Time to change opening repertoire?

Hi all. I'm currently 1700 FIDE and I've been playing 1.e4 since I started playing chess. Now I feel that learning how to play with 1.d4, or even with something like 1.Nf3 would help me to improve my understanding of chess by playing different type of positions. What do you think? Is it a good time? Or should I wait a little more?

Im always curious about this question.  

Why are you asking others what openings you should play?  Play the openings youre most comfortable with.  

Possibly of interest:
A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White by IM John Watson (2012),
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627105428/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen161.pdf
www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Strategic-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-for-White-A-76p3721.htm
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Strategic_Chess_Opening_Repertoire_for_White.pdf
Playing 1.d4: The Queen's Gambit by Lars Schandorff (2012),
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626221508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen162.pdf
www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Playing-1-d4-The-Queens-Gambit-76p3736.htm
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Playing1d4QueensGambitexcerpt.pdf
Playing 1 d4 The Indian Defences
www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Playing-1-d4-The-Indian-Defences-76p3735.htm
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Playing1d4IndiansExcerpt.pdf
The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White by GM Larry Kaufman (2012),
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626221508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen162.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/955.pdf
A practical repertoire with 1.d4 and 2.c4 Volume 1 by Alexei Kornev,
http://reviews.dailychess.org/a-practical-repertoire-with-1-d4-and-2-c4-the-complete-queens-gambit-volume-1-by-alexei-kornev-chess-stars-2013-304-pages/
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7288.pdf
A Practical White Repertoire with 1.d4 and 2.c4, Vol. 2: The King's Fianchetto Defences
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7370.pdf
A Practical White Repertoire with 1.d4 and 2.c4, Vol. 3
http://www.chess-stars.com/resources/contents_tom3.pdf
A Cunning Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Graham Burgess (2013)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Cunning-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-for-White-A-76p3827.htm
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-110-repertoires-in-the-age-of-carlsen
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Cunning_Chess_Opening_Repertoire_for_White.pdf
I think Watson, Schandorff, Kornev, and Kaufman advocated 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Bg5, while Burgess advocated 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bf4.
If the Catalan is your interest, perhaps:

The Catalan Move by Move
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7685.pdf

Grandmaster Repertoire 1A - The Catalan by Boris Avrukh
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/GM1A-Catalan-excerpt.pdf
and Grandmaster Repertoire 1B - The Queen's Gambit by Boris Avrukh.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/1BTheQueensGambit-excerpt.pdf
Grandmaster Repertoire 2A - King's Indian and Grunfeld
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/GM2A-KingsIndianandGrunfeld-excerpt.pdf

Possibly of interest:
Starting Out: The Reti by GM Neil McDonald (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627101228/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen131.pdf
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Starting-Out-The-Reti-76p3799.htm
Dynamic Reti by GM Davies
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627005248/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen64.pdf
The Modernized Reti
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7780.pdf
Winning Chess Openings by GM Yasser Seirawan (1999).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf
The King's Indian Attack: Move by Move by Grandmaster Neil McDonald (2014).
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7277.pdf
The Fianchetto Solution by Emmanuel Neiman and Samy Shoker (2016)
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9029.pdf
Starting Out: King's Indian Attack by John Emms (2005).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627034051/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen81.pdf

I have played numerous openings with both colours throughout my chess development, and I kinda wished I didn't.  The end result has been a superficial understanding of most positions, rather than a deep understanding of a smaller set of positions.  

I'm trying to go with an 80/20 approach to openings, where 80% of the time I play the same opening, and 20% of the time I can play whatever.  This leaves enough room to be creative and explore different positions while also building a deeper understanding of main openings.  It seems like a good compromise.

Sorry for the long-winded response, but the answer is critical IMHO.

 

Speaking as one who yo-yos between 2000 and 2150 based on streaks and slumps over the board, I can tell you that I have tried almost every opening known to man kind.  I have also played the same opening for elongated periods of time.  Both are bad!

 

Too many openings and you end up the jack of all trades and the master of nothing!

 

Playing the exact same opening over and over and over and over and over and over again leads to getting complacent and starting to not think about what you are doing, playing like a robot, and you end up making horrible moves because you didn't consider the fact that your opponent inverted moves 8 and 9 and that it actually does make a major difference.

