What criteria did you use in creating your opening repertoire?

(I am a checkers playing busy creating one and wish to know what principles to keep in mind.)

Any and all help appreciated.

play lots of different things until you have a good idea what you like. Don't think too much about "creating an opening repertoire" until you are at least a competent player.

this thread, though a good idea, will degenerate into everyone recommending their pet lines.

A coworker of my mother who played chess (maybe 1400 level) gave me a book called "Moderne Schacheröffnungen" (not to be confused with MCO). It recommended playing the pirc vs e4 and the Tartakower QGD against d4. Later i wanted to play a bit more aggressively right off the bat so i switched to the dragon and the nimzo. Then i switched from the dragon to the Najdorf/Schevy. So it was this mediocre book for the foundation and then broadening to similar opening structures.

With white i play mainline d4 stuff since i was a child. At school everyone played 1. e4, and so i played 1. d4 and stuck with it.

So my initial choice of opening came more or less randomly. I learned most of my chess (say from 1400-2100) by studying for myself or playing/discussing with friends with some occassional group lectures so i didn't have a teacher who could feed me with opening ideas.

Oh and i don't really want to recommend my pet lines to everyone.

e.g., i took on 4. Nf3 against the nimzo after buying Ward's excellent book about it. In 2005 it caught a lot of people unaware, but since then it has gone up in fashion with the elite almost to the point to it being the current nimzo "mainline". This has taken away from the surprise value a lot.

RoundTower,

I too would not wish this to degenerate into a thread about pet lines.

I want criteria/principles for choosing between openings and you give: play lots of different things until you have a good idea what you like.

Thanks for this.


Noir_Desir,

From you I take the three following principles:

1. Choose openings/lines that reflect the way you want to play (more aggressively in your case though choosing similar opening structures to one's you know).

2. Wishing to be individual (choosing d4 because everyone at school play e4 for white).

3. Surprise value (playing down lines that your opponents are likely to be unfamiliar with.

Thanks for this.

Hi Al Miripuri,

When I was a 1600 player, a local master talking to me about the concept of "building up your chess" (lol LevAlburtaments!) realised I liked to attack and play with IQP for white. He told me to look into lines like c3 Sicilian and Panov Attack, which have been mainstays in my repertoire ever since. I've always played the Ruy as well, probably because in a chance meeting with GM Kevin Spragett he commended me for playing the best move, unlike all the kids playing 3. Bc4.

With black: When I was a really little kid (11 years old, sub-1000 rating) I saw a blurb in a pocket chess encyclopedia about the SICILIAN Scheveningen . This concept of SICILIAN (for some reason it was CAPITALIZED in the encyclopedia) inherently appealed to me for some reason.

I also thought there was something cool about this little center black sets up in the Schev, like a wall. As a little kid I would set up with ...Nf6/c6, ...Be7/d7, ...0-0, ...Qc7 (usually all good moves!), throwing in the pointless ...Nc6-e5-g6 maneouver for effect. I called this the "awaiting attack variation." . This opening was my first love in chess, and I played it with brief interruptions from 800-2000+. I knew absolutely zero theory until 1600, of course. This is the only opening that has given me "happiness" vs. 1. e4. I then switched to 1...e5 for awhile (I definitely learned about chess, but this move is not for me!) and now I'm returning to the beloved Schev.

Against 1. d4, I played the Nimzo until 1600. Probably because as a little kid, I bought "Starting Out: The Nimzo-Indian" in a London Chess Shop while Emms was sitting downstairs! He signed it, cool experience for 11 year old, and I was off to the races. Around 1600 I decided I was bored of it and picked up Rowson's classic "Understanding the Grunfeld", one of the best books I have ever read. I played the Grunfeld based on this book for years since. I got a bit irritated with how possible it seems to lose to booked up weaker players, so I'm dabbling in other things in the full expectation of returning to my favorite response to 1. d4 .

Sorry about the essay! In hindsight these openings, even the ones semi-randomly selected, reflect my personal preference for attacking positions with white and complex ones with black.

I played absolute crap (1. Nc3 2. ?????) until I became a decent player and then decided to just jump into the most complex/topical openings there are and see how I handled them. And I found something interesting out. People are afraid of theory. One huge advantage of playing theoretical openings is people intentionally playing inferior moves to get the game out of book.

