Too big of a repertoire???

Although I have settled on three main defenses to e4, I always have trouble choosing one against d4.  My answer was to play almost everything.  Here is a list of the defenses I play against d4.  QGD, Nimzo Indian, Semi-Slav, Modern Slav, Budapest Gambit, KID, both the Stonewall and the Leningrad Dutch, and the Modern Benoni.  I use each of them against various opponents, but am finding that sometimes I slip on the theory and use the wrong idea.  Should I narrow down my repertoire and specialize or keep my varied defenses to keep my opponents guessing?  Thanks for your imput.

use your favorite more and youll get better at it

Have a main defense v. d4 for your serious games. Having several means you don't know one as well as you should, and you'll be doing "somewhat" less well in the openings of those games.

Although a 1460 USCF doesn't need to do much line-studying in the openings, if at all, if you are working on the rest of your game I

guess it wouldn't hurt to put some time in on a main defense to d4. It's tempting

to study more because, well, the openings are interesting and you are strong

enough to understand a lot, but try to hold back a bit on the variety of openings

studied and the time invested. The fact of serious chess <2000 USCF is that

studying the opening isn't going to result in many points won. You prob have

a good understanding of the opening principles, as well as the ones that

pertain to closed/open etc. types--that sets you up pretty well I think right

there. You probably know where the fight is and where the breaks typically

come in the defense of your choice. After that, just good chesss will serve

you I think.

If you're playing in matches/tournaments try to find out which lines your opponent doesn't like, then play them! Also it's good to know some very drawish, simplifying lines, they always frustrate stronger players. That's from a practical point of view. As far as limiting your repertoire you have to find a style that you enjoy playing. If you like a solid closed defence with chances on the king-side the Stonewall is a good choice. Botvinnik was a great protagonist of that defence. QGD leads to a more open position with lots of tension by black building up gradually to an open center. This has stood the test of time and is still played today by grandmasters. The hyper-modern school has its own advantages.

Speaking as a d4 player, at least in blitz (it avoids the over analysed complexities of the Sicilian) the most frustrating game I ever played was against a Traditional Indian Defence, one where black castles by hand by moving his king to g7 or g8 via f7 and puts a lot of pawns on the third rank. The origin of this style is that the traditional Indian game does not allow castling and pawns can only ever move one square at a time. The defensive positions this leads to are very difficult to crack, although they lack dynamism and tend to be rather brittle if you know what you're doing. I didn't and lost the game through sheer frustration.

I would say to pick a couple to play slightly more often, but play them all frequently.

*Eventually*, narrow repertoire. Definitely. [I am in top-class company here: when Botvinnik was USSR-team chess captain, he once rebuked a USSR player publicly, saying "He is not serious about chess. He plays too many openings."]

*But* - to build that narrow repertoire, you have to try a lot of variations/openings and play them a lot, reading up the ideas... else how will you know what lines are to your taste?

Keep opp's responses in mind - that's easy.

Keep *transpositions* in mind: too many players forget that! Case in point:

I have won many an OTB game against weak players by e.g. 1.e4 d3 2.f4 c5; because this is the position of the McDonnell 2.f4-attack against the sicilian defence, and I used to know the 2.f4 attack quite well [in the 1980s - a little out of touch now]. But I won't try that against a strong player - and certainly not in correspondence chess [even no-engines correspondence chess as here] against a strong player; because in the end the 2.f4 attack is not so good against a prepared opponent! And in correspondence chess - at the time controls *I* play - opponent has time to prepare! [Well, over here since I play 10 or 14 days/move only, at best 7 days/move; not more than 5 games going at a time - so if opp has never exceeded 2150 and is playing 20 games at a time averaging 5 days/move each, then: definitely!]

You should choose 2 or 3, for white and defences with black. WIth e4 I play the guioco piano (for closed games) and the scotch game and sometimes scotch gambit for open ones, depending on what I want. I only have one real response to black's defences when I play 1 d4, But I think that's fine as I get experience with e4 as well. Obviously you want to be flexible but if you understand just a few openings and their middlegames you can make it so that you're just about always in a comfortable position unless your opponent makes a dubious move which is probably not very good. Knowing your openings very well helps you control the following middlegame.

That is an excellent response.

