The problem with 1.e2-e4 is that your next best move is 2.e4-e2... Anti-positional stuff...
On a serious note, find a titled player with a playing style that's similar to yours and see what he or she plays. Chances are - you'll really like playing it yourself.
Ps I really like the type of games you get in the French, but problem is that at beginner level, every man and his dog plays the exchange variation. Gets boring after a while.
search 'repertoire' here...
Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
also see...my blog for several articles on specific openings...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
@1
"I am not a beginner (I am currently rated around 1350)" ++ Still beginner
"I have never studied opening theory" ++ Good!
"I know principles like fight for the center and develop your pieces" ++ Good
"I can therefore play the Giuoco piano or the Queen's gambit declined" ++ Good
"I know the name and the first 2-4 moves, but not more." ++ No need
"I'd like to build an opening repertoire." ++ Why?
"fun to play; easy to remember; straightforward game plan" ++ Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano
"With white, I play e4 almost exclusively." ++ Good!
"Learn some not-so-often-played fun lines like the Evans gambit or the Vienna game."
++ Evans is heavy on theory. Vienna is good. It is like Ruy Lopez reversed.
"Learn a good line to play against the Sicilian." ++ Do not learn, play and analyse your losses. Closed 2 g3 is like a reversed King's Indian Defence. You can also play the King's Indian Attack.
"I can get a decent position by just applying basic opening principles." ++ Correct
"With black, against d4 (and c4) I go for a King's Indian setup." ++ OK
"Against e4, I usually go e5" ++ Good!
"Learn one good line" ++ Do not learn, play and analyse your lost games.
"Learn one alternative to e5, like the French" ++ No, do not do that.
"Sicilian seems overwheliming in its variations" ++ Yes.
"Caro-Kann and Aljechin defence seem rather tricky to me." ++ Yes.
"I haven't yet decided what I would like to learn" ++ Do not learn, play and analyse lost games.
"as an alternative to the King's Indian setup" ++ Why an alternative?
"The Dutch looks interesting, but risky." ++ Not very sound.
"Queen's gambit declined is often boring" ++ Not really.
"are there variations for black that could spice it up?" ++ Queen's Gambit accepted is more open. Hennig-Schara Gambit, Cambridge Springs, Meran are sharper.
"Would you stick to 1. e4 with white" ++ Yes!
"or learn alternatives?" ++ No!
I am not a beginner (I am currently rated around 1350), but I have never studied opening theory. Like many others, I know principles like "fight for the center" and "develop your pieces" and I can therefore play the Giuoco piano or the Queen's gambit declined. In most other openings, I know the name and the first 2-4 moves, but not more.
I'd like to build an opening repertoire. My critieria for choosing openings are:
Here are some considerations on building my opening repertorie - I wonder what more experienced players think.
With white, I play e4 almost exclusively. My plans:
With black, against d4 (and c4) I go for a King's Indian setup. Thus, I can play the first 5 moves without caring too much about what white plays. Against e4, I usually go e5 and I feel quite well in the Italian game.
Here are my plans agains e4:
I haven't yet decided what I would like to learn againgst d4 or c4 as an alternative to the King's Indian setup. The Dutch looks interesting, but risky. Queen's gambit declined is often boring - are there variations for black that could spice it up?
And as a final question: Would you stick to 1. e4 with white or learn alternatives?
Learn the carro kann for black, the vienna for white and the albin countergambit for black. Gotham has videos on all of these openings and i still use the videos only for theory and im 2000. At 1350 youre still somewhat of a beginner and you shouldnt worry about openings too much
The Tarrasch Defense against 1 d4 is what I like ---1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 (or 3 Nf3) c5.
"I'd like to build an opening repertoire." ++ Why?
"Learn one good line" ++ Do not learn, play and analyse your lost games.
"Learn one alternative to e5, like the French" ++ No, do not do that.
