I'm looking to work on revamping and improving my opening repertoire. I'm looking for the right book (or books) that would cover the types of openings I want to play, and or a "chess hero" (or two or three) who plays a similar repertoire that I ought to study. Or, to combine the two options, a book on the games of an appropriate hero.

As black, I want to continue playing 1. e4 e5, and would prefer not to give up the line of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 when white allows it (it looks like Shirov may be a good hero to study for that line?). I have no real preference on what to play against the Ruy should white deviate prior to 6. ... Bc5, nor do I have much preference against other 1. e4 e5 lines (maybe a slight preference to the two-knights defense vs. the Italian, but I could probably learn to love 3. ... Bc5 with the right study material).

Against 1. d4 all I'm sure of is that I do NOT want to play 1. ... d5 any more. The Gruenfeld is somewhat intriguing to me, but early correspondence experiments with it have left me pretty uncomfortable with the positions. I'm open to either sticking with it, studying the ideas, and trying to become comfortable, or just choosing something else.

Against other first moves I have no real preference.

As white, I want to continue playing 1. e4, but abandon my lifelong infatuation with the Italian, and start playing the Ruy Lopez instead. I have no set approach to the Ruy as white that I'm locked in on. I also am open to anything versus the Sicilian, which I've been getting destroyed by lately. Against 1. ... c6 I would prefer to play the Panov, and against 1. e6 the rather similar Monte Carlo variation (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4). I have no particular preferences against other black responses (such as Petroff, Modern, etcetera).

I intend to use the repertoire I build this way for two purposes:

1) To teach me more about chess as a whole, and particularly "positional" chess (I chose the Panov and Miezis because I want to learn more about IQP positions), and to expose me to new types of pawn structures/positions that I haven't played much in the past.

2) To be the "solid" repertoire (moving away, at least temporarily, from my lifelong obsession with gambits and crazy/questionable lines like the Fried Liver) that I can use as I progress from my current ~1450 level up to ~1800 (at which point I'll probably revisit my approach to openings once again).

So, given my mix of some specific lines I want to include, combined with other spots where I'm open to anything, and my goal of a somewhat broad blend of openings that cover a variety of types of position, all of which lends itself more towards positional openings than tactical ones (and therefore with a preference towards openings with less complex theory when possible - but of course some theory will be unavoidable, especially, say, against the Sicilian)... what is the fewest books and/or players I will need to study to build a relatively comprehensive (enough so for Class play, at least) repertoire that fits my needs and desires as closely as possible?

I know, I am asking a lot. All input is welcome! And if I supplied insufficient information for a good recommendation in any particular area, I'll be happy to answer any questions that can help drill down on exactly what I am (and am not) looking for out of all this.

i was under the impression that all you need to do is not play 1. d4 and that WAS an opening repertoire.

I think you should not do this all in one go.

Standard advice is to only change one of these at a time: what you open with as White, what you play against 1...e4 and what you play against 1...d4. It sounds like the only thing you are set on is changing from 1...d5 (though you are interested in playing more IQP positions...the number one way to get these is to play the Queen's gambit).

The Gruenfeld or the Benko are great choices against players your level and a bit higher. If White just muddles around you get great positions, and even if he plays random good moves, the main lines are fine. At worst, you get an active, dynamic position. The main problem with the Gruenfeld is when White knows a bunch of theory and can test you in a specific prepared line, which is unlikely for you. Main problem with the Benko is you have to come up with something different against Nf3 move orders which are pretty common.

As White, a good way to start playing the Ruy Lopez is to play 5. Qe2. You get basically the same positions with a lot less theory. Once you get a little familiar with the positions you can start playing the main lines. I can recommend this because I'm doing it at the moment, I'm trying to play less Scotches.

What do you currently play against the Sicilian? I think you can learn to play open Sicilians with surprisingly little theory, but there are also good anti-Sicilians. Again, since you mention them, 2. c3 often leads to IQP positions.

Right now I play the Open Sicilian, but seem to go wrong every game. Some years ago I learned just a little bit of theory against the main black lines (Dragon, Najdorf, etc) and what seems to be happening lately is I find myself playing the wrong theory. Like I'll play a setup that is good against the Najdorf after my opponent plays the Dragon, or vice versa.

I'm not afraid of a little theory, and don't want to shy away from Open Sicilians solely on those grounds, but an anti-Sicilian that also explores a useful positional concept might be fine.

And yes, I agree about not doing it all in one go. Right now I want to put together the *structure* of my future repertoire, and gather together all the necessary study materials to *eventually* implement it. But no, I'm not psycho enough to try to hammer in a hundred new lines to my tournament repertoire in one go. Once everything is gathered, then yes, I will work through it at a reasonable pace, focusing on one opening or line at a time.

And part of the reason it doesn't sound like I'm changing much is that I never really had much of a repertoire at all before. I'm switching from the Italian to the Ruy, which is pretty major, and away from 1. ... d5 which comes up a lot. Beyond that, my "repertoire" in most other positions was a combination of panic and confusion. The Panov and Monte Carlo lines are not pre-existing repertoire; they're lines I want to learn because I think they complement each other well, can teach me a lot about IQPs, and allow me to not panic when my opponent "deviates" with 1. ... c6/d6. Not because they're what I have already played.

And as for the IQP stuff, I'm not looking to build a whole repertoire around it. A (the?) major goal of this project is to force myself into a variety of positions that I've never studied before, to expand my overall understanding of chess. So if my responses to the Caro and French teach me about IQPs, then an optimal response to the Sicilian (for instance) would probably be something that produces a different kind of structure. I'm not looking to go all-in on a single type of structure. And because it bears repeating (since your point was a very good one) I'm not looking to try to absorb all of it simultaneously, so it works to move from one concept to the next as I work through the construction of the overall repertoire.

Oh, and one other point that I want to bring up pre-emptively, before anyone else does:

I am NOT going to stop studying tactics in order to pursue this project! Right now my study is about 40% tactics, 20% endgames, and 40% dicking around instead of actually studying in useful ways that can improve my chess game. I intend for this project to eat into that 40% on the back end, and get a ratio more like 50% tactics, 20% endgames, 5% raw opening theory, 15% positional concepts associated with the structures produced by specific openings I'm studying, and only 10% dicking around

I am very intrigued by this thread as I feel we are similar in skill level, but the main difference is that I lack an opening repertoire of any sort.

Your Ruy Lopez in our online game was the first time I've played against it I think. I am not even sure what it's called, but it sucks that I'm playing you in your favorite line.

Oh... Its the Moller. I was curious because I like your setup.

Good post by RT, I also have another suggestion against 1.d4: KID with 6.-Na6 against the Classical setup. You can build your anti-English/Reti repertoire around that as well
Suggestion for open Sicilians: when running into those disasters, find out what went wrong and plug those holes