Ease of playing. I generally choose openings that fit classical theory of occupying the centre and quick development.
Why did you choose the openings you play?
Sort:
You could apply countless different thought processes to how you select your repertoire. Your question is much like asking how someone decided on their favourite colour.
Personally I wanted:
1.A sound repertoire, which i wouldnt be tempted to give up when I begin playing against very strong players on the reg, so no gambits unless they're 100% sound.
2.Reaching similar positions, or piece setups from multiple openings, so as to be able to transfer the strategic and tactical experience I learn in one to the others.
Examples of this may be Caro/slav/london repertoire or a english/dragon/benoni repertoire.
3.Openings that set my opponents problems. This is why i dropped the caro/slav/london/repertoire i played a while ago. I had fairly good reults with it, but felt it simply wasnt challenging enough.
The repertoire i play now and am very happy with basically looks like this.
-After 1.e4 i play the Accelerated dragon.
-As white I play 1.c4, this fits well with the Acc.Dragon after 1..e5, I play reverse sicilian. In addition to this after 1..c5 I play 2.Nf3 and aim for a maroczy bind, which furthur adds to my experience in the dragon.
(Interestingly I can also end up on the black side as the maroczy as white by a black move order: 1.c4 Nf6 2.nc3 c5 3.nf3 d5 4.cxd5 nxd5, which I don't mind). I will return to the rest of my white repertoire shortly.
After 1.c4 from white, as Black i play 1..c5, now 2.nf3 Nf6, if my opponent plays 3.d4 I will take and play 3..g6, reaching a maroczy. If white doesnt play 3.d4 I will play d5 at some point, perhaps right away depending on their move, and play the white side of the maroczy as black.
So the maroczy is the core part of my repertoire. Now, for the other options as white. Im originally a 1.d4 player, so im also happy to use 1.c4 to transpose to mainlines in 1.d4, while avoiding lines such as nimzo, benoni, budapest, albin, chigorin and some others.
Against 1.d4 I play heading towards a noteboom or a transposition to the stonewall dutch. This may seem out of place as a benko or benoni may be expected. Personally I feel that the benko is difficult against strong players, while the benoni i do not like. In addition, I avoid the benoni, so experience in these black lines does not assist my white play. In comparison, the triangle system does assist my play as white since against the triangle i play the marshall gambit.
Of course as I said it's all a matter of tase, and that's just me.
Feb 9, 2014
0
#4
I chose my repertoire based on my desire for hair brained games with the potential for sacrificial attacks.
As white I play e4. Against e5 the Kings Gambit and the Italian game, against the petrov I attempt a 4 knights and I sometimes play the Halloween gambit.
Against the Sicilian I play the open.
As Black the Sicilian, the ruy, Italian Traxler, and a few others. Dutch against d4
I play the Sicilian Dragon because I like the name, and the Danish Gambit because I wanted an opening to avoid all the theory of the Ruy Lopez and sharpen my tactics at the same time.
I divide openings into two groups -- active and tactical, and closed positional.
I am very focused on positional play, so on black I use the King's Indian/Pirc, and white I use the English Opening.
A certain comfort level
Preference for positional play
White:
English - I love slow strangulating play :-)
Black:
Dutch...Icelandic Gambit...French
Feb 25, 2014
0
#8
The university coach just got an scandinavian book the day that I asked him about learning a defence. So he taught me that, and I have been playing scandinavian until now.
I chose my repertoire based on my desire fo rcrazy games with the potential for sacrificial attacks.
As white I play e4. Against e5 the Kings Gambit and the Italian game, against the petrov I attempt a 4 knights and I sometimes play the Halloween gambit.
Against the Sicilian I play the Morra Gambit
As Black the Sicilian Dragon, against d4 I play Modern Benoni.
I'm still quite new but I don't really think you "pick" the openings, so to speak. I mean, transposition and having a large memory bank of opening positions in general seems far more important than knowing one or two openings. I mean, this seems to be the case at ~1200.
To answer the question, though: I play the Ruy, Scotch or Center game because I'm new and I've learned this is the best way to begin getting used to white. As black, I play 1.e4 e5 or 1. d4 d5 into the QGD. Once again because I'm new and this is the very basics. Of course the point is that there are games that come up that wind up in all sorts of positions that I can't control outside of these opening positions. I generally focus on tactical, sound responses and gaining of time and development in the opening.