"I haven't yet decided what I would like to learn" ++ Do not learn, play and analyse lost games."The Dutch looks interesting, but risky." ++ Not very sound.
"are there variations for black that could spice it up?" ++ Queen's Gambit accepted is more open. Hennig-Schara Gambit, Cambridge Springs, Meran are sharper.
Why do I want to build an opening repertoire? Mainly because I find it interesting.
Yes, I know, analysing lost games will help me to find blunders and avoid them in the future, and I do this regularly. However, I don't see this as a valid reason against building an opening repertoire. Why not do both?
What is wrong with the French?
Rated 1350 online is a beginner. I am an intermediate. Trust me. How can I say that, I could hardly beat anyone when I joined a fide tournament.
Agreed, I am a beginner in competitive chess. I am experienced as a coffee house player and chess problem solver. Obviously, chess problems are often very different from chess games.
Sure, focus on some openings you like and start learning them. If you find it interesting and fun, that’s all the reason you need.
You ask whether to keep playing 1.e4. That’s my favorite as White. I think 1.e4 is pretty darn great, but there are lots of choices. Play whatever you personally find most fun.
Playing as Black, you ask about spicy ideas against 1.d4. Budapest Gambit has some spice. You won’t see any pros playing it, but it’s plenty good when amateurs play. And has the benefit of being relatively rare, so your opponent will probably be on unfamiliar ground right away. But of course, with spice, comes risk.
I am not a beginner (I am currently rated around 1350), but I have never studied opening theory. Like many others, I know principles like "fight for the center" and "develop your pieces" and I can therefore play the Giuoco piano or the Queen's gambit declined. In most other openings, I know the name and the first 2-4 moves, but not more.
I'd like to build an opening repertoire. My critieria for choosing openings are:
Here are some considerations on building my opening repertorie - I wonder what more experienced players think.
With white, I play e4 almost exclusively. My plans:
With black, against d4 (and c4) I go for a King's Indian setup. Thus, I can play the first 5 moves without caring too much about what white plays. Against e4, I usually go e5 and I feel quite well in the Italian game.
Here are my plans agains e4:
I haven't yet decided what I would like to learn againgst d4 or c4 as an alternative to the King's Indian setup. The Dutch looks interesting, but risky. Queen's gambit declined is often boring - are there variations for black that could spice it up?
And as a final question: Would you stick to 1. e4 with white or learn alternatives?
I'll start off by disclosing that I'm not a more experienced player as you asked for opinions from. I am however very similar in what I play and our ratings. I'm also going through the same plight but I'm a little farther along than you are.
Your first four criteria: fun, easy, straightforward and not many variations... You're looking for a unicorn.
I stuck with 1.e4 for white and I study/studied a course with 67 basic variations. I've been studying that for a year, basically every day. It covers just about everything somebody can throw at me provided they're near my own rating level. Previously, I would get crushed in the opening and I would be anywhere from -2 to -4. Any wins I would get came from me scrapping my way out of a bad position. I now find myself often much better in the opening and middle game, and that in itself makes the openings more fun.
At our rating level you will rarely, and I mean very rarely, ever be playing book moves past move 7. If we don't screw it up, our opponents will almost certainly be out of book. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I suspect what people at our rating level fear most are opening traps. That's the real reason for studying openings. I'm not saying it's a good reason, but as a rule we don't like being beaten in 10 moves. So we figure if we learn the opening we won't get caught in those things, and there is some wisdom in that.
I don't mind being beaten by somebody with a cool tactic. I in fact appreciate seeing somebody play something I didn't see coming. However I do not enjoy when somebody is playing a line they learned on YouTube and couldn't have found on their own if their life depended on it.
Thankfully, by move 7 the ship has sailed for most opening traps. If you can learn that much of most openings you can generally play your way out of whatever else someone can throw at you. If they beat you from there you just shake their hand and move on. But at least you had a chance, and you likely won't fall for the same trick several times.
