BPaulsen wrote on 07/04/09 at 12:22:26:


Thank you for bringing up Karpov, as he perfectly illustrates my point. You are too kind.  
Karpov changed at least three times his repertoire as White: in the early 70's from 1.d4 to 1.e4, back to 1.d4 after losing the 2nd match against Kasparov and finally in the 90's to 1.c4. I am not counting his experiments in the Open Sicilians.
Against 1.e4 Karpov has played the Caro-Kann, the Closed Ruy Lopez and the Petrov.
Until that lost WCh-match Karpov had one of the broadest repertoires among GM's, possibly only surpassed by Timman.

Timman was one of the two, three best players in the world for quite a few years. Piket not Van Wely got that far. That might very well have to do with the fact that they had much narrower repertoires. Both invariably played 1.d4 as White. Van Wely stuck too long with the Najdorf; his results improved temporarily after switching to the Sveshnikov.

You can give any amount of examples; I will give as many counterexamples. The only logical conclusion is that both approaches are of equal value. It's just a matter of character and temperament.
To remain on the safe side I repeat that it is a bad idea to change openings all the time without delving into them. When I change openings after the usual 6 years at least 50% of my repertoire survives. The advantage of this is also clear: more flexibility and the skill to use ideas from other openings in the current repertoire. I have known a few players faithful to their openings and it seems to me that their middle game play becomes stereotypal and sometimes even highly predictable.

Paddy wrote on 07/04/09 at 10:12:15:

Because it's a French word. It would not surprise me if especially native English speakers tend to spell it wrongly.

MNb wrote on 07/04/09 at 06:24:50:


Even then their primary weapons often don't change (ie: Kramnik's Petroff, Kasparov's/Fischer's Najdorf, Anand's Semi-Slav, Karpov's NID) throughout their career even with additions to the repertoire. Why? Simple - the longer you've been playing something the better you understand it.

Pick a set of openings, get the theory down, become a master at other parts of your game once the openings are no longer a concern, and once you've got all the basics down, start adding more openings.

If your repertoire is good enough to start out with, there's not a single reason on Earth why those should have any reason to change even all the way up to becoming titled in the vast majority of cases.

Is there anyone that's going to argue that a repertoire with 1. e4 with the Ruy Lopez, and main lines in all responses is going to need changing?

How about one that relies on the Sicilian Najdorf and Semi-Slav as black?

Sure, there's a lot of theory, but as I said once before - once you know it, you know it, and then you can move on to other aspects while knowing full well you're going to be fine in the beginning stages.

The problem is most people get lazy, don't want to bother learning anything critical, then they become disillusioned with their repertoire, and want to change it altogether. It's no different from the clients I get in the personal training world that can't stick to a program because they (in their inexperience) feel it is lacking something.

MNb wrote on 07/04/09 at 06:24:50:

Yes they should expand their horizons, but not necessarily by choosing a similar setup to the rest of their openings. The problem is not that they can't deal with the Rubinstein, the problem is that they can't deal with open positions where there is no immediate attack available. To me that would seem like an area where you could quickly improve by taking up this line (or a similar line) for a little while as black. Next time when you face a similar line you will have a better idea of what to do.

Why is it so difficult for forum members to spell "repertoire" correctly?

Perhaps there is a large proportion of dyslexics (undoubtedly males) among those of us who play chess and haunt on-line forums such as this one (which is actually well above the average for literacy, as such forums go).

         

Willempie wrote on 07/03/09 at 20:04:36:


This depends on the openings you play. Many of those gimicky or system openings will produce the same structures over and over, but flexible, mainline openings obv are a different story.

I'm very much with MNb here. Just vastly too boring to play the same thing over and over. Can in some ways be fairly limiting too.

Even if it is in some sense objectively better to play one thing all the time it won't get you better results if you start getting bored in doing so

Of course one thing to switch openings to keep yourself interested, quite another to do so in a (often) misguided effort to improve your results!

Zatara wrote on 07/01/09 at 20:06:03:


1. In that case, the main focus of your studies should not be openings. Obviously some opening study is required, but keep in mind that in the vast majority of your games, the game will not be decided by the opening phase. 

2. I agree with Markovich's suggestion, but will add that you should only play something you feel comfortable with. 

3. All three are good practical choices, but I also prefer the Chigorin to the Tarrasch or Albin, as in my opinion it is a more reliable long-term choice. In my experience, the Tarrasch is very ineffective against a well-prepared player (although you shouldn't worry about this below 2000 USCF), and the Albin is a clear +=. There are also more sources to study the Chigorin, although the best source is probably Morozevich/Barsky's work. 

4. I would not recommend the Grunfeld - too theoretical and White has much more choice than Black, making it an unreliable long-term opening. Perhaps I am just biased (I have never been a fan of the Grunfeld), but that is my opinion. And as you stated, it gives you some transpositional difficulties against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 - a completely new variation would be required.

5. If you like the King's Indian and you have some knowledge of the theory and plans, then play it! Whether an opening is 'open', 'semi-open' or 'closed' should not influence your decision - more important is whether you understand the opening and enjoy playing it.

6. You seem to have been interested in the Semi-Slav from Black's perspective for a long time. It's a very good choice as a long-term opening, but I agree with the other posters that a somewhat less theoretical choice may be the most prudent option. But if you have tried the Semi-Slav and score well with it, then I suggest making it your main defence to 1.d4 as Black.

7. I will recommend the Scheviningen Sicilian. In my view, the problem with 1...e5 is that most of your opponents will avoid the Ruy Lopez in favour of other sidelines, which can be somewhat irritating for a player seeking a dynamic, imbalanced middlegame. The Anti-Sicilians can be annoying at first, but Black has plenty of ways to imbalance the game to suit his desires. 

8. I will also suggest the Tango (mentioned by Stigma in another, related thread) as being an option that is worth considering if you prefer something a bit more creative and don't mind Nimzoesque positions as Black.

BPaulsen wrote on 07/02/09 at 13:00:32:


Usually I think your opinions very sensible, but not this time. Chess is way too rich for playing an opening my entire life! What's more, I would probably have to give up chess out of boredom. In fact there is only one variation I have played almost exclusively (given the chance) since I began looking at opening theory.
I don't mean to say that you have to develop a new repertoire twice a year or so. For me a few major changes every six years works best. Last time was switching from 1.e4 to 1.d4.
Anyway, just another opinion.