In addition I've played the Russian, 3 and 4 Knights, and the Reti. I've also had a few guys here on Chess.com open up against me with the Bishop's opening which I've started running the Berlin defence against.
Feb 26, 2014
0
#12
To me, flexibility is the key word. Normally, I play the Caro-kann against 1. e4 but can easily change to the Modern Defence. Against 1. d4, I have played KID and Benoni a lot but want to change to the rock-solid Queen's gambit declined, primarily using the Tartakower variation. With white, I change between 1. d4, 1. c4 and 1. Sf3. When I use the latter, I normally continue with 2. b3. A good understanding of openings is, of course, important, but I think that it is even more important to practice tactics and study endgames.
Feb 26, 2014
0
#14
Long story short, Trial and Error!
I've played over 2200 over the board tournament games. Within those 2200 games, included are:
White - 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.g3, 1.b3, 1.Nc3, 1.b4, 1.f4, and 1.g4, literally half the legal moves for White
Black vs e4 - Sicilian (Najdorf, Dragon, Dragadorf, Scheveningen, Accelerated Dragon, Kalashnikov, Taimanov, Kan, and even 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d5), French (Winawer, Classical, McCutcheon, Open Tarrasch, Closed Tarrasch), Caro-Kann, 1...e5 (Chigorin, Breyer, Zaitsev, Open, Berlin (3...Nf6), Bird (3...Nd4), Steinitz (3...g6), Philidor, Petroff, Latvian), Pirc, Modern, Alekhine, Scandinavian, Owen's Defense
Black vs d4 - QGA, QGD (Orthodox, Tartakower, Lasker, Tarrasch, Triangle, Slav, Semi-Slav, Chigorin, Albin), King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Benoni, Benko, Dutch (Classical, Stonewall, Leningrad), Modern, English Defense
Black vs Other - Symmetrical English, Reverse Sicilian, Dutch Lines vs English, Hedgehog, etc.
Ultimately, after a long, grueling 2200 games, I decided that the following is what fits me (kinda like how a baby decides whether to be left or right handed, depends on what comes naturally to me, not opening name or "trends" by other people - other people are not me!), which may not be what fits the style of other people:
White - 1.e4, 1.d4, and 1.Nf3 (a3-Sicilian, Advance and 3.Nc3 French, Main Line, Advance, and Panov Caro, Austrian against Pirc/Modern, Four Knights and Ruy against 1...e5, Trompowsky, Torre, Veresov, Fianchetto KID/Grunfeld/Benoni/Benko, Anti-Benoni Lines, 4.Qc2-Slav, Catalan, English)
Black - Caro-Kann, 1...e5 (Berlin and Latvian, the latter only in final round must win situations, typically in tournaments of Game in 90 minutes or shorter), and Modern Defense against e4, 1...d5 (Tarrasch and Triangle Defenses), Dutch (Classical and Stonewall), and Modern Defense against 1.d4, 1...g6 against the English often transposing to 1...e5 lines.
The rest for me is pretty much scrapped (other than Blitz perhaps, hence why my blitz rating here sux, I'll play anything) via trial and error.
Feb 26, 2014
0
#15
Same as everyone else, I guess. Flexibility, soundness, and ease of learning. I play 1.Nf3 as white, steering toward a symmetrical English, Catalan, or some favorable variations of the Queen's Gambit, depending on what Black does. Mainly, I'm aiming for Catalan positions.
As Black, I followed a very similar path as Assault -- I started with Caro/Slav, but found that it just didn't give me as much counterplay as I would have liked. Maybe counterplay isn't exactly the right word -- the positions didn't have enough juice, enough complexity. Anyway, like him, I switched to a Benoni/Accelerated Dragon approach, with which I've been having more fun and a bit more success, too. It keeps things relatively "positional," without being too dry or drawish.
When I was younger, I had a chess coach, so I didn't choose. My coach gave us Ruy Lopez, tons of variations, some over 20 lines deep. If you were black against a d4, well good luck with that. If black hits your e4 back with a Sicillian, breathe deep and pray my friend. Ruy Lopez was what you learned, and every opening heuristic was learned in the context of Spanish opening theory.
