Opening Systems for White and Black

I just checked. His account was closed for "abuse." No idea what's that's all about...

If I remember correctly, he was the one arguing that the knight was better than the bishop.

I don't know why they remove ALL posts when someone is banned. Sometimes they remove good stuff (maybe not with this guy though). Chess.com moved this thread to a different category. I'm not sure anyone is going to see it.

The position after 2...d5 is the French Defense. 3.e5 is the Advance Variation, but 4...Ne7, though a bit tricky, isn't a particularly good move.

The French itself is a fine opening that can be used as part of a systems-based repertoire, but as with any opening, you cannot just blindly follow some pre-memorized move order.

Basing an opening repertoire on systems is a good solution to the complex problem of how to create an opening repertoire, once a player is ready for such a thing ... and only when ready. The idea of a systems-based repertoire is to limit the number of completely different middlegame positions that you will be forced to play, and to allow you to learn those positions better and in less time than most of your opponents.

Note well that that is what opening study is ... you are studying the middlegame positions reached from the openings, not memorizing move sequences. You should be able to produce most book moves simply by applying the strategic principles and being tactically alert; if that's not the case, I would suggest it is too early to concern yourself with an opening repertoire, and what you need to be doing 100% of the time is working on tactics and basic endgames, and building your calculation and evaluation skills.

For example, strategically speaking, you should be able to understand why 4.h3 would be a poor move after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, why 5.h3 would be a fine move but unnecessary after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d4 d6, and why 6.h3 is an excellent move after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d4 d6 5.Nc3 Nf6. An example from the Colle-Zukertort after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3 Nc6: I have played a few games against a Colle-Zukertort player who loved to play a2-a3 to keep the knight out of b4; in one game the immediate 6.a3, and in others 6.0-0 Bd6 7.Bb2 0-0 8.a3; a2-a3 is a common move in the opening, even played this early by GMs, but it doesn't take much to realize that it is an unnecessary waste of time at this stage.

Tactically, you need to be able to recognize errors such as Chernev's notes to White's 7th snd 8th moves, implying that White would be winning after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.0-0 d6 6.d4 Bb6 7.a4 a6 8.a5 Nxa5 9.Rxa5 Bxa5 10.Qa4+ (Black simply plays 10.b5 and White is busted) in his Logical Chess, Move by Move.

Its probably much better to learn pawn structures associated with an opening than trying to memorise lots of opening theory because then you will know the plans and ideas associated with that opening, piece placements etc this has the advantage that when your opponent deviates you are not thrown off guard.  It also has the advantage to aid pattern recollection because you can study games with a similar structure and see what transpired. Of course it works better for openings that are quieter and do not demand a lot of memorisation because they are less sharp.

Soltis pawn structure chess, buy it and read it.

Yes, and solid book recommendation. Best type of book for learning how to play the opening well.

Just ran into a tactical problem in puzzle rush that relates to Chicken_Monster's question about the London not being so good against the "Modern". In the puzzle, Black is in the role of the player of the London System, while White is playing a "Modern" setup (really just a standard King's Indian Attack, but the parallel is clear).

https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/761022

It's exactly what you do not want to allow as a London Player against any type of Modern, Pirc-Robatsch, King's Indian, or Old Indian setup.

How would you implement the Slav/Semi-Slav, KID, and QGD as more of systems, if possible? Can you just play the same first x number of moves no matter what White does? I have heard the KID has a lot of theory.

Remember, it's not about moves, it's about the typical positions that arise from these openings.

Adopting a systems based opening repertoire doesn't eliminate the need to think during the opening, it reduces the amount of middlegame positions that you need to know, compared to an opening repertoire that tries to maximize your advantage as White in every line, and minimize your disadvantage as Black in every line.

Very few openings are "systems" in the sense of this thread. They are usually White openings. The Colle-Zukertort can be used as a system. As noted in this thread already, it doesn't work so well against some responses by Black, but it does still work - just better to modify it a bit in those cases. Such openings feature simple development (that's what makes them playable against almost anything) and are not intended to gain advantage in every line, or, really, in any line. The Colle-Koltanowski, the Colle-Zukertort, the Stonewall Attack, the London, the Torre, the Trompowsky, the reversed Philidor, the King's Indian Attack, the Botvinnik setup in the English, the Staunton setup in the English, the Queen's Fianchetto (Larsen's) Opening, the King's Fianchetto Opening are all examples of White openings that can be played as systems against nearly any response. Some of these openings are more successfully universal than others, and some are more practically successful than others.