 

It only took me 20 years, but I figured out what appears to be the best recipe.  In involves following each and every one of the following, not pick and choose, ALL of the following:

 

• Have 2 main openings for White, Black against e4, and Black against d4.  Black against Flank Openings you can have more than one, but only one is necessary.
• Of the 2 main openings for each scenario, consider one of them "dominant" and the other "recessive" with a roughly 75/25 split between the two in each case.
• The two openings should in some way go together.  In other words, don't try to combine the Slav Defense with the Modern Benoni or the Caro-Kann Defense with the Latvian Gambit.  One should be a little more aggressive and riskier than the other, but don't go to extremes.
• Your Black openings against 1.e4 and 1.d4 should mesh with each other.  Similar style of play (not similar pawn structure - King's Indian and Pirc don't "mesh")
• For your dominant opening, don't cherry pick variations.  Learn the opening as a whole and play it as a whole.  For the recessive opening, feel free to cherry pick (more on that below).
• Depending on how many tournament games you play a year determines how many times you can go outside of the 6 openings you choose.  My rule of thumb is 1 game per 50 at most, regardless of which color.  I play about 110 to 120 tournament games a year.  I played 1.b4 a few weeks ago.  Before that, I played the Budapest (as Black) last summer once, etc.

 

To illustrate, I'll give you mine.  You will notice that they all lead to either a Blocked, Open, or Static Center.  You don't see me ever going up against a Mobile Center (i.e. Grunfeld, Alekhine, etc.) and only rarely a dynamic center.  Notice that my 2 dominant openings as Black both entail blocked centers.  My 2 recessive openings both entail static or open centers.

 

Mine:

White:  Dominant: 1.d4, Recessive: 1.Nf3 (That may switch at some point)

Black vs e4:  Dominant: French, Recessive:  Petroff

Black vs d4:  Dominant: King's Indian, Recessive:  Dutch (Classical and Stonewall via 1...e6)

 

Notice how also my recessive opening as Black against 1.d4, the way I play it, could transpose to my dominant opening as Black against 1.e4.

 

Also, when you look at what I do as White:

1.d4 - Catalan vs attempts at the NID or QGD, Gligoric, Exchange, or Fianchetto KID, Exchange Grunfeld, 4.Qc2 against Slav (transposes to Closed Catalan if Semi-Slav attempt [4...e6]), etc.

1.Nf3 - 2.d4 against 1...d5, often leads to Catalan or Slav lines, 2.c4 against 1...Nf6 leading often to King's Indian or Anti-Grunfeld lines, and while it avoids the Grunfeld unlike 1.d4, it also entails playing the Symmetrical English against 1...c5.

 

All in all a very positional repertoire.  You see no dragon, modern benoni, leningrad dutch, King's gambit, or anything else even remotely close to resembling those.  This is what I mean by openings that mesh.  Notice that the style of play is similar throughout, but the specifics of the positions are very diverse and so it forces you to think every time and never get complacent!

 

As for the "knowing the opening in its entirity" vs "cherry picking".  Take my case.  I can play the Classical, Winawer, or MacCutcheon against 3.Nc3 in the French.  I can play 3...c5, 3...Be7, or 3...Nf6 against the Tarrasch.  The Petroff, since I don't play it near as often, I don't need to know both the 5...Nd7 and 5...Bd6 variations against 3.d4.

 

Note, if your opening is a line of the Sicilian, know that Sicilian inside and out, not the entire sicilian.  Same with 1...e5.  So if you play the Najdorf, understand both 6...e5 AND 6...e6 lines (where both are possible, against 6.Bg5, 6...e5 is simply bad, same thing against 6.Bc4, but against 6.Be3, 6.Be2, 6.f4, etc, know both lines, but don't try to throw in the Taimanov, Dragon, Classical, Kan, and Accelerated Dragon unless one of those happens to be your "recessive" opening.  The one that is your dominant, diversify within itself, like I will play 3.Bb4 sometimes against 3.Nc3 in the French and other times I'll play 3...Nf6.

 

Hope this helps in answering your question.

