what we like, but what we are weakest in. This will help us most to improve.

If you want to feel that creative flow and not walk down the well trodden path I might suggest

1.Modern Defence

2. Owens/English Defence complex

3. Lion/Old Indian

4. Sniper 

5. Nimzowitsch Defence with e5 

6. Scandinavian Gambit vs e4, Chigorin Defence vs d4 

as white 

1. Bird Larsen

2. Killer Chess Opening rep with Colle Zukertort/Barry Attack/150 Attack

3. English (Kosten Repertoire) 

4. Nimzo/Larsen (if you choose Owens/english def) 

5.  Dunst Opening 

6. Orangutan (1b4) 

I don't want to, and by the way my memory is first class.

I wasn't addressing you Isaac, you didn't start the post

They were hardly doing sunbathing either.