That did well enough. I played for a number of years, focused more on endgame and tactics, and did reasonably well for a kid. Then left the game for years, with a little play for the highschool team.
A few years back, got back into it as a part of my profession's interoffice olympics. Could barely remember 6 moves deep of the Ruy, had faint rememberance of variation names but no real ideas. And I hated Spanish openings. I mean, I do like a variation of delayed Cozio sometimes, but it's just so tedious from my past experience.
So I made a rule: "choose 2 and have answers". I made myself choose 2 moves deep for both sides and then have some repertoir answers for the lines I wanted to get better at. I chose d4 as my first move white. For d5, I try to steer into Queen's gambit territory with c4 as move 2. If I get an Indian reply, I will work the c4 and try to steer anti-Nimzo, as I seem to get crushed in Nimzos.
But I make sure I have a response planned for the other common black responses to d4. I chose a second move at minimum for all common first black responses and a few characteristic lines to put in my repertoir. Many of them lead into QGD lines, which is where I have put most of my effort in studying as white, but I need to know at least the basic ideas for each of the responses.
Conversely, as black facing a d4, I chose an Indian Nf6. I try to steer towards Nimzos after the second move e6 if possible, but have Bogo lines prepared as well. The great thing about these positions is that there a number of transpositions, so the study overlaps a lot and there are fewer pure combinations. You can focus on reasons, goals, and motifs.
Facing an e4, I chose a Sicillian, both to leave the Spanish lines and because I like the odds. Both open and closed attempts allow me to push e6.
I chose the e6 variations for several reasons, but the primary one was pushing e6 matches my Indian second move and I could focus on what squares it was controlling what it helped support. The e6/d5/c5 pawn structure is found in numerous transitionary structures among all these openings, and more generally, I can focus on learning the main character of the skeletons of: e5 chain, isolani, hanging pawns, panov, and stonewall.
Choosing which move was my "choice move" or repertoir response to all possible opponent moves came from this goal of working towards the same structures, but I also needed to make sure there was solid theory there. I read opening books giving suggestions and reasons for each move, I looked through opening databases on line for win rates and likely responses, and I ran each position where it was my move through engines I trusted to deeply analyse what the "best" valuation was. I didn't choose lines unless they were solid, as I wanted to learn good habits and discover good patterns.
And it's this idea of building on a core knowledge that has guided my opening repertoir since. I am still working through my studies here, trying to get more and more comprehension of the motifs of all the main variations with my first two moves chosen, and a number of the minor variations I walk into with my choice moves. The goal is to share as much common ideas with my existing repertoir by making choices that lead to similar pawn structures and tactical options. When I get Reti as black, I will steer towards Bogo. For English, I will push an e6 and look to getting something like a Nimzo or QGD structure with a later d5 push.
As I've studied more, I've found some different directions to take my repertoir. I have decided to add French as a response against e4 in place of Sicillian because I may be able to consolidate a lot of knowledge from the d4 responses, particularly in Winawer and related variations.
The point with all this is that I started very simple. Figure out 2 moves deep to all responses. Then I learned the variations that those moves take, starting with the most common directions and solid choices for my book moves. Then build. Deeper and wider.
I think that's how many go about it. There are some who get it in their head to play crazy openings and learn a bunch of traps. I think that is great too. That way leads to a bunch of tactics practice during games. But the main point is start with some very basic ideas of where you want to go, and then build from there. Like my switching from Sicillian to French, there comes times when there are reasons to add to your repertoir down at the roots, but often there is a lot of branch testing and building as you get more practice.
And don't spend a ton of time focusing on the opening repertoir. It's fun and gives you a great feeling of control over a game you really have little control over, but it isn't what should win the game for you. Look at openings as a way to grow a more natural understanding of positional chess. Try to learn pawn skeleton theory from your study. Find which pan breaks are useful and why. Look at when opening a file is sound. Which squares become weakened and which are strengthened with the variations.
Wide repertoires have shoals. Go deep and narrow.
I try to reach this position from every opening from both sides
Anything with active piece play, let pawns shine in the endgame.
Just wondering about the thought process that goes into choosing an opening for your repertoire.