So don't be afraid of jumping in the deep end. Everybody else is so you'll end up getting the whole pool to yourself.

Wow, that metaphor really doesn't work.

From quickfetus,

We discover:

1. He realized he liked to play certain opening positions and so search out several openings leading to such positions.
2. Inherent appeal of an opening can lead to one playing it.


From Dire,

We discover that the challenge of mastering topical openings led him to the realization that opponents were afraid of theoretical openings and would play inferior moves to get away from the "book" conferring a huge edge.

Many thanks for your insights guys.

From several posters,

We discover that it is just possible to stumble into playing certain lines openings because they are recommended by an associate or because material on those openings was readily at hand.

There are two other ideas that I have (and have used).

1. Play openings that you do poorly against when they are played against you. If you play it from both sides of the board, then you'll be better at playing it from either side of the board.

2. Play openings that force you to do things you're not as comfortable with. For example, I used to be a rather safe, not so tactical player. So I started using the King's Gambit. It forced me to understand and utilize a developmental and space advantage. My tactical awareness has improved a lot because I was forced to work on tactics in order to not lose.

So I wasn't the only one then..

For OTB play:

1) The opening has to be "sound": i.e., as Black, eventually one can reach a
line that is either = or an unclear position that "feels comfortable" (depends
on style). Of course, that means sometimes asking for the current state of
opening theory from somebody strong (preferably a GM or IM). Also, as
White, don't give up "too much" when there are imbalances. E.g., many
strong players wouldn't dare play the King's gambit as White or the Budapest
as Black.

2) It's either a relatively "modern" opening at least in the sense that there
are several minor pieces on both sides in the "main lines" or it's a "solid" line
that leads to somewhat drawish positions.

3) Against even moderately strong opposition, there should be lines or plans
that pose some "problems" if one is trying to win or get some foreseeable
winning chances. Ideally you want to be in positions that you've analyzed
a lot in advance and that your opponent has not.

4) The opening has to be "easily digestible" when learning it and again, that
will depend on who is learning the opening. There's no point playing either
the Sicilian Poisoned Pawn or the Marshall Gambit if you can't learn the most
important lines quickly enough and remember the ideas as well as specific
moves. The unfortunate problem today is that every "normal" opening has an
extremely large body of theory (and explains why something like an early
...Qb6 in the Sicilian will be worth looking into).

5) The opening has to "suit the style" of the player employing that opening.
E.g., when I was Black, against 1. e4, there was a short time I was "trying"
1...e5 and 1...e6 instead of 1...c5; however, the type of positions that were
often reached didn't seem to give any winning chances for Black; similarly, I
also "tried" 1...d5 against 1. d4, mostly playing the QGD Tartakower, but the
type of positions were sometimes difficult to play (at least relative to the
Nimzo- and Queens Indian ).

-------
If you had to start from "scratch", this is what you can "strive" for ( IMHO,
almost "ideal" ):

1. d4 as White (and rarely 1. e4 against an opponent that you have prepared
in advance for).

Nimzo-, Queen's Indian and/or the Slav and/or the Grunfeld against 1. d4.

Sicilian Najdorf/Sveshnikov and/or Closed Ruy Lopez/Marshall Gambit against 1. e4.
-------

Also, I pretty much agree with Dire: a lot of players about 2200 and below
are often "afraid of theoretical lines", but it's worthwhile to play some "main
lines" to see what type of problems are posed for both sides. You will have
to play both sides of some openings.

Al,

In my early years, 1972-75, I played exclusively 1.e4 as White, then from 1975-79 only 1.d4, after which I felt more confidence and branched out to add 1.c4. In my career at master level, queenside openings were what I felt more comfortable with for the most part, so I stuck with them.

As Black, I tried many things through the years: Najdorf Sicilian, same as many others, 1....e5 early, then Caro-Kann, some Pirc/Modern and later the French.

Above all, don't worry overmuch about theory or sticking to one opening: we can leave that approach to the professionals (2400+).Try different ideas whenever you can.

If you have any questions, PM me if you like.