I always felt it was useful to play the Dragon. Not so much for the theory but more because it teaches you a lot about the speed of attacks when players have castled on opposite sides. Also it is quite tactical and leads to fun games for both sides.

Markovich wrote on 05/29/07 at 17:22:38:


I agree with you about learning open positions, but one can strive for open positions after other moves than 1.e4 and 1.e4 e5 and 1.e4 and 1.e4 e5 don't always provide an open game although they define the openings grouped as "open games".

I'm sure you can become a GM without having ever touched the e-pawn in the first move.

In support of TopNotch's advice of building a thematic repertoire, I can share some of my experiences as an improving junior.  I got from Class E to Class A using a repertoire built around the Torre Attack, King's Indian Defense, and the Dragon.  Early on, I read Logical Chess: Move by Move, where I learned basic concepts of the Queen's Gambit, so I did not have too many problems facing 1...d5 against opposition at Class E-C level.  (The Torre is best used as 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5.  It's not so good against 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Ne4.)  At first, I played the Torre Attack against the King's Indian Defense (KID), but at some point around Class C, I began playing the main line Classical KID and began branching out to several other main line openings as white.  Around this time, I starting reading Pawn Structure Chess by Andy Soltis which helped in filling in some of the gaps in my middlegame knowledge.  During this whole period, I was reading Winning with the Torre Attack (Gufeld and Stetsko) and Winning with the Dragon (Ward) from cover to cover, so I knew these systems very well.  My preparation for the King's Indian involved several sources, but for my repertoire I relied mainly on King's Indian for the Attacking Player (Burgess) and Beating the Anti-Indians (Gallagher).  Reading these books took some time, and spanned a period from Class D to Class B as I gained experience.

All three of these openings (Torre, Dragon, King's Indian) are thematic and have a systematic type of development that can be consistently applied across several variations.  The Dragon and King's Indian have a lot theory, but I think these choices are a good basis for middlegame study.  The Dragon has several easily understood typical themes and plans that make it a good choice for a first Sicilian.  The King's Indian has a very rich middlegame, but is somewhat of a controversial choice for a beginner due its strategic complexity and difficulty.  I remember that the relevant sections of Soltis' book were helpful in gaining an understanding of King's Indian middlegames.  Oddly enough, I remember that carefully playing through several old games in a language-less 1975 Chess Player yearbook (Volume 10) was very helpful for getting a feel for the King's Indian.  When learning the King's Indian, I think it's important to study the old games with ...Nbd7.  I remember that a lot of the modern lines like the Mar del Plata and the new ...Na6 systems seemed harder to understand without exposure to the historical context of their development.  Today, Gallagher's Play the King's Indian should make the task of understanding the modern lines much easier, but I think there is still merit in studying the King's Indian from its roots.  The King's Indian is a very demanding opening, but there are many benefits from a careful study of its middlegames.  It is an almost universal opening versus non-1.e4 openings, so it is a desirable choice for a thematic black opening.

When playing a repertoire like this, I often wanted to cut down on the number of white systems I needed to learn, so I could focus on the demands of the Dragon and the King's Indian.  The Torre Attack was a solid choice, and I think it was a good fit for the thematic category.  However, there are some pitfalls when you try to take too many shortcuts.  While playing the Torre I was tempted to dabble with the Trompowsky (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5) as a cure-all, following the example of some of my friends, but I had a lot of disasters, partly as theory was not as well developed and there were not many good books on the opening back then.  But the real problem was that I had not developed the versatility that was required to play such a flexible opening concept.  Many of the lines had a closer resemblance to the French or Open Sicilian rather than 1.d4 openings.  New theory was being built at that time with the Hodgson craze, and it was very tempting for an inexperienced junior to play a line with little established theory.  The Trompowsky may be a good candidate for an opening short-cut, but in my opinion does not fit the bill as a thematic opening for a developing player.  When building a thematic repertoire to cut down on study time, a common pitfall is to rely on short-cuts where your coverage is weak.  It is OK to rely on short-cuts from time to time, but it can be hazardous in the long run.  Ideally, I think it is best to first have thematic opening systems that lay a solid foundation, and then spread outward, filling in the gaps in your repertoire as you gain maturity.

This is a lot longer than I expected, so now I'll end by summarizing my thoughts in way that answers the question of the original poster.  

To Alien chess:

It seems you have tried a lot of opening systems.  When you mention, 

"When I started playing chess, I liked d4 and had good results with it.  But everyone else played e4 so then I played d4 and e4 .",

this sounds a little like my experience in the Trompowsky.  All my friends who outranked me were playing it, and I felt the urge to jump on the bandwagon.  There's nothing wrong with trying something new, and this is very important for growth.  However, in the long run, you want to have systems in which you have acquired experience and can call your own.  In other words, you need match your lateral growth with vertical growth.  

