Opening Systems for White and Black

What about this new book for systematic type play? It presents playing a Hanham Philidor and Old Indian as both black and white. https://www.newinchess.com/side-stepping-mainline-theory

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9085.pdf

Indeed. I will always advocate learning mainline theory first and foremost when building an opening repertoire, even more so when trying to aggregate a bunch of openings into a "system" per se. Which of course involves learning & relearning particular relationships between them. Tweaking certain move orders to isolate positions one likes to play, being aware of favorable or unfavorable transpositons and properly evaluating possibilities from the inevitable deviations.

But then, for me and when I was mentoring, the question of instituting a basic universal opening system wasn't the main priority or even thought of. Every opening is evaluated by its own merits. The overall framework is the old cliche " win with white, draw with black". Of course with nuances. For me or my former proteges, a "system" consists of openings in harmony with our own style of play. Our personal approach and attitude in how we see the game. I personally dont subscribe to sister openings nor reverse opening on that principle. Others may have a different view and it may make sense; I'm just saying," be true to yourself". I once knew a player who was totally all in with playing c4/c5 white or black and he was pretty successful to a degree even if he wasn't up to studying opening theory. It was just his philosophy. And I admire that. He is in harmony with himself.

Hell, I even played the Bird, Latvian Gambit and the Dutch when I was younger (like 8 or 9 heh) and yeah, I carry those experiences around with me and will unleash it every now and again on a whim but obviously I outgrew my naivety. (disclaimer: I was actually forced to because of the growing sophistication of opposition). I've developed my own system of openings since then, not universal nor comprised of current trends, unorthodox, weird, obscure...just practical. In keeping with my own chess philosophy. It never goes out of style for me because it's always in harmony. Thank you for indulging me guys. Best wishes😉

Oh. Great forum btw. I really dig the various perspectives and intriguing arguments. Keep it going!👍🏼

Are you going to share?

@Chicken_Monster, here 's an example, annotated by a clubmate, of a game where my slow system went wrong and I was lucky to escape with a draw against a lower-rated player. I am White.

FrogCDE: Yea, much lower-rated player. yeah the KIA does kind of lead itself to the building of tension with quick release I guess. In a vote chess game we are going to play the Hippo, which should be interesting.

I'm developing a system which features mainland 1.d4 , the ruy Lopez systems as black and the semi-slav.. I believe these are all excellent openings for winning chess

That sounds like what I'm looking for, potentially. When you say "system" do mean a setup sort of like the London System? I hear the Semi-Slav (Meran) can be used as a setup/system. Would be interested in see it if possible.

@Chicken_Monster, my opponent was much better than his rating suggested, as I knew from a previous game - one reason I was so cautious when playing him.

??

So you don't usually play the KIA unless you are worried about your opponent? (Don't want to put words in your mouth.) What do you usually play? I don't think anyway reads much other than the main forum....

That was actually my only rated game with the Nf3 KIA. (I have played KIA against the French a few times.) I am basically an e4 player, but I get tempted by system openings from time to time, and have been through the Colle, the Colle-Zukertort, the Veresov, the London, Larsen's Opening and the Botvinnik English. It's not really because I'm worried about my opponents, more that I find the simplicity of the concept attractive - you just play the same way against everything! But my results have generally been much worse than when I play 1.e4.

...and how could I forget? 1.Nc3.

Then you should play that guy again and try 1.e4, which is what you are suite to or is what you have practiced the most.. I have multiple opening repertoires in mind, from ambitious with a fair amount to theory, to safe system play I will use if I even enter a tourney....but I play a variety of openings for practice online.

Of course, I probably can play the more theoretical stuff at my level because my opponents in a tourney will have low ratings and will probably now know the theory, right?

Indeed. Much apologies for not "sharing" my friend, I guess I came in late in the discussion and totally missed your original (post #1) question!🤞🏻 Hmm, as it is I can also opine on that inline with my previous comments you hadn't quoted; however, first things first...do you even like playing d4 games? Because aside from learning the ColleZT, you also have to learn general theory, variations, lines stemming from QP games at one point or another when future opponents eventually become more booked up, well-read and knows how to side step certain lines or plays "anti-ColleZT" defenses/defensive schemes. Being a World Class player and talent, Susan Polgar also had trainers in her team who helped her build up the opening into a formidable offense. It's pretty awesome to study her games and watch her videos, unleashing slashing attacks vs all-comers and yeah I may have tried it once in awhile (I'm a 1. d4 player btw) with mixed results. Personally, having seriously studied it (in practice sessions, working out the pros n cons, playing over games, working & reworking concrete lines, abstract variations and practical positions arising from them etc) it turns out (for me as just a common, practical player) it's good once in while in casual games but ultimately it doesn't jive with my own philosophy of play. My overall game. My harmony, you know? I used to pattern my game around Bobby Fischer and started out as a KP guy as white, playing the Najdorf & King's Indian naturally of course. While the Najdorf & KID are permanently a part of my defensive repertoire (defensive philosophy as well-solid, strategic, initiative play opportunities) to this day, I've since added other stuff what I've deemed in keeping with my harmony too (Caro-Kann & QGD:Tartakower & Lasker) while obviously discarding the Dutch (Stonewall variation to exact) as a mainstay. As aforementioned, I became a d4 player namely because I like to open with a more of an practical, strategic, steady game. Not too wild, open and complicated in the beginning; I like to have the time to utilize my initiative take stock of the position and set up the attack. The Queens Gambit is as a universal an opening system as you're going to get methinks. Its nuances and strategies pervade DQP openings (Slav, Tarrasch, QGA) , Indians and many flank openings. That's why, if anything, I mentioned in my first comment that I absolutely advocate mainline theory first before delving into other trending openings. Seems old fashioned to some but then again, that's just my philosophy. What's your's? Again, best wishes my friend😉