I have so far opened e4 here [It will change starting my next game - I am on 'unofficial vacation' so I'll start another game not before 15 jan minimum - I realised I was playing weak opponents] - in general I play KID, gruenfeld, nimzo/bogo-indian against 1.d4 depending on white's substequent move(s), sicilian against 1.e4 [only at correspondence, otherwise 1..e5]. 

Next year I'll start playing 1.b4 *seriously*. [against 1.b4 e5 there is (instead of the 'book' 2.Bb2) this new very promising but little-tested line 2.b5 , which I plan to play]. 2.b5 is doing well at correspondence chess 'proper' - i.e. engines allowed... check iccf...

I had the same problem I could never decide on what opening to play against 1.d4. I played the most consistant with the slav and semi-slav, and after going over anand's wins with the semi-slav in the WCC, some of the main ideas in the opening just started to make sense. I've been playing the semi-slav alot since them and have had good results.

Against 1.d4: for me it is 1..Nf6 with eyes closed! :)

[then, depending on white's reply: nimzo, bogo, KID, gruenfeld...]

I do like to play different openings.  But my problem has been keeping a main defense to d4 for more than a week.  I remember switching openings 5 minutes before a tournament started.  This is a tough choice.  I like to counterattack, but like to keep a solid base.

I think its better to use only a few openings but know them well !  The top players seem to do this as well. I have 2 defenses against 1 e4 and 2 against 1d4. I dont vary much from them in otb classic tournaments. Ofcourse here its completely different ! If you play  a dozen different openings it brings to my mind the old saw : " jack of all trades but master of none".  If you look at the repertoires of the great players you will see most of them only use a handful of openings that they specialize in. 

I agree. Few openings means less to learn and less to remember. Anyone of us could remember the first sentence of a lengthy novel, but try to recite the entire book word for word. I don't think so.

I agree. Narrow the repertoire for serious games, but by all means experiment and have fun in casual games.

best way to *start* experimenting with a opening you haven't taken seriously before, is at internet 3 0 blitz time-controls. Thats what I do [*] - whoever disconnects/gets disconnected, I resign unless there is immediate reconnection and resumption..

[*]On fics, not here - fics-via-xboard/winboard you can pull most of the console-window off-screen so no one - incl. opp - can distract you; fics-via-thief-fullscreen and you can make sure you are *unable* to see any noise midgame..

Playing a variety of different openings will expose you to a variety of situations that overlap with other openings.  For instance, if you play the king's indian as black and the king's indian attack as white, you don't just learn 2 different openings.  You see both of them from a third vantage point, as if knowing both openings lets you see in three dimensions.

Playing a variety of openings also makes your opponent's ability to prepare for you in tournament or match situations very difficult.  This can give you an extreme competetive advantage.  You can also find holes in your opponent's repetoire, playing into lines it seems he is uncomfortable in or he just played in a tournament and you would like to confront him with before he has time to study up for it. 

Even fischer, who had a very narrow repetoire, eventually widened it up to throw off his opponents, playing various stuff like the queen's gambit ,etc.  Some other masters took it way further than that. 

It's interesting the 'jack of all trades, master of none' comment.  I think it's far more applicable to say that a player who is used to dealing with unfamiliar situations with a wide variety of positional experience becomes the master of 'chess'. 

Zenchess has a point, and I *had* it in mind, as I am sure NM Reb did, we were just too lazy to spell it out.

Essentially, stick to a few openings, but dont get fossilised there. The few openings you master are your bread-and-butter while you experiment with yourself with other openings, and *specially* with prepared variations..

That's my problem.  I don't know what my bread and butter openings are.  I play all of them about equally well.

I see. Your problem is one of 'embarrassment of riches' ;) Unfortunately, unlike material wealth, you can't give some of your openings away :(

Difficult problem ;)

I am like-wise i have

Nimzo Indian,Benoni,Slav and KID/Grunfeld

So this is how i do it generally,i play the slav after 2 Nf3 and if 2 c4 is played i choose the KID/Grunfeld or the Nimzo/Benoni

If 3.Nf3 is played i play a Benoni KID

And 3.Nc3 is played Grunfeld Nimzo

as such i can have plural openings and little decisions

Of the onces you have mentioned;

QGD,why play if you know the slav?

Modern Slav:Yes thats good and solid bit passive vs 2)C4 in my opinoin

Semi Slav:Alot of theory much simpler to play this or a collection of other openings.

Budapest Gambit and the dutches arnt to good the rest are good!