If I find an interesting opening that I really want to learn, I'll do some research, determine what lines I like, and then I make an informed commitment to learn it over the next year. If I am switching my Black openings, I often keep my White openings the same, so I can spend more time on preparing my new openings as Black and vice versa. It helps to have positional lines that are very stable for the repertoire you are maintaining constant while you are adapting to the new changes. This is a bit extreme, but I think this can help to bust plateaus. You embrace a new concept and it stretches your ability. Last year, I decided to the learn both the Najdorf and Grunfeld at once and somehow managed to break 2200 despite the demands of these systems. It was an exciting challenge and I was playing principled chess that made sense to me at a conceptual level. (Both of these openings are dynamic and lead to sharp struggles.) Finding a new challenge like this and embracing the struggle without worrying too heavily about the results can be a good way to raise your game. I had a few failures, but I also recognized new limitations my opponents had when countering these aggressive openings. Many players have an entrenched comfort zone that is actually creating self-imposed limitations in their development. If you are at a plateau, it can make a lot of sense to switch things up, but I think the important thing is to commit. Many players try a new opening, have a few difficulties adapting, and give up too soon before learning enough to make an informed decision. It takes a lot of work, but the process can be rewarding if you are motivated.

Your Black openings against 1.e4 and 1.d4 should mesh with each other. Similar style of play (not similar pawn structure - King's Indian and Pirc don't "mesh")

 

I have a friend in the upper 2300s USCF who regularly plays both these openings together, but admittedly he has lately had more difficulties against higher rated players with the Pirc. Black flexibly handles pawn structures to counterattack in both these openings, so I don't see how they are inconsistent. It may seem attractive to have a universal system like this, but they are both very difficult to play well.

Thanks a lot for your response. I find your idea very interesting. It would take me some time to build such a complete opening repertoire, because I think that, at my current level, I should focus more on strategy and endgames than in openings. But I can slowly increase my openings' knowledge as well, I guess. As White, I would definitely choose 1.e4 as my "dominant" option, but I could start playing 1.d4 as my "recessive". I was thinking about the Catalan, but I've read that it's such a complex opening which requires deep positional understanding. Maybe it's too much for me right now... Do you think I should allow NID and QGD? Or should I try going for the Catalan instead? Thanks.

 

They don't react the same because they fail to achieve a similar "type" of pawn structure.  Not pawn location.  It has nothing to do with whether you have a dark square blockade or a light square blockade, it's about the fact that you have a blockade.

 

The 5 primary types of pawn structures are:

The Closed Center - This applies to positions of a blocked nature and all play results on the wings.  Examples of this would be a lot of lines in the French, King's Indian, and Czech Benoni.

 

The Mobile Center - This applies to positions where one side controls the majority of the center and the pawns are free to advance.  Of course, advancing a pawn phlanx can weaken certain squares, and over-extension is often an issue.  Take White's position in an Alekhine or Exchange Grunfeld, for example.

 

Open Center - One or two central files are open and piece play is vital.  A number of openings can lead to this structure, especially those with 4 neighboring pawns on central squares, like the Queen's Indian (c4/d4 for White, c5/d5 for Black) and both sets get traded.

 

Static Center - Immobile pawns combined with one open or half-open file (the main difference from the closed center).  Openings like the Exchange QGD often lead to this.

 

Dynamic Center - An amorphous type center that can't be clearly defined as one of the other four, but can often transpire into one of the other four as pawns become advanced, and a single pawn advance by either side can radically change the situation in the center.  Most Pirc games fall in this category.

 

 

 

So this is why I say the Pirc and King's Indian don't really go together.  The Pirc would be more in line with the Semi-Slav or certain lines of the Grunfeld (non-Exchange Variation, which leads more to the Mobile Center) than the King's Indian, which may have a couple of limited variations with the Dynamic Center, but the Closed Center is far more common.

 

The King's Indian is more in line with the French Defense.  Yes, one involves a dark-square complex, the other a light-square complex.  In one case, White attacks Kingside usually (French), the other Black (King's Indian), but the concepts of both openings are pretty much identical.  The center is stable and locked, play is on the wings, both sides are looking to attack as close to the base of the pawn chain as possible (White d6, Black f3 or g2 in the King's Indian), both involve the Bad Bishop for Black (Light in the French, Dark in the King's Indian), etc.

 

This is why I argue the Pirc and King's Indian don't "mesh" well.

I just want to say that this post was amazing. Thank you for posting it!