As Black, it's more difficult to have a universal system, so you're almost always going to have to play differently against 1.e4 and 1.d4 at least (unless you play 1...g6 or 1...b6 against everything in exactly the same way, but then be willing to accept some pretty clear disadvantages). What you can find is Black openings that work well against 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3, and may even work against the irregular openings. EDIT: I forgot 1...d6: You can play 1...d6 with the Old Indian against closed openings, and 1...d6 against 1.e4 with the idea of playing the Philidor (this was Nimzowitsch's first professional repertoire as Black, I believe).

If you play the Slav against 1.d4, you can adopt the same basic structure against almost any White opening (against the King's Indian Attack and/or Reti, it is likely to be a reversed Torre or London) except 1.e4. In order to play the same structures against 1.e4, you can adopt the Slav's sibling, the Caro-Kann.

You can use the queen's gambit declined as a universal system against pretty much anything except 1.e4: play ...d5, ...e6, ...Nf6, ...Be7, and ...0-0 in the order that makes the most sense, and you can decide on your preferred method for queenside development (for instance, with ...c6 and Capablanca's freeing maneuver or the freeing maneuver from the Meran Semi-Slav, or with ...c5 and/or ...b6). You can adopt the sibling opening approach by pairing this with the French against 1.e4, and then you will tend to see many of the same structures, though honestly the parallels in this pairing are less clear than with the Slav and Caro-Kann pairing.

The King's Indian Defense is another one suitable as a universal system against all but 1.e4, in that you can pretty much play ...Nf6, ...g6, ...Bg7, ...0-0, and ...d6 against anything; and you could play the Pirc-Robatsch Defense against 1.e4, and for that matter, the King's Indian Attack as White.

EVERY popular opening has a lot of theory. What people usually mean by "theory" is "moves in a book that need to be memorized". The book variations are simply a record of master play, in other words, most of them are the moves that you're likely to play anyway if you apply sound strategic principles and remain tactically alert. The book moves that you are unlikely to reproduce so easily require that you understand a little about the historical development of the opening (such is the case for explaining 5...a6 in the Sicilian Najdorf; it's not played for the reason that most people - including more than a few GMs - think). Or they may just be poor moves - that happens a lot, too.

I believe I once gave an example to you of a VERY complicated, theory-intensive opening line that I've played very successfully with very little memorization (only what I remember from my games and games I've played over) ... 6.Bg5 as White against the Najdorf Variation, which includes 6...Qb6, the Poisoned Pawn Variation, that you supposedly "cannot play without memorizing reams of analysis" (source unknown, but multiple GMs have said this). Well, I've played some pretty impressive tactical games in that line, and won some nice endgames, too. I've lost some, of course, but never because I didn't memorize something. In all cases the reasons for my defeats were easily explainable after some thought, and so while I could maybe have avoided those particular errors by having memorized more, I would not now have whatever little understanding that I do.

Studying openings does not mean memorizing sequences of moves, nor looking up the opening you just played in some thick openings reference to see what moves you should have played. That's superficial.

Studying openings means playing over master games in those openings and trying to understand all of the tactical points; the reason each move was played, why it was played when it was played, what typical middlegame positions result and how those are handled, and what endgames tend to come from the opening, and how to play those well.

In other words, work on openings is a byproduct of what you should already be doing to improve your chess in general.

When you're strong enough for it to matter, and when competitive factors demand it, it may be beneficial to spend a little time setting your opening repertoire down "in writing", including all the answers to the questions you came up with looking over the master games. Your opening repertoire should be appropriate for your level, so that as a weaker intermediate player, if you need one at all, it should be composed of nothing more than major variations, your next evolution would be a forcing repertoire such as those under discussion in this thread, and then when you are an advanced player, you will need a complete, simple opening repertoire with a bit more depth. Only at the candidate master and master levels should you consider spending the time to create a professional opening repertoire with a lot of complexity, tricky move orders, etc.

