Quote:


I think, that's the way to go about even in OTB. Chess has to be fun if you are not chasing titles. Normal cycle of -  buy a repertoire book - a couple of quick wins - some heavy losses - buy another repertoire book - never impressed me.

It is better to stick to a stable light on theory repertoire and then study cutting edge theory, one at a time.

Bottom line is chess should be fun. It was fun when we learned the game. If it is not fun any more, what is the point in playing? If you want to be a so called pro, it's a different matter.

Unfortunately, chess is too serious to be a game and not serious enough to be a profession. With so many blogs around, losing sanity is quite easy.

Let me end with my favourite quote. Opening is fetish, if you are less than 2200 elo.

Just my 2c.

I still haven't made a decision. (Chess players often seem to need a lot of time to make decisions, don't they?)

I'm completely fed up with several of the set ups recommended in Kosten's book. Last weekend I played a tournament where I played  three higher rated players (including GM Berg) as white and got into the dreadful Botvinnik set up. Although I got decent positions these positions bore me to death now.

In blitz I enjoy playing 1.d4 and even more 1.e4. I use not so theoretical systems like the Bb5-sicilian which I know very litte about. Still, chess seems much more fun now.

I just have problems getting organized. One day I look at Bg5 Najdorf, next day it's what to play against Grünfeld, and so on. And I never manage to make any decision.

By the way, I see that Everyman is producing "Starting Out: 1.e4 " and "Starting Out: 1.d4" next year. Two repertoire books. http://www.everymanbooks.com/display.php?id=278 and http://www.everymanbooks.com/display.php?id=280 I probably don't more books though.

Yes, KID is no easy opening for white.  What do you expect from an opening that Fishcer and Kasparov have regularly played?  I think this is often one of the greatest headaches for a 1.d4 player.  I cannot say that I have felt fully at ease on either side of the KID.  It is a very tense opening!

I think you can end up arguing in circles as to whether it takes more preparation to play 1.e4 or 1.d4.  Personally, I think it is easier to make small alterations or additions to an 1.e4 repertoire than a 1.d4 repertoire, as the play seem to be more clearly defined by the early opening moves, and there tend to be fewer transpositional problems.  In my opinion, the play in the 1.e4 openings tends to be more concrete.  In a way, I think this factor make preparation easier in some aspects and harder in others.  With 1.e4 I think it is easier to prepare against a targeted opponent due to the concrete nature of the play.  However, to prepare against random opposition (as in an open tournament), I think it usually takes less time to form a fully conceived repertoire with 1.d4.  But I think someone could easily give a convincing argument for a reverse opinion.  Against a targeted opponent, the concrete nature of the play of 1.e4 can easily backfire in the midst of an unexpected deviation.  Also, in forming an 1.e4 repertoire, there are many tricky shortcuts, so perhaps there is an argument for forming a full repertoire in a shorter time.  If you look though the Secrets of Opening Surprise articles, you will notice that a large percentage of the ideas for white are in 1.e4 openings.  However, the clear drawback of forming a tricky repertoire like this is that you will simply have a bag of tricks without a good foundation.  However, to play 1.d4, there are certain fundamental middlegame structures associated with the main line openings, that cannot be avoided even if a theory avoiding approach is used.  I think this is strong argument for recommending a 1.d4 repertoire for a young, developing player.  I think at earlier stage in chess development, it is easier to see the ties between middlegame strategy and the opening in the 1.d4 openings.  In contrast, the concrete nature of 1.e4 openings seems to make the classification of typical middlegames more difficult, as the positions have a higher tactical instability.  Note that with higher instability, there is a greater chance of surprise.  Theory is a double-edged sword!

So there is no easy answer, and just about every point for one opening can be argued to the contrary against another.  But one thing is clear:  an understanding of both 1.e4 and 1.d4 openings is important to achieve a high level of mastery in the game.

Compared to the Nimzo-Indian, the Dutch, Iljin-Zjenevsky, has a lot less theory, because there are so few games played with it. That also means, that there is much room for independent analysis.
But I agree, the most important issue should be to be confident with the resulting positions. This contains both an objective and subjective element. That is why I do not like questions like which defence has least theory.

Quote:



I also left out the Albin and Two Knights Tango against d4.


I'll concede I shouldn't have left out the Modern and perhaps the Philidor as well.  The Latvian?    No, I refuse to waste my time.     I'll play a bunch of speed games against it instead.  The St. George???? No! No! No!  I don't care if the whole state of Michigan plays it.  Any e4 player who devotes any serious amount of time to studying that either has too much time on his hands or isn't using his study time properly.  

I agree that we should play what we feel most comfortable with.

Chess is hard work and building an opening repertoire is part of that hard work (Although not as important as so many of us class players think it is.)  Whether you play e4 and do all that work or d4 and do even more work    you will have to work.

Quote:


Hey,

Thank you for your thoughts on the Nimzo/QID v. KID.

I know many top players do look at the KID as a bad opening or near bad opening now but, as Lombardy said, "All openings are playable under 2000."  I might have the quote slightly wrong but it was something like that.

I have always played various QGD variations against the QG and have done ok but often it is just too hard to break through.  I don't want to try the Slav (or Semi-Slav) so I thought I'd have a go with one of the Indian defenses.  The Nimzo is appealing to me but the QID just looks too similar to the QGD Tartakower.   Perhaps that is just ignorance on my part.  Anyway, this is why I was considering the KID.   I think the Nimzo/QID are a little closer to my style so I am not sure what I will do yet.  I may go back to the Chigorin, which I used to play.

On the Tromp:  I have tried it in the past and never won a serious game with it while losing a handful of them.  I particularly had problems with the variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.Nf3 Ne4 4.Bf4 c5.

I just find the Tromp to be second rate (at least against good opposition) and only has value as a surprise weapon.  If you play d4, you should bite the bullet and do all the work it takes to play the QG against everything. 

Lets throw the Tromp in.  What is your repertoire?

Is it the Queen's Gambit against d5 and the Tromp against everything else?   

That probably is less work then an e4 repertoire (with the Bb5 Sicilian) but the e4 player will at least know he is playing good openings....

I am rather biased against the Tromp.

Quote:


while i hardly know much about 1. e4 e5, my impression is that the Exchange Queens Gambit is stronger than the Bishop's Opening or Ruy Exchange!~ At least you see Kasparov playing the queen's gambit exchange but not the ruy exchange!

Anyway, i agree both 1. d4 and 1. e4 need lots of work,  it all depends on how far you are willing to go for the advantage. If you play 1. e4 the general consensus is that 3. Nc3 is strongest theoretically against the French, and 7. Qg4 main lines are White's only try for the advantage against the Winawer. That is alot of work. No less than preparing 5. Bg5 against the semi slav. 

By the way, I don't buy your strange argument about excluding open sicilians. If you do that, why can't you include the Tromp in the 1. d4 calculus?? The Tromp is no less effective than any anti-sicilian you can think of   

You can also consider that the Opening for White According to Kramnik series is smaller than Opening for White According to Anand...