My opinion on some of the ones you mentioned:
The Sicilian is so complex even some top GMs avoid it. Fortunately it's so complex that if you get out of book, likely your opponent is also. My personal feeling is it is much more difficult for black than it is for white if you don't know what you're doing.
The Evans Gambit is one I'm studying right now for black. White is generally -1.1 before 10 moves. It's really double-edged so both sides have to be accurate or it gets ugly really quick for somebody.
Caro-Kann, French, Scandinavian... The Caro and French appear to equalize the best for black, at least in the variations I've studied. The Scandinavian is tricky because you have a Queen out roaming around an open board early on. I've studied only a very few lines of that and none of them are deep. You pretty much play the first opening moves and then wing it.
My experience playing against the French has not been anywhere near as boring as most people claim. Maybe I steer it that way, but I've had several games in the Winawer and they've been loads of fun. Most people avoid the Winawer because it's dangerous for white but I actually enjoy that. The doubled C pawn is a very big liability and it's hard to defend. I know a number of lines of the French 14 to 16 moves deep. I've seen GM games in theory at move 24. My experience is, if you find somebody who knows the French, they'll probably know it pretty deep.
Last but not least, my experience tells me the more openings you learn, the easier they become to learn. Concentrate on learning the ideas you're supposed to be aiming for in the opening. That way when you're out of book at least you still know what the objective is and what some of the dangers are.
Be prepared for a long haul.
@8
"because I find it interesting." ++ Fair enough.
"analysing lost games will help me to find blunders and avoid them in the future, and I do this regularly. However, I don't see this as a valid reason against building an opening repertoire. Why not do both?" ++ By playing and analysing your lost games you do both. You learn from what you did wrong so as to avoid that in the future and the rememberance of the lost game helps you to remember the error. If you study openings, then what you study will not happen and when it happens you will have forgotten.
"What is wrong with the French?" ++ At your level nothing at all. At engine level it is refuted.
At the Yekaterinburg Candidates there were 3 French Defences, at the Madrid Candidates' none.
The move 1...e6 shuts in Bc8 and as white advances e5 at some point he will deny the natural square f6 for Ng8. So from a theoretical point of view black accepts a disadvantage.
Your question was: "Learn one alternative to e5, like the French". If you play the arguably best moves 1...e5, then you need no theoretically subpar alternative 1...e6. Besides as an amateur you play less than a professional player, your games are not published and your opponents do not prepare for you. If you stick to 1 defence: 1...e5, then you accumulate experience with it. Your game of yesterday helps you next week and next month. If you alternate between two, then you spread yourself too thin and you play none well.
Here is what I started to do and it is a way to learn different openings. I joined a daily chess tournament with focus on an opening, for example caro kann opening, here everyone in the tournament have the first moves on caro kann, both for black and white. This way by playing this kind of tournaments and by analysing the games after they finished it will help me to learn more and get better in this kind of positions and openings.
I am not a beginner (I am currently rated around 1350), but I have never studied opening theory. Like many others, I know principles like "fight for the center" and "develop your pieces" and I can therefore play the Giuoco piano or the Queen's gambit declined. In most other openings, I know the name and the first 2-4 moves, but not more.
I'd like to build an opening repertoire. My critieria for choosing openings are:
Here are some considerations on building my opening repertorie - I wonder what more experienced players think.
With white, I play e4 almost exclusively. My plans:
With black, against d4 (and c4) I go for a King's Indian setup. Thus, I can play the first 5 moves without caring too much about what white plays. Against e4, I usually go e5 and I feel quite well in the Italian game.
Here are my plans agains e4:
I haven't yet decided what I would like to learn againgst d4 or c4 as an alternative to the King's Indian setup. The Dutch looks interesting, but risky. Queen's gambit declined is often boring - are there variations for black that could spice it up?
And as a final question: Would you stick to 1. e4 with white or learn alternatives?