So a few weeks ago I started to play f4 and now I'm playing Nf3  
 
I have no idea what opening to settle on. I like Nf3 and f4, but there are never any grandmaster games with those openings. So while watching the candidate matches on playchess, while reading books and reading things online, I always think "darn why cant there be any games with my openings. If I played e4 I would learn so much more than all these games going to waste...."

Now it sounds like you became frustrated with the breadth of opening knowledge required to play 1.d4 and 1.e4, and tried to find a universal systems to escape the theory avalanche.  This also resembles my experience with Trompowsky, as I tried to find a short-cut to avoid theory.

My advice:

I think you need to find a set of main systems as white that serve as a foundation for your repertoire.  Ideally, these systems should share common themes if possible.  Right now, universal systems with 1.f4 and 1.Nf3 are OK for experimentation and occasional short-cuts.  However, I don't think these moves are a good idea to serve as a foundation, since they require a high level of maturity and versatility to even begin to use them properly in the framework of a global repertoire.  Many grandmasters use 1.Nf3, but often as a transpositional device to reach openings from 1.d4 or 1.c4.  This is too complicated for someone starting out.  If you're serious about long-term improvement, I would suggest that you make a decision between 1.d4 or 1.e4.  What are your favorite openings?  If it helps, make a list.  Don't worry about the amount of theory, and include both 1.d4 and 1.e4 openings that you like.  Just choose what you like.  Once you find your preferences, you can look for common themes.  It might help if you posted your preferences on the forum, so stronger players can give suggestions for finding a thematic repertoire.  I think that the choice of a repertoire is a personal decision, so I don't feel comfortable with generic recommendations.  

Quote:


Play thematic Openings that rely more on strategic patterns rather than specific move orders. Those falling into this category are to name a few:

London System
King's Indian Attack
Colle
Torre

The above systems should get you to the middlegame without any accidents, heck Gata Kamsky got to GM Level by just playing the torre.

It's also possible to play 1.e4 thematically: 

Bishops Opening with d3 comes to mind against 1...e5.

Pirc and Modern can be met with Bd3, c3, Nf3 with Ruy Lopez type structures without all the memorisation.   

The three Sicilians could be handled by 2...Nc6/2...d6 3.Bb5 and 2...e6 with 3.c3 .

When your chess knowledge and confidence grows you may add more critical and ambitious lines to your repertoire incrementally.

Last bit of advice, try to stick with an opening until you at least have a fundamental grasp of their basic tactical and strategic ideas as flitting from opening to opening without coming to grips with any of them only leads to frustration and despair.

Regards,

Toppy  

That is good to here. Don't worry; most regular contributors are terrible to GM standards, especially me.
How about endgames study?

What to do if you can't decide on an opening?

Forget opening theory and study the middle game. Adopt the openings Markovich recommends. It is not clear, if you answer 1.d4 with d5 or with the KID (which starts with 1...Nf6 and 2...g6). If it is the KID, you might keep it instead of the Tarrasch.
Once again, study the middle game; tactics, positional play and strategy. It helped me to improve my results against the French.

Quote:


You don't say what your strength in chess is, but it appears that you are probably below 2000.  Correct me if I'm wrong.   

My advice is, strive for open positions with plenty of piece activity and opportunities for tactics.  The reason is, these positions are fundamental.  A closed position can become open; the reverse is untrue.  In closed positions, a key decision is often, when and how to cause the position to become open.  So, I opine, you really can't play the closed positions well until you understand what how to play open ones.  You do not, on the other hand, need to understand how to play closed positions to be quite good at chess, if you stick with open systems.   

Opening with 1. e4, defending 1. e4 with 1...e5 are extremely useful, even necessary, to an improving player's chess education, and I recommend you play that way.  Against 1. d4, 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 I recommend the Tarrasch for similar reasons.  You could also consider the Chigorin Defense to the QG and 1...e5 against the English.  Stop playing the KID and definitely stop playing the Pirc.  These are perfectly good systems, just a lot worse for your progress in chess.   

I coach on a volunteer basis, and I simply would not have a student who didn't answer 1. e4 with 1...e5.

If you have no interest in improving your game but just want to play, I take back everything I said.  That's an attitude that some here have expressed, but I fail to understand it.  Personally, I always want to make progress.

"When I started playing chess, I liked d4 and had good results with it."


Then what's the question.