Played a rapid tournament, it’s a weekly nine rounds event with three rounds a day. Not a particularly strong field, I’m top seed and won my games without too much trouble.

However, I do find a repertoire issue against 1. ... e6 lines going for the QGD.

My current set up is 1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e3 Nf6 going for either safe stuff like b3, Bb2, Qc2 and sometimes with more spicy ideas like 0-0-0, Rg1 and g4. This set up hasn’t been played many times in the database and I think the only known expert of the system is Vincent Keymer. However, I’m not truly convinced this line is that testing and I don’t think I get great positions outside of fast time controls. I’m deciding whether to transpose into QGD with 3. d4 and what set ups I should go for. Looking at the Gelfand games in his positional decision making book makes me want to play those d4 mainlines because it really suit my playstyle.

If I do well in local national tournaments, I will think about playing the World Amateur Championship U2300 Division and/or the Oceania Zonal. Also, I will have to complete my repertoire before considering to do so.

Was gonna start Aagard’s calculation book this week, but had too many plans this week, will start the next. Also turns out that I can’t enter the weekly tournament that I wanted to enter, so now struggling to find OTB classical games in my city...

Scored 7/9 to come =1st in a 20+10 rapid tournament. Technically it’s 7/8 because they told me I have a half point bye for the first round but it changed into a round robin so I got forfeited the first round (kinda annoyed by this).

Only game I lost was to an unrated (!!) even though I wiped everyone else.



I allowed black a position like this which was really inexcusable. Basically black gets a very free attack here and white is more or less losing.

I rushed the opening moves and move ordered into a bad version of the English vs the f5 systems where the Bc5 is basically permanently untouchable on the a7-g1 diagonal and assists the kingside attack with long term pressure.

I got pretty dejected when I got a bad position from the opening and start to rush the moves (trying to put time pressure on him) and missing obvious attacking ideas from the other side, should’ve kept a better composure and keep fighting.

I got pretty tilted by this game and in our national federation tournaments you can still potentially lose national elo to an unrated player depending on their performance in the tournament. I almost never get bad positions from white anymore so it’s really annoying to lose like this.

I was steaming from the lost, so on the next round (the last round) I played an unsound Caro Kann pretty quickly and got a massive attacking position, which I converted.




A lot of my repertoire still have holes. My improvement has always been directly correlated to improving my repertoire and keeping sharp tactically. I still have some variations to solve or find a good line before I go to play tournaments overseas.

What do you think about that book? I think it's too difficult and I have GM-norms.

Not sure if you are aware, but I think you are committing the most common intermediate mistake. Worrying way way too much about your repertoire and believing that it's possible to build a perfect repertoire. You should focus on learning to understand how chess works. Studying openings is one way to improve understanding, but not the most efficient. Common middle game themes, even endings help you think very differently about chess and guides you to choose moves that you understand and are comfortable with.

Even at my level, the objective merits of an opening have very little to do with anything. Just play something with a solid foundation and understand what you are doing.

Oh nevermind, now I've read the whole thread and realize I shouldn't post here.

You shouldn't, why not?

Well. OP was given great advice by Punker (and others) on the first page already, but OP chose not to listen and instead does the same stupid mistakes nearly everyone is making. Thread had awesome potential but hasn't even had real interaction. I don't see the purpose of this.

Ahh, so you really did read the whole thread, kudos to you!

Reached 2207 national quick chess rating (our national federation combines blitz and rapid tournaments), currently ranked 59th in the country for fast chess. I do think I can crack the top 10 if I play more actively as some of the IMs and GMs have been less active since the pandemic began...

I chose to listened to the advice of world class trainers like such as GM Max Illingworth, GM Ankit Rajpara and various IMs from my country. Anyone would do the same in my position.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/43073457677

For the first time ever, I got an opportunity to do the B+N checkmate in a game, and the game was on a stream with 2.3k viewers no less: https://www.twitch.tv/fmjohncurtischess

Hence making the same mistake nearly everyone is making I guess.

Consider the possibility that a young talented player doesn't know how to make the most of it long-term, especially if giving advice to someone who necessarily isn't extraordinarily talented. Despite his success, perhaps a special boy like Illingworth isn't someone to listen to. Also, consider the business side of coaching. For me it's mind-blowing how good advice you received on a poker forum, for absolutely free.

I do agree that perhaps there are multiple ways to approach things, and something meant for a GM level prospect might not be same for an amateur. But I do think, no one has solved the big dilemma to improving in adulthood. As far as I'm concerned, there has yet to be a single adult in history (in the recent computer age post 2001) that can go from beginner to master (let alone further). I think the perpetual chess podcast has not yet ever found a guest who did that. Or if someone did that, they were already a talented junior 2100 level player who just have alot of spare time to study in their 20s.

