When GMs regularly play certain opening lines, they tend to be sound-er than the rest. Of course, they also invest a ton of time booking up theory and have phenomenal memories. Another point is that GMs tend to play other GMs more often than others.
So if your Aronian-esque opening repertoire can be backed up with enough studying required to face the kind of players you play most often (club players, Experts, Masters?), I'd say go for it, by all means.
One other factor would be the risk of being outbooked by somebody who knows the line better than you. Some lines like the Scotch Gambit or the Botvinnik Semi-Slav can be suicidal if you do a half-a##ed job of studying it. Other lines may be less treacherous.
I've been playing the same stuff for 30 years. I have played thousands of Vienna Games and Budapest defences over the years. While I will never completely give these up completely, I'd like to add a few new things.
Now here's an intersting thing. I like stuff that's a little off-beat, but sound.
When I find a new line/variation that interests me, I put it int SCID's opening report. Then I look at the section which shows the highest rated games, and lo and behold, almost invariably the top player who plays the stuff I like, is Lev Aronian.
Now this got me thinking. I think it means I have similar taste to GM Aronian as far as openings go. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to slowly expand my own repertoire based on what he plays?
Maybe I have a greater affinity(?) for the openings he plays than say maybe Anand or Kasparov?
Is this a reasonable system for choosing new openings?
Does any of this make any sense?
Please feel free to post food pictures.