Hey Kaeru, thank you very much for posting! It is great to know that someone reads it, as I wasn't sure about that
And your question is a very good one, and actually made me re-think some things!
Firstly, let me provide sort of a broad view of my main repertoire, as far as openings go:
1. d4 as white.
Against KID: Saemisch with Bg5 instead of Be3.
Against 1...d5: 2. c4 and then:
- vs Queens Gambit accepted: various, but usually something involving not trying to get the pawn back immediately.
- Against Slav - various, currently I often play something offbeat like 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. f3 with crazy good scores, but also know most of the classical lines at least somewhat if needed.
- against Queens gambit declined - depends, usually taking on d5 and going for the classical Bg5/Qc2/e3/Bd3 and either Nf3 (usually coupled with 0-0-0 at some point) or Ne2 (with a more standard 0-0/f3/e4 plan). However, currently I am venturing more and more in to Bf4 teritorry.
- against Albin - 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. a3 Nge7 6. b4 Ng6 7. Bb2 etc. (I consider this to be almost 1-0, as long as white knows his theory)
- against 2.. Nc6 - just cooking something up at the board (LEAK).
against Grunfeld : currently usually the Kruppa variation 4. cxd5 Nd5 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bg5 (look it up, it's great!),but also know some other variations which I've employed previously with mixed success, namely the early h4 ones and 7. Bc4 with the classic Ne2/Be3 setup and an exchange sac on a1.
against 1.. Nf6 2 . c4 e6 - I used to never allow the Nimzo and play 3. Nf3, where I know a decent amount. However, currently I allow the Nimzo and usually play 4. Qc2 and then really there are too many possibilities to write down here, so if you wanna know what I play against concrete lines from black ask and I'll let you know.
against Benoni - again know several options, but usually either go for a hyper aggro 4. d5 exd5 5. exd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. e5, or to a more standard 6. Nf3 --> Nd2.
against the Dutch - if I am feisty I go 2. h3 and 3. g4, if not... usually I am feisty.
against the Stonewall - setup with Nf3/Bf4/Qc2/e3/Bd3/0-0-0/g4.
against the Benko - I rarely allow it, but if I do allow it I play with g3/Bg2/Qc2/0-0 and then it all depends on what he does.
against their random bull**** - I respond with my own random bull****.
As black :
vs 1. e4 :
- as a kid I started of with the French, which I can still play somewhat, but would definitely need a refresher to play it vs higher rated opposition.
- Then I turned to Najdorf which I've played for about 10 years and knew it fairly well, but the problem with Najdorf is that you have to really keep up with the developments in theory or you might just not even reach the middle game. As I did not have the time to do this, I started to look for an alternative
- that's when I found the Modern Tiger by Tiger Hillarp Persson. Sort of a main setup of which is for black g6, Bg7, d6, a6, b5, Nbd7, Bb7, c5. Of course white has a ton of different setups so it's no use trying to write it all down here. At the beginning the Tiger gave me absolutely ridiculous results and I basically scored my first IM norm largely on the back of it. Then people started preparing heavily vs me and I had a bit of a slump with it and kinda lost my love for it, but have recently regained it again after putting in a bit of reviewing of the lines, and will continue to play it again.
vs d4/Nf3/c4
I have tried pretty much everything there is. This is by far the biggest leak in my opening play, cause I sort of just prepare something for every single game instead of having something I can rely on. I can play the KID, the classical Dutch, the Benoni, Benko, Blumenfeld gambit (absolutely love it whenever someone allows me to play it), some sort of Hedgehog, the Chigorin, etc. I know something in all of them, but definitely not deep enough to keep up at a high level, unless I specifically prepare for a specific opponent for a specific game. Usually it's kind of rotating between the Dutch, the KID and some sort of other weird move orders which translate to something at some point.
So, the repertoire is as such. Now, as to your question, I guess the answer is mixed. Some of the openings I play I've learned in my early teens (for example the Saemisch I've been playing for maybe 20 years now), while the others I've picked up much later in my development. I picked those up in a variety of different sources, when I felt a need arise:
- when my Najdord wasn't cutting it, my then-coach suggested a look at the Modern Tiger, and I fell in love with it.
- when I felt that I am getting outplayed in many Grunfelds, I looked for alternatives and found the Kruppa variation in one of the Secrets of Opening surprises books
- When I felt that I am getting further and further behind on developments in the Slav, I looked for an offbeat alternative and found the one with an exchange and 5. f3
- When I felt that people have started to heavily prepare as black in Queens Indian, I started to venture into allowing the Nimzo and trying to out-prepare them there.
and so on and so on.
Basically I guess you could say that I've developed most of it by need.
However, there are certainly certain filters that I look at when thinking about an opening. I don't much care about the evaluation (as long as it's not lost by force obv) at all - I look for complex positions, with both sides. It does not have to be super dynamic necessarily, but a complex position with many chances for both sides. Usually more closed than open. I enjoy chess the most in those types of positions and that's why I am trying to get to them. If the opening leads me to a +0.2 forced endgame, I will usually shun it away in favor of a complex, yet balanced opening line which does not necessarily promise me any advantage right out of the gate.
Another thing to have in mind is that at around 2300+ level having just one opening/opening line usually just is not going to cut it. The good thing is that over the many many years of playing, players of that and higher caliber have seen and/or tried themselves pretty much most of the openings that are there, so they have at least some understanding of many many different types of structures, which allows them to play several different openings without necessarily having super deep knowledge of them, by choosing specific lines of those openings that they have an idea about. So the opening choice per se starts to mean less, because it becomes much more about specific lines in those openings - for example, the French does not suit me that well anymore as a whole, but there are certain pet lines that I have that are exactly what I am looking for, and if I see during my preparation that it is possible for me to get those lines vs a certain opponent, I might go for it (of course, gambling that he won't deviate - but if he does deviate, it usually means he also does not know it very well). I've won plenty of games using ideas from Secrets of Opening Surprises series, by playing openings I've in general know very little about, but seeing that my opponent usually goes for a specific line that I have a trick up my sleeve against. Now that I think about it, I do gamble quite a lot of my opening choices lol.
So a longer answer to your question would in general be yes, most of my opening/opening line choices are conscious decisions to steer the game towards "my type" of positions, even if those lines don't necessarily offer an advantage if played well by the other side.
Thanks again for the question and I hope that you will enjoy the answer. If you wanna know anything else, fire away!
Last edited by YouKnowWho; 01-29-2019 at 08:14 AM.