I have never heard of Black being able to get something much like a Slav after 1 e4. I suppose one could try 1...c6 2 d4 d5, but the result is not usually regarded as very Slavenly. From time to time, I have seen the Slav and the Caro-Kann suggested as a pair:

"... If you choose the Pirc against 1 e4, it makes sense to consider the King's Indian against 1 d4. This is more flexible and will give you additional options later. … Likewise, the Caro-Kann and the Slav fit together, and then you can answer 1 c4 by 1...c6, without having to undertake any additional learning to cope with 2 e4. …" - GM John Nunn (1998)

Notice, however, that there is no promise of Black being able to "play the same first x number of moves no matter what White does". There is just the idea of being able, in some cases, to take advantage of some transpositional possibilities. There are those who see potential benefit from similarity of ideas from one opening to another, but that seems to be a very subjective matter. If you really want to be able to play a bunch of moves as Black without much attention to what White is doing, I think you can come closest to that with the Pirc-King's Indian thing. As I mentioned before, Seirawan included an introduction to that approach in his (~1998) book, Winning Chess Openings. The King's Indian is indeed an option associated with a lot of theory, but perhaps you are not very likely to encounter a King's Indian expert in your games. The thing is that one really does not gain much with this sort of thing as Black, and it is not usually suggested for near-beginners. Maybe you can avoid much thinking for a little while, but not for long. In books on the Pirc-King's Indian thing, one is likely to find substantial and separate discussions of the Pirc and King's Indian. Consider, for example, the recent Kornev two-volume work:

http://www.chess-stars.com/resources/black_repertoire_vol-I.pdf

http://www.chess-stars.com/resources/black_repertoire_vol-2.pdf

There are other approaches to using the same moves for Black no matter what White does, but I think that the basic problem cannot be avoided. The longer Black goes without paying attention, the more difficult the resulting position is likely to be. If you really want more of this sort of thing, maybe look into The Hippopotamus Defense.

https://www.amazon.com/Hippopotamus-Defence-Deceptively-Dangerous-Universal/dp/9056918311/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuqK2kqeP5AIVC9NkCh22lgXAEAAYASAAEgJC6PD_BwE&hvadid=358225138062&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9033706&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=8372261975022967590&hvtargid=kwd-745788566623&hydadcr=15455_11246939&keywords=the+hippopotamus+defence&qid=1566230466&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9081.pdf

I don't understand this...maybe the reverse colors are throwing me or it's just over my head. Using a new example(s), is it possible to demonstrate, when playing the London System as White, what Black may do (e.g., Modern System, KIA-related setup, etc.) that will cause White to have to adjust his play of the London System or switch away to something else (like Colle-Zukertort etc.) completely? Also, is it possible to demonstrate, when playing the Colle-Zukertort as White, what Black may do (e.g., Black hasn't played ...d5 and ...e6, etc.) that will cause White to have to adjust his play of the Colle-Zukertort or switch away to something else (like London System etc.) completely?

See the following for some good lessons on the Goring Gambit.I played this IM instructor I came across on chess.com in a couple simuls that he published. I was lost very early on as Black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEW-5KWmtCs

Hmm... the scotch eh

I do ruy lopez, or the hillbilly attack against the caro kan

If you want to try your little hillbilly attack, I will crush it with the CK.

There have been a number of books that have undertaken to explain how to play the London and how to modify one's play after some possible Black reactions. I don't think that there is a quick solution to this issue, and different books have different ideas. Perhaps the briefest attempted solution is the advice in First Steps: the Colle and London Systems.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings

I imagine that any London book (at least implicitly) indicates what Black might do to inhibit London use. My impression is that most recent London books have made some attempt to offer advice on how White can cope with an uncooperative Black. The result tends to be a book that is pretty much awash in variations.

There is a fairly recent Colle-Zukertort book, The Modernized Colle - Zukertort Attack,

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7954.pdf

but I do not know if it is much help with Black moves that inhibit the use of that opening. I imagine that the book (at least implicitly) indicates what Black might do to inhibit Colle-Zukertort use. Looking at the sample, I get the impression of a fair amount of effort intended to help White cope with various possible Black choices.

@kindaspongey: Thanks for answering my neurotic questions to the best of your ability. I imagine no one who has read my recent questions knows the answers...and actually since this is not the main forum, this thread is probably not seeing a lot of traffic.

I've played various system openings, and go back to them occasionally, but I've decided they don't really suit my style of play. The essence of such an opening, it seems to me, is that you develop your pieces before engaging with the opponent, putting off the tactics till a later stage. And what I've found is that the pressure then builds up over about fifteen or even twenty moves until the action explodes in one part of the board or another. The result is that I'm scanning the board looking at the various pressure points and using a lot of time trying to anticipate everything that might happen. It makes me nervous and defensive. What I prefer is a quick skirmish with the pieces in an open but not too complicated position. After that I feel properly warmed up and can face the middle game with confidence.

@FrogCDE Any examples? Just using basic opening principles or playing a book opening and not playing a rigid system can still put off tactics and build tension until there is an explosion.