It seems that there is an impression that one either plays a variety of openings or sticks to one or two main lines. Period.

I recommend to my students that they play everything, especially the opposite side of their favorite openings, in casual and blitz games.  They maintain their opening repertoire and expand it as they get more comfortable with the openings through experience in these casual games.

In other words, you can have the best of both worlds:  you can reach for universality in your chess understanding *and* have a good solid repertoire for competitive games.  

The main reason this doesn't work for some people is that they don't consider any game casual, and therefore are never willing to experiment.  Perhaps if you work very hard against your computer opponents (Fritz, and company), you could begin to achieve a similar feel for the openings in question.  

The main problem with trusting only in your computer is that Fritz (or even Rybka) doesn't play the openings the way humans do.  You would only be able to program in "human" moves if you know what humans are likely to play.  Which leads us back to casual games and to studying the great games of strong players.

Not really related to the original poster's question, but an interesting observation:

I once read somewhere about Ivan Solokov saying something to the effect that if a 2400 player does not push hard with White and plays solid chess, it is almost impossible to beat him with Black. (was this in a Rowson book!?) Okay Ivan has a classical repertoire (1. e4 e5, 1. d4 d5) repertoire so maybe thats the case?! But it does seem to me that some openings become less and less playable in must-win situations as I got better. My beloved Caro-Kann seems like one example.

I must point that playing a variety of openings to get used to the different types of middle games and the endgames they usually lead to is always a good idea. This will help you no matter what opening you prepare for.

Look at it like this, you study and you study and you study your pet opening line. How often do you get to employ that knowledge? The few times you even get to play your line... your opponent could deviate quite early! There might not even be a way to directly punish him tactically or positionally... it might just be a move that intends to head to straight equality and try for no advantage. In this case... your overall middlegame/endgame knowledge are going to be the deciding factors... so in essence I agree with willieempire I just wanted to give another argument leading to the same conclusion.

I've rarely played the same person twice and I've always had only a few minutes notice regarding who I would play. Even if I had more time, most of my opponents would not have games in the database. Thus, I think this idea of being unpredictable starts to matter at master level but not really at Class A. Are you talking about master level?

Moreover, don't people already have a good handle on 1. e4 and 1. d4? It's not like I'm surprising them with either move. Maybe if I played 1. b4... but these are standard moves and I can't imagine my opponents being too worried immediately. Unless I have detailed knowledge of their repertoire (and they don't alternate) and find a hole, what is the advantage? Plus, even if I have a bit more variety, specialization might really overcome any advantage. Fischer didn't vary his openings a great deal, but he was so good and knowledgeable in the Najdorf and Spanish that it hardly mattered.

I'm starting to think that broadening my repertoire, at least for a while would be good chess education and help me play more varied positions better but not that it would help my results any in the short-run.

exigentsky wrote on 07/30/08 at 03:45:49:

I disagree with the latter part. 
Firstly even if you pick a first move you wont become a true expert. Experts tend to be on the black side below 2300. Ie someone playing the French as black can become an expert in that opening, but playing 1.e4 wont make you an expert in any line as you dont meet them enough. Even if say half your 1.e4 games end up in an open sicilian, you will still meet Najdorfs, Dragons, Sveshnis and all kinds of other lines. In general black tends to choose the type of pawn structure, while white only has limited choices in which lines to play. 
Secondly a broad knowledge serves me (I am talking about myself as I tend to know myself a little better than most) better than "expert" knowledge in the opening. With very few exceptions a decent looking move in the opening is not going to get your game killed. On the other hand it will allow you to apply other ideas, which is especially valuable in the early middlegame.
Lastly expert knowledge is overrated. Spassky got creamed by Fischer and Karpov when they varied their openings in their matches. Kasparov was/is an expert in the Tarrasch and Grunfeld, yet he got into big trouble against Karpov with it, while Kramnik showed that his expert knowledge of the Spanish wont win you games.

That's good advice. Still, I hope that it won't take me more than six months to add e4. OTB play is not at the same standard as CC and I do have some rudimentary knowledge of e4 already. The more difficult decision will be whether to stick with d4 or switch to e4? I know some people say that there is no need to pick at all, but this must seriously compromise one's ability to be a true expert in a particular opening.

The reason I ask is mainly because I lack the confidence to play some interesting moves when I know little theory and have little practical experience. Even upon having reasonable theoretical knowledge, it's hard for me to decide to play a move I've only tested in low quality blitz games. For example, I want to try 1. e4 in addition to 1. d4 but have rarely played it OTB and am afraid that someone who has good experience and more theory will have a big advantage. This is even more true since I don't want to shy away form the most complicated and ambitious lines. I'm still progressing and I don't like the idea of sacrificing 100 ELO for a new move. Has anyone else been in this situation and if so how did you deal with it?

also don't forget if the opening idea is something that is heading directly towards an endgame... the side that can prepare the advantage for the endgame there will definitely have an advantage!