Let's see those repertoires! It's always interesting to me to see what people play and why so post yours and any info you want.

White
1. e4

• French - Tarrasch
• Sicilian - Open English Attack when possible although I've been playing around with Bb5 vs 2 ... Nc6
• e5 - Ruy Lopez (I'm new to this, currently playing exchange and learning mainlines)
• Pirc - e4, d4, Nc3, Be3 and if 4 ... c6 then 5. h3
• Scandinavian - 3. Nf3 vs both
• Caro Kann - Advanced if 3 ... Bf5 4. h4!?

Black

• vs 1. e4 - Classical Sicilian
• vs 1. d4 - Semi-slav triangle move-order with Noteboom if possible
• vs 1. c4 - 1 ... e5 with reversed grand prix if possible
• vs 1. Nf3 - semi-slav

With white I'm transitioning from a terrible, super-aggro and anti-positional repertoire to a more positionally motivated one. I really like the 5. h3 variation vs the Pirc. It can be aggressive but doesn't commit white too much like my previous automatic f3, Be3, Qd2 0-0-0 did.

Think this is an interesting idea for a thread, I wrote out all my repertoire before realising this would be a pretty handy resource for anyone wanting to prepare to play against me. Still I think it's broad enough that I don't mind putting it out there. Also, I occasionally play other stuff (e.g. played the QID for maybe the first time just last week) and might change some of it around a bit, so it doesn't worry me so much.

White

1. e4

French - 3. Nc3, against 3...Bb4 I often play 4. a3 6. Qg4 or sometimes just play main lines, against 3...Nf6 the Alekhine-Chatard attack 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
Sicilian - used to play exclusively main line Open Sicilians, 6. f4 against the Najdorf or Scheveningen move order, recently have been playing 3. Bb5 a lot though
1...e5 - Scotch, main lines with Nxc6. Against the Petroff I might play 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 or 4. g3
Pirc - depending on move order, often play 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. f3 with the possibility of a Saemisch KID
Scandinavian - try to develop all my pieces and have some slight lasting initiative
Caro-Kann - have almost always played the Panov-Botvinnik attack, I don't think this really suits me though
Alekhine - usually play 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5

Black

vs 1. e4 - 1...e5 or recently I have played a lot 1...c5. After ...e5 I've mostly played the Archangelsk/New Archangelsk variation against the Spanish, 4...Nf6 lines against the Scotch, 2...ef 3...d5 against the King's Gambit. After ...c5 I've played Scheveningen, Classical, Sveshnikov and Dire Sicilians, or mainline stuff against the anti-Sicilians, with 2. c3 d5
vs 1. d4 - Gruenfelds, mostly following the repertoire outlined in Rowson's book Understanding the Gruenfeld. 2...e6 against the Trompowsky, against other sidelines I am often committed to an early ...g6 so end up in a quasi-KID or Gruenfeld setup.
vs 1. c4 - usually 1...e5 with a very early ...c6. Sometimes I play 1...Nf6 intending to end up in a Gruenfeld or Symmetrical English. Same ideas vs 1. Nf3.

White

1. e4

French - against the Winawer I play the 4.Nge2 gambit, good fun esp against booked up French freaks. against 3...Nf6 I play the Steinitz.

Sicilian - I like the Chekhover with 4.Qxd4 and and have had good results with it. I Also play the Rossolimo.

1...e5- Ruy Lopez, Italian, Max Lange, Vienna, depending on my mood and opponent. Against the Petroff I play 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3. By castling queenside I avoid symmetry and can launch a kingside attack- the extra pawn on c3 also gives my king a lot more protection.

Pirc - 150 Attack- simple and effective.

Scandinavian - main lines, sometimes the Diemer if I'm up against a passive nit who grabs everything.

Caro-Kann - Fantasy variation, it leads to very un-caro like positions, getting my opponents out of their depth.

Alekhine - Balogh variation- 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Bc4 and if 4. Nb6 5.Bb3 dxe5 6.Qh5 followed by 7.dxe5- have had great results with it.

Black

1. e4 - Accelerated Dragon- Uogele against Nc3 immediately, Gurgenidze against Maroczy bind.

1. d4 - KID, Nimzo, Bogo

1. c4, 1.Nf3 etc. - KID, standard reversed sicilian setups with ...e5 or Nimzo-Bogos with ...e6 and Bb4.

As White, mostly d4 or c4

Vs e4: might try ....e5, Caro-Kann, French, sometimes Pirc or Sicilian (as junior, Najdorf-later, would play Kan or Taimanov)

Vs d4: often Nimzo/QID, then KID, sometimes Leningrad Dutch.

