What is the right approach to openings?

When playing chess I almost always exclusively play the french against e4 and against d4 and other openings I don't really prepare and will usually play something like nf6 or d5 against d4. While I play white I tend to be a bit more flexible sometimes playing the king's gambit, KIA, italian and sometimes some queen pawns opening. So my question is at my level what is the correct way of an opening repertoire? Is my approach incorrect (maybe I need to be more flexible against e4?). I'm a bit of a perfectionist when playing chess so I try and really understand the opening stage and the general themes and what to do as oppose to when I started off playing chess I was simply told "don't study openings, just follow the general principles and you'll be fine" which I never really liked that approach since if I came up against something like the pirc which looks unorthodox it feels like I can't get a full grasp of understanding on the position since it doesn't make as much sense as something more "logical" and simple like italian game.

I think it probably depends on what you are trying to achieve. I play a variety of openings (though mainly I play French against e4 and I play e4 and look to play King's Gambit or Ponzanni). This is because I am mainly playing for fun and playing one opening al of the time can get a bit dull. However, if I was more serious baout my play and wanting to prepare to do well at tournaments I might always play French to e4, for example, so that I can be maximally prepared and have a deep knowledge of the lines.

Chess Life years ago recommended that a player stick to a certain set of fixed responses and to master those, and that's the recommendation I've been following. It makes a lot of sense since there exists such extreme depth in virtually every opening that you won't have enough time in your lifetime to completely master even one opening, so why spread yourself even thinner?

I absolutely disagree with the common advice on this forum to ignore openings and focus on tactics and/or principles. Everything stems from the opening, obviously. At one time I began analyzing decisive master games with the purpose of figuring out how far into the game they got before going astray. The answer I concluded (barring particularly lengthy openings like the Ruy Lopez or Sicilian): usually under ten moves! As for opening principles, I strongly believe that all opening books are extremely deficient because, like moves themselves, useful principles are essentially infinite in number, so relying on a handful of the over-quoted "first principles" is insufficient. (I can give a number of specific examples if you're sufficiently interested.) A good player needs "second principles," "third principles," and more.

Of course a player needs to be decent at all aspects of the game--tactics, strategy, opening, middle game, endgame, heuristics, etc.--so openings aren't sufficient, only necessary.

before studying openings, study endgames

I partly disagree, because when you know where your units are supposed to go in a given opening, and under which conditions, and what the plans are for that opening, that knowledge will greatly help to keep units coordinated (not hanging).

At your level stick to a few openings that you know.  Learn, study, and understand the reasons for the moves, and the pawn structures associated with those openings.  DO NOT memorize lines of theory.  Yes it sounds cool, but its not needed.  

BettorOffSingle wrote:

I think until we stop hanging s**t it doesn't matter what we play.

I thought you were 3300.

I think your approach makes perfectly sense. You don't need to be more flexible against anything, in fact your opening repertoire is already more flexible than mine. 

Leave the man alone, hes going to be world champ in 6 years.  Though...he still needs to get a USCF rating, and a FIDE rating, get the required IM norms, GM norms, win the US Championship, qualify for the playoffs, and make it to the finals.  

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".

What is the right approach to openings?

No matter what anybody  else on this topic of yours tells you the right approach to openings is to:

1. Understand that chess is a game of Siege Warfare

2. Siege Warfare is a form of war that was practiced mostly during the Middle Ages

3.  Siege Warfare consists of 3 strategems:

  a. Restrain the enemy

  b. Blockade the enemy

  c. Execute  the enemy

Every  move you  make (including in the opening) on the chessboard is advancing your control of (time, space and material) and restraining your opponent's move for control of (time, space and material).  Once you have this perspective what is happening on the chessboard and the reasons for moves becomes much clearer.

When you study opening, study opening books that explain in great detail the plans and ideas behind an opening.

A Good opening book that explain general ideas about opening is Watson's Mastering The Opening 3 volume series.

http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Chess-Openings-Unlocking-Mysteries/dp/1904600603

But your focus of study should be tactics, endgames and strategy.

Indeed. Being "flexible" doesn't necessarily mean automatically playing a particular opening one day and a different one on another. Or just playing on general opening principles alone. 

I truly believe studying current theory and/or past theory is just as important (if not more) as learning other aspects. As you play more games, gain experience, adding to your combinational, positional and endgame play is a natural progression. But your opening repertoire? It will change as trends do. 

To win games , its fine to play openings that feels good for you.

Playing problematic openings might also help. It can help you grow.

It is smart to look at your opponents games, and go for punishing weaknesses in his opening reportoir, or playing something heobviously isnt familiar with.

It is also smart to go right into your opponents strongest opening, to learn.

But to have your own opening repertoire, not left to chance, is to have something that is truly your own. Instead of guessing of what to play against 1 d4, you can instead focus on what variation of the Nimzo, KID, Gruenfeld, Dutch is best. Being able to switch from the KID & to the Benoni is what it is to be "flexible". Between the Scheveningen and Najdorf(!)

Agree w/ @najdorf96. Flexibility should be associated with positions, their properties, and when a position can transpose. I had this similar issue where I knew many first moves of openings so I would just play any opening anytime. Then I exclusively played 1.d4 for a period and now I'm playing 1.e4 with much more success. I also picked a few openings for Black in reply to White and studied them. With the amount of material it can be nearly impossible to just "wing it" in the opening at higher ratings. I'd suggest maybe take some time and just focus on a few openings, look up some games and/or books, and go from there.

Of course it matters what you play.  You can play 1.a4, 2.h4, and youre not hanging anything, but are those good moves to play? Of course not.  And what does it matter what an engine says, we are not playing engines.  And unless youre a world class player, trying to eak out a .02 advantage isnt going to matter.

I agree. Switching around between multiple openings and not having a strict repertoire is a fun, but risky approach (in my opinion).

Two expressions come to mind:

"Jack of all trades, but master of none."

and a favorite of mine from the late, great Bruce Lee:

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

If you want to get really good with your opening play, choose a narrow repertoire and stick with it, is my advice! Practice that one kick ten thousand times.

Excellent advice!