How far can you go with a limited repetoire?

I have posted before that I am just getting back into chess after about 20 years (or so); I just followed a video course by Jeremy Silman, and he recommended, just to get going, using the Colle-Zuckertort for white, and then QGD and French for black.

After looking for some books and vids, I noticed there was actually a GM who followed the same (similar) scheme - Aaron Sommerscale, he has a famous book and video on using d4 and seems to have used QGD in for black..and he had quite a few French games.

So, my questions are - can you do OK with just using a limited repertoire? When is the time to learn new openings?

The time to broaden your repertoire is when you FEEL that your limited repertoire is cramping your development as a chess player.

@Boyd4891 you can certainly go extremely far with a limited repertoire, as long as those openings are sound. For example, take GM Wolfgang Uhlmann. he played nothing but the French against e4, the Kings Indian against d4 and everything else. With white, he played c4 and then usually d4, or d4 with c4. He was able to develop a deep understanding of these positions that got him wins against people like fischer. 

Is that ^^^ not a draw

The repertoire is probably irrelevant. Example if you play 1.e4 your opponents will play different moves. If you play 1d4 the same.

Only Patzers have a video (I mean large) repertoire

The moment your opponent left your memorized path, you would be lost.

Bobby Fischer played 1e4 exclusively (except for a couple of games where he took Spassky by surprise and led him into prepared lines). He stuck to the defenses he considered best (and knew best), Sicilian vs 1e4 and King's Indian vs 1d4. He did try other defenses vs 1d4, probably because he never played it himself and was less familiar with the terrain. In the end, he did have considerable success.

It is as far as I have gone.

The cramp starts at about 2000. Most of you will never get "cramped"

I would say he played the Nimzo/QGD complex half as much as the kings indian, and he dabbled in the Grunfeld. 

You can get to USCF Expert on pretty much no opening rep.

You can be a really strong player without a big repertoire and much theory. I recommend the games of the strong IM Manuel Bosboom.

During his early career, Fischer played the Ragozin variation of the QGD (a sort-of QGD / Nimzo hybrid), and stuck to it with a loyalty that was worthy of a better variation.

He tended to reserve his Gruenfelds for his attempts at a "Game of the Century"... vs Botvinnik, and vs each of the two Byrne brothers.

Personally, with the growing popularity of d4 I would suggest you learn a few openings with 1. d5 and even some Indian games. There are your typical grunfelds, KIDs, and nimzo's, which are all super solid. If your looking for an aggressive offbeat opening, I highly recommend the Blumenfeld gambit from the Benoni defense as a pocket pull if your completely confused about what your opponent is doing. I play five/six openings for black and 1. e4 for white, and like Mr_Winawer said above, even Fischer played 1. e4 his whole career, and he turned out to be a contender for the GOAT.

Anand also played e4 for his entire career until his match with Kramnik, where he started to use d4 a bit more. Even then, he still stuck to e4 as his main weapon. 

A lot of crazy talk going on here Kasparov and other super GMs play or played 1d4 just because a GM plays something does not mean you can or should try.

You must be new here :-)