White:
I feel comfortable playing both 1.e4 and 1.d4, so it depends on my mood.. in a serious game, I would try to find my opponent's weakness and look to exploit it.
Black:
1.e4 e5 and then either the Berlin or the Bc5 lines in the Spanish.
1.d4 d5 - I've played the Tartakower QGD my whole life and never really had a reason to change. I'll try 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 if I'm playing for a win.
Against 1.c4, i'll play e6, d5, dxc4 on the first three moves if I can. If he defends the pawn with b3, then c5 with an eventual d4.

White

1. e4! I have never played anything else.

- Sicilian: 2.c3. I love this variation.
- French: Winawer main line with Qg4. If 3...Nf6, then i play 4. e5 immediately (Steinitz), not the Classical Variation.
- Open games: Ruy Lopez Exchange. I like endgames and this opening suits me. Playing risklessly for a win is not that bad.
- Pirc: 150 attack, though next time I will probably try the g3-variation.
- Scandinavian: Main line without Nf3.
- Caro-Kann: Main line. I used to play the advance variation with g4 but I don't like the resulting positions.
- Alekhine: Exchange on d6 and improvise from there. I know what to do but don't know any specific lines.

Black

- 1. e4: French. I have played the French for all my chess life and it is my favourite opening. I have tried all major lines but I usually play the Winawer after Nc3 (either 6...Qc7 or the main line with 7...Qc7 or 7...0-0) and c5 after Nd2.
- 1.d4: Slav.
- 1.c4: If he doesn't follow up with d4 transposing to a Slav I usually try to reach a e6-d5-c6 formation with Nf6, Bf5 and h6.

White: aggressive 1.d4 mainline stuff:
5. Bg5 against the semi-slav
exchange variantion against the QGD
the Rb1 pawn sac vs the Grünfeld
6. h3 or the Bayonet against the KID
4. Nf3 vs the Nimzo.

Black: Various sicilians vs 1.e4, have tried nearly all there is against 1.d4 but currently gonna go with the Slav. I disagree that it can be played against 1.c4 and 1. Nf3 move orders, and i hate the Reti, so i answer both of them with 1...c5 aiming for Botwinnik setups.

If anyone can hook me up with decent lines against the Leningrad i would be very thankful and could give the favour back with some good tips and tricks in the QGD, which i think i know quite well.

As a Leningrad player, I suggest 2. Nc3 -- the typical continuation is 2...Nf6 3. Bg5 (point is, keep playing for e4) d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3. It's really not a Leningrad-like position, and is probably more straightforward for White.

I don't really play either side of the QGD, though.

Played exactly this in a must-win game for the title against a very solid player in our city championship, got nothing and drew. I looked a bit deeper at it and don't really like it.

Thx anyways

Disclaimer: I've only played 1. d4 very casually for a few months and have never played the Leningrad with black so I can't promise anything.

That said, I really liked 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. h4. It's really aggressive, often sacrificing a pawn on h5 asap. Black cannot just play standard Leningrad moves and has to be quite careful. Piket is the main high-level proponent, but Radjabov and Macieja have played it on occasion. I only ever used my database to study the opening but TWIC #32 is about this opening.

If I had to play for a win vs the Leningrad, I'd definitely choose this approach.

Edit - apparently the Exchange sac on h5 is even more common than I had realized. I've acquired that TWIC in chessbase format if you're interested.

great thread. this could save me from buying a book to decide on my own repertoire.

As White-I only play the English, but sometimes I start with 1.Nf3 to prevent 1...e5 and then transpose into the English with 2.c4. My favorite situation is if I can get into the Botvinnik System: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.g2 g6 4.Nc3 g7 5.e4. My least favorite (and what I consider to be the best versus the English) is the Keres System: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.g2 c6.

As Black
against 1.e5 I play the caro-kann. I know this is considered a pretty passive opening. However, I just started out and I find myself playing against mostly higher level players. Therefore, I think it is alright to go for draws as Black.

against 1.d4 I used to play the slav, but I'm switching over to the nimzo

against 1.c4 obviously I play the Keres system.

I don't understand how you could play this multitude of openings. The Spanish alone requires knowing theory to like 20 moves at the least.

it's not that hard. The main lines of the Ruy Lopez have been the same for a long time.

I've played a great variety of openings, but the openings that have currently stuck with me:

WHITE
1. e4 (with 1. f4 as a back-up, I play it as a reverse-Classical Dutch, not a reverse-Leningrad). Against:
~1...e5 - the King's Gambit
~French - Tarrasch
~Caro-Kann - Fantasy Variation
~Sicilian - 2. Na3. Unlike some higher-level games that used Bb5 in this variation, I always aim for f4, g3, and Bg2. Sometimes I play the Open Sicilian instead.
~Scandinavian - what I assume to be the mainline. Are there actually choices here?
~Pirc - I panic. I've tried, but whether I'm black or white, I get very lost when the Pirc is played.

