*Q.G.D.
Switching From Opening to Opening
Sort:
I was really hoping for a response...:(
I recommend the Spanish Exchange as White: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6. You can even play 4. Bxc6 on Black's two other most popular responses, 3...Nf6 and 3...f5!? so then you would have a little system going.
At your level I think you should stick to 1...e5 against 1. e4. Against 1. d4 I personally am going to switch to the Nimzo-Indian against 3. Nc3 (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4) and the Blumenfeld against 3. Nf3 (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 b5!?). Not sure I can recommend them to you though, I am 1700 USCF/FIDE.
Like what? Stick to 1. e4 e5 and 1. d4 d5 until you are a lot better at chess? You seem to be doing that anyway.
Study endgames, you know that is your weakness and we cannot fix it for you.
Also your middlegame skills will not improve if you play system openings. You will not get a wide enough batch of positions from your own games to study. Of course that does not mean that you have to play the sharpest line against everything.
Improving at chess is difficult. You will always have opening problems. That is just the way it is.
chess is almost purely theory. So you think you know theory in openings means you dont. Beacuse if you did you wouldnt be having problems with any of the openings you listed. At least not against non gm opposition.
dpnorman... It sounds like you're wary of some of the openings/defenses your opponents play. Try learning to play those openings/defenses. Or, at least play a few games here and there with them to try and get the idea what they're all about.
And, what sertas in all his self-righteous look at my blitz rating says about chess being almost purely theory is a load of BS. At some point the 'theory' of chess goes out the window, and the innovation and sweat have to come from you the player. When that 'theory' goes out the window, that's how you know you're approaching a middlegame (please keep in mind that's an estimate). Keep in mind though, there are 'theoretically won endgames,' but just knowing it's a win is not enough to win.
Your middlegame play is going to be a direct result of how you treat your openings. Try throwing in a few different moves during the openings, or exploring less popular variations. Even if 'theory' says something is bad, doesn't make it bad at the amatuer level. Maybe at the GM level it is 'bad,' but that 'bad' can be too slight for anybody other than a top player to be able to take full advantage of.
But straight up, sometimes if you don't follow theory in double-edged openings/defenses you can get blown off the board, but, playing theory just to play theory is attempting to be like 'everybody else,' and there is no need for that in such a complex game as chess.
All in all, try working on your overall game before attempting to keep learning new openings if it's not working for you. Good luck.
There is something to be said with starting out with an opening that you don't have to abandon as you improve. This is not the same as saying that you have to use an opening that the GMs use.
Also when you start out studying a particular opening, you don't need to understand every variation or every nuance for that opening. That's probably what is confusing you. You should stick with the mainline and a few popular variations, and understand the principles/themes for that opening. Over time, you can explore and learn the more obscure variations, but you don't need to try to master every line from the get go. Most of the time, lower level players don't know the more obscure lines any way.
The most important factor in selecting an opening to play is to make sure that it is suitable for your style of play. For example, if you are a positional player that prefers closed positions, stick with openings that give you closed positions. If you are a swashbuckling attacker who is great at recognizing tactics in complex positions, pick an opening that gives you open positions and chances to attack early; maybe even pick a gambit opening. If you like using your bishops, don't pick openings that force you to trade your bishop pair or lock one or both bishops behind your pawns.
It often helps to play out some master level games for a particular opening to see what middle game and end game structures and tactics arise. This can help give you a feel as to whether you would enjoy playing such an opening.
dpnorman wrote:
I was really hoping for a response...:(
I don't know if it will help, but it seems I might be on a similar road myself.
I've switched openings for the last twenty years and have NEVER landed in a permanent opening rep. There's always that "magic" or esoteric opening that will confound my opponents and bring all the victories I could ever want-- except that ideal scenario never comes about!!! Several blasted opponents always throw grenades into my position and send me into a long thought trying to figure out what the h*** to do next! And these are turn-based games! No blitz or speed games at all!!
It depends too if you are playing blitz or slow games. Slow games are all I'm referring to here.