Talking with Illingworth and his routine, even someone with his talent, had to basically devote his entire life to chess from childhood, and he would use to do 8 hours of calculations and tactics for a month straight leading up to tournaments. The amount of effort it requires just to get to 2500 and sustain a below average financial income is staggering. GMs honestly deserve to make more.

But I don't want to blame personal failings on the flaws of a study system, rather then the flaws of an individual. Definitely have alot of things holding me back, e.g. a poker career, lack of natural tactical talent (which requires alot more drilling than most to stay sharp) and lack of exposure to classical OTB tournaments.

But I'm interested in what specifically about openings preparation that you think is a big mistake. Chess is primarily an opening battle, even if you aren't memorising move by move, the positions you will end up is dictated by your set up choice and the middlegame plans you want to study is also going to be dictated by your opening choice.

I don't think chess is primarily an opening battle. Perhaps you are too focused on knowledge and don't focus enough on skill? I've seen plenty of people around me (and myself) focus too much on specifics when it would've been much better to train skills that help you solve problems that arise over the board.

A beginner recently asked a group I'm in if in master level games there is always some 15 moves of theory. A guy around 2150 replied "pretty much yes, 10-20 moves". I checked my games and in my last three games the game got out of theory (for me!) on moves 4, 6 and 7. One was a draw against a grandmaster. I'm not trying to get out of theory really, but most of the time I just want a game because I trust my SKILL which I've acquired by studying positions, not opening theory. I have nothing against opening study per se, but most of the people are doing it very wrong, just memorizing a bunch of lines that make no sense for them. You should try to understand every single move you make. Forget lines like any poisoned pawn (be it Najdorf, Winaver, Classical French) or any other highly theoretical move-by-move positions. They are for computers and professionals. It's much more valuable to get a feel where the pieces belong in a certain structure for example.

If you read through the thread, you would realise that my opening repertoire doesn't have anything nearly as theoretical as the Najdorf poison pawn or Winawer poison pawn lines.

I basically play freestyle with the English as white, trying whatever new ideas or pawn structures I find.

As black, I play the dutch now (very un-theory relative to the more proper openings against d4 like the nimzo and KID), and the caro kann (which is probably the least theoretical but fundamentally sound opening vs 1. e4 you can find).

I have read every message in this thread. Of course I don't have a perfect memory, but I also never said you play the mentioned lines, they were just examples of very theoretical lines. I know you mentioned Semi-Slav, which I guess is an opening that isn't necessarily so move-by-move, but one that also has extremely theoretical branches.

I think Dutch and Caro are good choices, of course depending a bit on the exact lines.

Why do you think that chess is primarily an opening battle? What exactly do you mean by that?

I think at sub 2400 level, the best way for players to build a good baseline is to have a narrow repertoire they are very familiar with the middlegame positions they can keep playing well over and over again. Unless you're a professional, it doesn't make sense to have a wide repertoire where you will less likely to understand the middlegame positions deeply due to playing too many different kinds of positions. I still think it is good to have a general understanding of all kinds of pawn structures and associated plan to have a thorough chess culture.

The opening you pick is best when it suits your natural style of play and intuition. For example, my friend whos an FM has a very attacking and aggressive style, and most of his opening lines are revolved around 0-0-0 and going for opposite castling plans where he goes for hack attacks. Unsurprisingly, his repertoire is consisted of lines such as main line Yugoslav Attack against the dragon, English attack in the nadjorf, Sämisch Variation of the KID etc. Basically he thrives in the pawn structures with f3 and a queen bishop battery on Qd2-Be3 aiming at the blacks king. Similarly he plays enterprising chess as black with lines such as the KID and Sveshnikov Sicilian. When he generally gets into slow closed positions or positions where the plans of play are more nuanced, he probably plays at around 100-200 points weaker than his rating.

Personally, my repertoire is based on my style of play. I play for spatial advantage alot as white, and hence I thrive in maroczy like structures in the English. And my white opening is geared around getting me into positional squeezes. As black, I try to play something relatively safe like the Caro Kann, where I have many sidelines to escape the enterprising play of 1. e4 players (or at least I try to). I struggled to find something against 1. d4 that isn't super theoretical, but I found that the dutch at least gives me some natural play against 1. d4 players. On paper, the dutch shouldn't suit me, but I guess I still have abit of spice left in the tank for some attacking venom.

In general, I think even as players get better, they might be out of book in move 4-6, but they still have a very good intuition of the ideas and plan in the position. I don't think opening is fully distinguishable from the middlegame. Your opening play IS your middlegame understanding, both goes hand in hand.

While I don't really disagree with your points, I hope you realize that the way you think is very openings oriented. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but it's something you should be aware of. If a 2300-guy is over 100 points weaker in certain type of play, consider the possibility that he should focus his learning on improving that area of the game. Focusing too much on openings leads to non-balanced understanding of the game. You are only as good as the weakest part of your game.

A book recommendation: Applying Logic in Chess by Erik Kislik. It's about improving and the myths that surround the topic.