Black
~1. e4 - French (I think that the first and maybe only time I actually fell in love with an opening was when I started playing the French). 3...Nf6 vs the Tarrasch or 3. Nc3, aiming for the McCutcheon. Also, on 1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 I play 2...c5 and just go for the Sicilian because otherwise I'd end up playing the Exchange Variation much too often. I'm also familiar enough with the Alekhine if I ever need a change, and on 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 I end up transposing to a Philidor with 2...d6 or 2...e5.

~1. d4 - KID or Benoni, I'm currently very undecided.

~1. c4 or 1. Nf3 I also go for the KID or Benoni set-up.

1. white - d4. I play Qc2 against the Nimzo Indian. I play standard lines against pretty much everything else. Easiest opening for me to play against is benko gambit and benoni toughest is probably KID. Though I am improving rapidly against KID due to a book ive been reading on it.

Strangely nobody plays the grunfeld defense so i have almost no experience against it.

2. black -

Against 1. e4 - french defense, or sicilian defense depending on which i feel like playing. I dont like all the memorization of the sicilian though and feel like i know the french better. Best results have been with the exchange and advance by far. I really think 4. Nc3 and 4. Nd2 are vastly vastly superior for white compared to 4. e5 and 4. exd5. I think most people seem to know this, because bad players tend to play the later two and good players the former two.

Against 1. d4 - a whole bunch of stuff, since I play d4 myself im pretty familiar with a variety of openings. Sometimes the Nimzo, sometimes Queens Indian Defense, sometimes QGD. I wont play KID/benoni/grunfeld

1 f4 gives me nightmares. Im like 0-5 against it.. f'in bird's opening!

White
- 1.d4
- 1.Nf3

Black
1.d4: Gruenfeld, Nimzo+QID/Bogo
1.e4: Accelerated Dragon, Dragon, Najdorf, French
1.c4: c5 or Nf6/hedgehog
1.Nf3: c5 or Nf6

1. f4: g6!

I think its interesting so many people have so many different defenses for the same line. What exactly do you get from having, for example, accelerated, dragon, najdorf, and french, all prepared to play against e4? Why not stick to one defense and learn it well? The only way I can see it making sense is if you consistently play the same people and so you want to throw them off. Otherwise I see you gaining nothing and certainly losing the ability to learn a defense better.

Swingdoc, how have your results been using the Tarrasch against the French defense? Do you feel more comfortable in the open positions or closed? I haven't tried it yet, but I've seen lots of regular French players in my rating group (1500-1700) fall out of their comfort zone when White does anything but 3. e5 or 3. Nc3.

Variety is the spice of life imo

Besides keeping things more interesting, as already mentioned, sometimes you want to have a risky choice and a solid choice prepared depending on the situation. Also, if one opening has been looking weak recently, you may want to give it a rest and take something else out for a spin.

Also, I think that it's important for your chess development to have experience with several major openings. Especially if they lead to very different types of positions, it will give you a broader understanding of the game.

Finally, it can sometimes be an issue of move order. With me, for example, I said that I will sometimes play the Alekhine (1. e4 N6) as black. After 2. Nc3, I transpose into the Philidor (normally 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6). I'm only prepared for this because I played the Philidor straight up for a while, so if I play a lot of games in a row against 1. e4, I will end up varying with 1...e5 and go with the Philidor. Similarly, I play the French but go with the Sicilian on 1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 c5. To gain experience with this so I don't get lost, I also occasionally play 1. e4 c5.

I've only played 3. Nd2 for a few weeks and only online so far. My results have been good so far but obviously I don't have much experience.

Long post warning! :P

My repertoire is in transition after five years of unswerving stability

1. e4 is my main weapon. However I play very often on Chesscube, with one account for experimental openings (equal results to the other in fact), and I'm therefore starting to play 1. d4 and holding my own as I learn the various opening traps that abound.

I play the lines in Experts Vs the Sicilian, excepting in the proper Dragon, where I have made the Vitolins my vitamin-filled weapon, with some great results.

Against ...e5 I have always since I got decent 10yrs ago, played the Ruy Lopez Exchange, Lasker Variation (5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4), however, I am beginning to change this around, learning the beginnings of the Main Line from the IM Andrew Martin DVD (5. d3 doesn't count as full main-line, but it covered in depth the range of other responses, and was a great investment), and also toying with the Italian/2 Knights. I find it is quite easy against moderate or lower opponents, to out-tactic them and then put them into torture positions, where they cannot win, and I have an enduring endgame or late middlegame edge. To combat those who do play properly, and in general, I am playing through The Art of Attack (Vukovic) to get a greater feel for when I am ahead. The RL Ex has given me some brilliant results (including a whomping of an old ECF 150 ~1850) before I broke 120 myself, but I find a select few opponents who can hold their own, hence the changeover.

