I often had trouble hitting on a repertoire. I need to find something that not only suited the way I play best, but was also easy (for me) to understand and readily apply in my own games. It takes a long time, as you are constantly refining and changing variations as you progress as a player and discover what works for you.

Nowadays my openings are well worked out - I get positions that I am familiar with with both White and Black nearly every game. This creates positives and negatives. The positives are obvious - I understand my openings well and am confident with them. My results therefore speak for themselves - I have gained my highest ever national and FIDE ratings using them, so familiarity is a big bonus. Also, turning up to a game without having to worry about which opening I intend to play today is a great practical bonus - you can just turn up and play! The negatives - You become easier to prepare for. In my local clubs most of my regular and dangerous opponents have me worked out. Therefore you either have to outprepare them, or occasionally switch openings, in which case a second-string line is a useful thing to have.

Its really about what works for you and what you want out of chess. I'm sure that playing lots of different openings will make you a more universal player. In my youth (I'm only 30 now) I did this a lot, regularly switching between 1d4 and 1e4 for example. As a result, although I experienced many types of position, my rating never progressed passed the natural ceiling that natural learning can get to. However, I'm now in the results business. I want to challenge for prize money in every tournament and get my FM title, so sticking to my well worked out repertoire helps me do this. Success is a drug, there is nothing boring at all about winning, regardless of what openings you play.

To summarise - if you're young don't worry about choosing and switching openings at such an early stage. Play what you enjoy, if that means switching openings then so be it. Eventually things will work themselves out and a repertoire will form, after all there is no rush, esp if you intend to be playing chess for the rest of your life.

exigentsky wrote on 10/30/07 at 16:27:08:


Ok, there are three rhetorical questions here, but I'll answer them anyway.

A) I don't worry at all about my opening repertoire becoming boring.  My repertoire will keep me busy for the rest of my life.  When I play masters I often have to face unique opening decisions before move 10 even though I devote a fair amount of my time to studying opening and the ideas that spring from them.  

When I play opponents in the 1700-2100 range I see more opening theory and less originality.  I'm the one who usually comes up with a new idea first against these opponents.

B)  There's more to life than ratings.  If playing the Najdorf will make you lose ratings, it's probably an excellent choice for expanding your abilities!

C) More difficult for which player?  

Playing main lines may be more difficult than playing offbeat lines.  However, most offbeat lines are not popular because they are seriously flawed.  If you find offbeat lines that are at least as good as the main lines, then have fun playing them.  Chess hasn't been solved yet, so have fun!

I think that people are always worried that their opponent will be booked up to the teeth, but more often than not that is not so. They just studied a few games, maybe a couple pet lines briefly to get the ideas behind it, then that's it. If they are high rated enough then they likely have a fairly good memory for remembering the lines (in my experience the stronger you are the more easily and quickly you remember a new thing) so they will seem booked up, but they really aren't. People are lazy, me more so.

Antillian wrote on 10/30/07 at 07:19:30:



So you're saying none of you 2000+ players feel this way after years of playing the same opening?


Also, might playing main line openings like the Najdorf actually hurt your rating? While it is no doubt a good opening, won't my opponents at a higher level (1800+) be booked up on it with their pet lines? Since they face it often, won't they know it just as well as I do and won't this in turn make it harder for me to win and more likely to lose? How important is this factor? Does anyone here feel that playing main line openings is making things more difficult?


BTW: I guess you're right. My openings are all fairly ambitious and very complex so it would take very long to be even close to master them.

I expected this to be a marriage question.

Exi - dont worry so much. If you spent as much time studying as you do asking questions, you would be a contender.
Seems you havent played much yet. You will need to play any opening sooooo many times to become even remotely  familiar.  Further, as with chess itself, the more you play the deeper that understanding becomes. 
Boredom a long way off. But, you could always ask Hebden who doesnt seem to have changed for decades.

What Johnson said of London may apply to KID. Er, maybe.

In the last couple of years, I've tried almost every sound opening. While experimenting with more than a dozen openings, I've gained a broader knowledge base and have become a more complete player. However, I've had no time to specialize. Now that I've picked the openings I like best, I expect that I should play them almost exclusively. Right now, I still know relatively little so I am in no danger of becoming bored, but part of the mystery is lost nonetheless. I am no longer trying to desperately find what opening would best suit me and no longer feel a need to experiment so much. I know. This was initially a relief, but now I wonder if this won't eventually become a problem. When I reach a higher level of play, say 2000+ OTB, will I simply be playing book moves for most of the game? Will there still be room for surprise and will I be faced with new, challenging problems or will I be so knowledgeable/familiar with the positions and my understanding so deep, that nothing will make me afraid? While this may sound ideal, I have to wonder if the games will still be different enough that chess will be a lot of fun. Of course, improving itself is a lot of fun, as is success. Understanding the tiny nuances that led to a winning game may sometimes be more rewarding than a nice tactical blow. However, the thought remains and probably applies to anything where high proficiency is achieved. 

How do you feel about this? Have you played essentially the same openings for many years and if so, how many? Do you feel like the games are too repetitive and maybe too much is opening theory? How fun and interesting is it still?