Good article, but I disagree on one point! If someone in my area finds my chesscom account (very likely) and prepares something that challenges my very developed repertoire, it will be an excellent learning opportunity. Nothing seems more fun to me than getting an opportunity to learn more about one of my favorite openings in a classical chess game! For example, recently I got destroyed otb playing the french defense. My opponent with the white pieces played the exchange variation, and then got a quick f4-f5. I learned a ton in that game and even though I lost in 25 moves, I am a better player now because my opponent successfully beat my opening prep.
Oh I was thinking similarly many years ago till I noticed in many of my games my opponents were preparing deeply the opening based on my narrow repertoire. Each time I wonder with how much damage I will get out of the opening and if I can still catch up later. As a consequence I lose too often games against players technically not better than myself but the worst is that in teamcompetitions my teammates openly criticize me. They find my approach selfish and not of a good teamplayer. I guess if they would have a good reserve that they would put me out of the team.
"If you are not a full-time chess professional, it’s more practical to have a single, core repertoire than to attempt to master many different openings. Focus on improving your core repertoire iteratively over time."
Nowadays you have a lot of very strong amateurs (level FM, IM and even GM). Playing one single core repertoire even with wrinkels / jukes against those people is not enough if they have time to prepare. Just one example I wrote about on my blog: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/03/surprises-part-3.html but I can recall several others from my practice.
Anyway I assume this article is mainly written for players rated below 2300 (99,..% of the amateurs) so then I fully agree with it.
If someone is FM+ I would consider them in the professional category even if they don't literally make a living from chess. The article is more targeted to players <2200. Even for professionals though, there are certainly players who have success with a narrow repertoire, especially with the Black pieces.
I never heard before somebody calling a FM as a professional but now thinking about it then it makes (some) sense. In terms of approach to the game a FM can be already very professional which is very rare for players below 2200.
As an amateur I agree completely to stuck to one opening and dig on it deep and wide. If the opening is good, i.ex. the Najdorf-Scheveningen, you will know a lot about it and if your opponent expects you to play it, at least you will get a fair game.
If the opening is dubious and you want to surprise your opponent, maybe he knows the refutation and you might suffer "catastrophe in the opening".
A great reflection on openings in club player's life. I think it's helpful to have two or three solid openings that a player can alternate between so that he's not completely predictable. It makes it harder for the opponent to prepare. It also doesn't give the feeling of boredom of playing the same opening over and over.
Suspicious openings can be useful in blitz games where surprises may play a role. But I wouldn't play them in serious games.
Thanks for the helpful comment about accessing our openings on Chess.com or Lichess.
And BTW, the thread on the London system is great! ;)
I have never played OTB official tournaments, however this is very instructive for me in the future if I decide to go down that route. It’s nice to know I’m already covered in the fact I don’t use my name on lichess. However, because I only play online I have never had to worry about studying a specific player’s opening prep or vice versa. How crucial is this in OTB tournaments, if for example I stick to my online routine of being a consistent e4 type of player? Also, at what point if ever should I branch out of e4, given my rapid rating on lichess is currently 2078, do I need to branch out to improve in general and in a OTB tournament setting?
You don't ever have to stop playing e4, as long as you like it and it's working for you. The top players in the world often start with 1. e4.
Studying your opponent's repertoire can be a way to try to get an edge, but most players would be better served focusing on improving their own repertoire, and using the time before rounds in OTB tournaments to relax and prepare to focus.
I don't think you need to move away from 1.e4 at all. If the openings suit you, you understand the positions and you know how to play them - why should you learn new openings after 1.d4 that are significantly different in character?
Thank you for your response, the main reason I could possibly think of studying d4 lines is in my response as black, where I almost always respond with Nf6, and hope to get into a nimzo.
Good article, but I disagree on one point! If someone in my area finds my chesscom account (very likely) and prepares something that challenges my very developed repertoire, it will be an excellent learning opportunity. Nothing seems more fun to me than getting an opportunity to learn more about one of my favorite openings in a classical chess game! For example, recently I got destroyed otb playing the french defense. My opponent with the white pieces played the exchange variation, and then got a quick f4-f5. I learned a ton in that game and even though I lost in 25 moves, I am a better player now because my opponent successfully beat my opening prep.
sure but you would have rather this happen in your experience playing unrated right?
Oh I was thinking similarly many years ago till I noticed in many of my games my opponents were preparing deeply the opening based on my narrow repertoire. Each time I wonder with how much damage I will get out of the opening and if I can still catch up later. As a consequence I lose too often games against players technically not better than myself but the worst is that in teamcompetitions my teammates openly criticize me. They find my approach selfish and not of a good teamplayer. I guess if they would have a good reserve that they would put me out of the team.
"If you are not a full-time chess professional, it’s more practical to have a single, core repertoire than to attempt to master many different openings. Focus on improving your core repertoire iteratively over time."
Nowadays you have a lot of very strong amateurs (level FM, IM and even GM). Playing one single core repertoire even with wrinkels / jukes against those people is not enough if they have time to prepare. Just one example I wrote about on my blog: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/03/surprises-part-3.html but I can recall several others from my practice.
Anyway I assume this article is mainly written for players rated below 2300 (99,..% of the amateurs) so then I fully agree with it.
If someone is FM+ I would consider them in the professional category even if they don't literally make a living from chess. The article is more targeted to players <2200. Even for professionals though, there are certainly players who have success with a narrow repertoire, especially with the Black pieces.
I never heard before somebody calling a FM as a professional but now thinking about it then it makes (some) sense. In terms of approach to the game a FM can be already very professional which is very rare for players below 2200.
TYVM FM Solon.
As an amateur I agree completely to stuck to one opening and dig on it deep and wide. If the opening is good, i.ex. the Najdorf-Scheveningen, you will know a lot about it and if your opponent expects you to play it, at least you will get a fair game.
If the opening is dubious and you want to surprise your opponent, maybe he knows the refutation and you might suffer "catastrophe in the opening".
A great reflection on openings in club player's life. I think it's helpful to have two or three solid openings that a player can alternate between so that he's not completely predictable. It makes it harder for the opponent to prepare. It also doesn't give the feeling of boredom of playing the same opening over and over.
Suspicious openings can be useful in blitz games where surprises may play a role. But I wouldn't play them in serious games.
Thanks for the helpful comment about accessing our openings on Chess.com or Lichess.
And BTW, the thread on the London system is great! ;)
I have never played OTB official tournaments, however this is very instructive for me in the future if I decide to go down that route. It’s nice to know I’m already covered in the fact I don’t use my name on lichess. However, because I only play online I have never had to worry about studying a specific player’s opening prep or vice versa. How crucial is this in OTB tournaments, if for example I stick to my online routine of being a consistent e4 type of player? Also, at what point if ever should I branch out of e4, given my rapid rating on lichess is currently 2078, do I need to branch out to improve in general and in a OTB tournament setting?
You don't ever have to stop playing e4, as long as you like it and it's working for you. The top players in the world often start with 1. e4.
Studying your opponent's repertoire can be a way to try to get an edge, but most players would be better served focusing on improving their own repertoire, and using the time before rounds in OTB tournaments to relax and prepare to focus.
Thank you for your insights, I will continue to play e4 as it is what I enjoy most!
I don't think you need to move away from 1.e4 at all. If the openings suit you, you understand the positions and you know how to play them - why should you learn new openings after 1.d4 that are significantly different in character?
Thank you for your response, the main reason I could possibly think of studying d4 lines is in my response as black, where I almost always respond with Nf6, and hope to get into a nimzo.