Against the French I play the Winawer or Classical Steinitz. I am quite positional by nature, and the French is one opening I always get great results against. In fact it has led to one of my best ever games. I have at times considered the advance, and have had some transpositions to that from wonderfully dumb people who online have responded to 1. e4 d5 2. e5 with ...e6?? or such. (I hate the Scandinavian. It's like, anti-chess to me. I admire it immensely, but it really breaks me for some reason, and no amount of learning would help unless I took it up. That's another story though...)

I play the Austrian Attack against the Pirc, and being almost a sort of tricky semiSicilian opening, I find I get good results in the greater space I am afforded.

Against stuff like Owen's, I adopt a personal tabiya based on ideas combined from my magic Vitolins, and ideas in the French, which boils down to e4/d4, Bd3, Nf3 and sometimes Nc3, Qe2, and a quick opening of the centre.

The Caro-Kann however is a strange beast, for it was the first opening I adopted as Black, having always admired most Anatoly Karpov (though now Fischer and Botvinnik too, with more dynamism than the latter). Hence, I have always played the Advance against it, the Bayonet Attack in particular. I have the Shirov DVD on this, and again it has led me to some brilliantly interesting games. When I first played it I would get the Main Line and yet get crushed, because I was too weak to understand the nuances of move order. Because I have played the Advance for so long, I find I can handle it perfectly well as Black also, but I still struggle in the Main Line, because I need a foothold of some sort in the centre.

For Black, since I gave up the CKD I have been playing the Petroff. For an ECF 129 (should be 141, online rating roughly 1750) this may seem silly, because most games are tactical at this level, however so many people locally have ceded with 3. Nc3, and I find the asymmetrical positions very comfortable, with a couple of exceptions. I have material on the main line too.

I play 3...g5 in the King's Gambit Accepted, because I can frequently calculate fully out of an opening against my opponents.

Against 1. d4 I used to be a QGA fan, but I adopted the Chebanenko Slav after buying the Andrew Martin DVD, and won my very first game in our county championship in 21 moves. I have never had any major problems since, and it perfectly suits me as far as solidity. In fact, my Black percentage last year was exactly 50/50. I am therefore considering either 2...Nc6 against 1. e4 (though I should be very wary of this until I better know the clockwork attacks of the Italian), or 1...c5 if I desire dynamic play, even the Sveshnikov, because oddly, I find it very hard to play against a backwards pawn in a certain line of the Petroff I get very often! I am also comfortable against the Vienna Opening.

The two of those openings together, Petroff/Slav, enable me to use a trick against 1. c4 players, which basically amounts to then playing ...e5 and getting a superior 3 Knights Petroff, or some sort of transposed French, which is also to my taste. However, I simply cannot play the Scandinavian on either side! It is the one oddity in my repertoire. I respect it, I understand it, yet if I try to analyse it, I fail epically. I am considering perhaps learning something like the KID which can more easily win against poor White play if I end up with an unsatisfactory Black percentage vs 1. d4, but that will take a year or two to decide.

all results shown are basically at a 1400 level, so my actual opening repertoire means little other then being in positions where I don't generally fall for easy traps

as White, I'm 1. e4 - as black I'm Pirc vs e4 and KID vs. d4 whenever possible

regarding specific defenses

French - I have about 17 games where I play the advanced (3. e5) or classical (Nc3) with a 60-65% win rate but that's not unusual at my level since my tactics make up for my lack of book knowledge - much better results since I stopped playing 3. e4xd5

Open games (1. e5) - I pretty much play 100% Scotch (or Scotch Gambit) with a 62% win rate in 145 games

Sicilian - almost always 3. d3 keeping it closed and moving for a KIA if possible - my database shows this works good on moves like 2. Nc6 but not so hot vs. d6 - gonna have to work on that - overall I'm about 50% vs it which means I need work on playing it a bit better but about 20% of the time I'll play the main line theory as far as I can recall which is usually about move 7

I seem to be choking on the Philodor (which I play like a scotch most of the time) and Scandinavian - (played with Qxe5 as opposed to 2...Nf6)

Vs Caro Kann, I'm having worse luck playing the main line then I did with 2. Nf3 - DOH - finding that as I try to stay in main lines I do worse vs prepared opponents - time to get experimental - LOL

I almost never see the pirc as white - it usually surprises me but the Austrian and 150 attacks are what I hate to see the most playing the other way

I could get more specific in my database but work calls - ttyl

RB

Because openings mean very little. I can say this even more confidently after starting to play some quite strong opponents in long games.

Playing a variety of openings gives you the opportunity to learn and try out a wide variety of different ideas. Playing just one opening might occasionally let you get a meaningful advantage out of the opening against an ill prepared opponent, but more than likely would just give your opponents a much easier time preparing for you.

And I think if you love the game, learning alot of different ideas is just simply fun.