Hey, may I ask some advice from you? As a new player I've pretty much sticked to one opening every time I play (e4, Nf3) leading to either Ruy Lopez, Italian game or Scotch game depending what I feel like doing. I prefer to play Ruy Lopez since it was the first opening I learned and watched some videos about. I feel comfortable playing it and I've had good success (against my level opponents) with it. I've also done a bit of research on the Italian game and Scotch game as well.

My biggest issue is with the black openings. I like it when my opponent opens with e4, cause I can play very similar lines as I would play with white. Playing the Ruy Lopez main line is my favourite since I know the main variations about 10 moves deep, which gives me plenty of room to adjust with my opponent. And if my opponent (as they often do at this level) does something crazy, I'm usually very quick to jump on the opportunity and create an advantage.

However the issue is that when my opponent opens with d4 I'm usually totally lost on what I should be doing. One time I started with d6 (having looked somewhere that it has pretty high win rate against d4) leading to a position where I didn't want to trade queens if all pieces are exchanged in the middle. Afterwards I analyzed the game with the computer and it told me I played Black Lion defense. So being interested that I actually managed to figure a solid opening I looked couple videos about it and started playing it ever since. However Black Lion is way too aggressive opening as black for my taste, so I would like some better options against d4 as black. Any suggestions?

Also I would some day like to play some d4 openings myself, do you happen to have any ideas what would fit my playing style and lead to similar positions as the e4 openings I go with? Perhaps that would make it easier for me to learn the ins and outs and have couple more choices in my repertoire. I know that beginners should stick to only couple openings, but I would like to increase my understanding of chess as whole - it doesn't matter if I lose some games while doing so.

So basically if my main opening choice is Ruy Lopez, what do you think would be the fitting choices for my second white opening and two black openings? :-)

 

That does seem like a good compromise, actually.

I have said before that I know that at my current level I need to focus more on middlegame and endgame. But I completely agree with you. By always playing 1.e4 I often end in similar positions. Of course I haven't become a master in open games, but the reason I want to play different openings is exactly because I want to be a better middlegame player!

@ThrllerFan The King's Indian can be played flexibly with a fluidity and variety of pawn structures - in terms of objective strength Mar del Plata might arguably be best against the Classical, but my friend prefers the flexibility of the Na6 lines where ...exd4 or exchange structures sometimes occur. Sometimes a Benoni approach is strongest - the Saemisch and Four Pawns Attack come to mind. Sometimes Black delays central commitment in lines like the Panno Variation of the Fianchetto. I think this variability is appealing to both players of the Pirc and KID who are often looking for a strategically complex game.

@Optimissed I will actually transpose to the Pirc after 1.d4 d6 with 2.e4. Although I think the Pirc is sometimes underrated and have played it myself, I don't think it shouldn't be feared. It takes some work to control Black's counterplay, but ultimately space matters.

I like the flexible 4.Be3 approach, but I think the Classical is also very reliable. There are also some interesting ideas in the Austrian that IM Miodrag Perunovic covers in a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9UJs1g7XfE

Openings often motivate my middlegame study. My philosophy is similar to Sveshnikov's: "The opening is the key to everything."

1. g4

...1.g5

Not kidding in th least bit

@Optimissed I think that is an efficient solution if you are comfortable with 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5.

I will give an example:

When I was crossing from the 1900s to 2000s, I think learning the English as White vastly improved my results when playing against it as Black and also improved my handling of Anti-Sicilians as Black (Closed Sicilians in particular). I think working through Mihail Marin's excellent series on the English also improved my general middlegame understanding as well. Each opening has its own lessons and as you become stronger, you tend to think about the opening more from both sides. This is necessary to be objective and improve the quality of analysis. In many cases you often have a bias, but it is important to understand the other side. You can learn a lot about chess by studying a single opening in great depth from both sides. This is an arduous process, but it can be rewarding in the long-term. The problem many lower-rated players have is that they dabble too much with several openings, but do not commit their energies effectively when they are too scattered. If you take too many shortcuts, it can defeat the purpose of learning a new opening to increase versatility or deepen your understanding. Opening repertoire books often give an illusion of simplicity where it is often insightful to examine alternative continuations outside the book to fully understand the repertoire choices. With deeper study, you may even disagree with an author's recommendation and find improvements of your own! This additional independent work can be time-consuming, but you will learn a lot in the process.