You might want to stay with the London system for awhile, or try some of the others you mentioned-- it's one dimensional, but at least you can go into the middle game with a decent position. With Black, it's a never ending question as what to play-- I've been trying to stay with 1. ...e5 right now since I never have been 100% comfortable with all the other normal responses ( and I've tried them all!).
Ultimately, you will have to decide what to do after 1. d4; whether to try and learn all the 2. c4 stuff, or stay with one of the stunted openings (not a derogatory term-- just a descriptive one).
Not a very uplifting post, I know, but I just thought I would tell you about my own experience since it is similar to yours. A final decision on openings can and probably will drive you near mad-- it has me!
One thing I forgot -- learned this the hard way-- no matter what opening play, your opponents will almost always wander out of book and set you adrift having to think on your own, which can be unnerving depending on how you look at it. Even in "quiet" openings they will step out of book early and you must come up with a plan of your own. Gotten burned on this countless times.
lol, that not even bad, i try new opeings like every week.
I think learning the history, plans and experiencing the different position in openings is fun. I only really lock in an opening repertoire about a month before a tournament.
I have played chess for a long time and I often form patterns with my chess play. I play with an opening and I do okay, but I'll have either one very bad result or a bunch of mediocre results with it that put me off of it. Then, I switch to a new opening in the hopes that it will completely turn around my chess, which it doesn't, starting the cycle over again. Here's some opening history for me:
WHITE:
2007-2009 Four knights game
2009-2011 Italian game
2011-2012 Scotch game
2012 London system
2012-2013 Italian Game
2013-present ???
BLACK
2007-2010 e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6, KID
2010-2011 e4 c5 Nf3 d6 (aiming for a Dragon), KID
2011-2012 e4 d6 Pirc, KID
2012-2013 e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6, QGD
2013-present e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Petrov, QGD
I have learned a few things from this. One thing is that I'm not an attacking player. My repertoire with black shows that. But I also focus way too much on the opening. I always feel that I can completely change my game with a new opening, and I don't really know how to study the middlegame (I also really suck at endgames, a good 200 points rating down in endgame strength, I would say). Based on this, logic would suggest just to pick a really simple opening and then play on to the middlegame and study the middlegames you get. I know it's stupid, but the reason I'm reluctant to do this is because masters don't do this. Masters play the very best openings. They don't play the Italian or the London because neither put enough pressure on the opponent. For some reason, I feel I need to choose an opening that is good enough to be played at the highest levels, even though I'm not at the highest level. I'm thinking about playing stuff like the Colle or the London or the KIA because it's simple and because I don't have to worry as much about Sicilians or KIDs. But I don't know what I should do. I have also seen some of the videos by aww-rats (which I like a lot) and he advocates playing unusual openings (Ponziani, Torre Attack, Chigorin's Defense) in order to catch your opponent off guard. This is fine but I've never done so in the past and I don't want to force myself to play a bad opening just because its unusual. Besides, G.M.s don't play those openings.
I guess I don't know what I should do. Picking a "system opening" (London, Colle, KIA) might help but none of those gain white an advantage. I have a particular thing about the London because I have seen that if black gets in an early c5, black's chances of winning are often up to 40%, making me feel reluctant to play it. On the other hand, I don't love the stuff I've been playing as white because A) I hate Sicilians and B) everything is so complicated, even in the Queen's Gambit. It seems all chess openings are either simple and bad or good and really complicated; there are no openings for white that are easy to learn and playable at the G.M. level. :(
On a sidenote, I think my black repertoire is okay because I am familiar with Petrov positions because they are simple. I am familiar with the A.G.D. because it is simple. I often find it's easier to be black.
I am USCF 1000-1100 and 1400-1500 on chess.com on the two settings I actually play a lot (online and live standard). I have also been playing some blitz lately just because it's fun, but A) I'm sure it's bad for my chess and B) I really suck at it (1250 or so).
I guess I just want a solution to my opening problems that I can play for a long time in order to focus more on the middlegame and endgame, which need improvement. Thanks for reading my long post. I really appreciate it.