I have Chess Advantage coming through an inter-library loan. I won't have enough time to really dig into it, but I'll know if it's something I want to track down or not. I just got Spanish Exchange by Andrew Kinsman in the mail. It looks like interesting stuff.

Edit: Also, thanks for the Davies recommendation. I'll look into that one too. I'm still considering forgoing e4 for the Tromp, but I may just work on both.

I just got The Road to Chess Improvement in the mail. It looks interesting but dense with variations and analysis. I'll probably skim through the games and read the prose before I decide if it's a good book for me to spend a lot of time on. It might be over my head right now.

I'm still vacillating on exactly what openings to play. I may just chuck the whole mess of opening study and play g3, Bg2, c4 with White and g6, Bg7, c5 with Black. I noticed Luke McShane playing g3, Bg2, c4 (varying move orders) at the London Classic. I'm also still considering the Tromp and something else against 1... d5.

But, I'm also still thinking of playing e4 with White as follows.

1. Ruy Lopez Exchange as White
2. Panov-Botvinnik against the Caro-Kann
3. Monte Carlo Exchange against the French (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4)
4. 150 attack vs. Pirc/Modern
5. Bb5 lines against most Sicilians, not sure on e6 variations yet. The Alapin would probably be an simpler choice. I played it a few times, but never really looked into it that much.
6. No idea yet on other Black defenses.

Black:
1. Tarrasch against d4
2. e5 against e4, though not sure what exactly after that, possibly the Moller (what we used to call the Archangel) with the Schliemann thrown in there once in a while. No idea what against the various non-Lopez openings for White.

That's a fairly large amount of study just to come to a good basic understanding of that many openings, and that's for a pretty minimal repertoire. 

And, it's still just a thought experiment at this point. Right now I'm cataloging my chess materials, and hunting down things I know I have somewhere. I also decided it's time to transfer my old VHS chess tapes to DVD before they deteriorate completely, fun fun.

9. Because it's fun. Just like maths is fun.
Motivation enough for me.

ErictheRed wrote on 12/16/10 at 17:51:36:

Yeah, that was my point too.
But yes, even if you've prepared lots of sharp stuff the opponent has to cooperate to get it on the board. A friend of mine plays the King's Indian and complains that everyone tries to "surprise" him by avoiding the Classical, to the extent that he feels not very well-prepared for the Classical since he faces it so rarely! The irony...

Stigma wrote on 12/16/10 at 15:46:11:


Well I've played games that are sharper and follow theory longer, but this was just an arbitrary sampling of the last 12 games I played against 2200+ players.  I did this because I didn't want to deliberately choose games with more or less theory.  By the way, there are 9 different players represented in those games (10 including me).

I agree with you to some extent, but I was prepared to play sharper lines in those games.  First off, the Taimanov has a ton of theory, don't be fooled.  Perhaps most of those lines aren't as sharp as the Yugoslav Attack against the Dragon, but some probably are (or are very close).  I was also prepared to play sharper lines in the Semi-Slav, but they didn't come up in these.  Ditto the Dutch--I wasn't deliberately trying to avoid sharp lines, it's just what happened in these games.  My point is that it happens in LOTS of games, much more than people seem to think.

My other point is that choosing to study and play main lines doesn't necessarily mean you have to play the Yugoslav Attack, the Winawer Poisoned Pawn, the Mar Del Plata, etc.  You can choose to play slightly tamer options like the Kan, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6, the Saemisch KID, the Meran instead of 5.Bg5 against the Semi Slav, etc.  You can start by playing less sharp lines and gradually sharpen them as you progress, also.  You don't need to resort to the London, Colle, etc. out of fear.  You can play main lines without memorizing lots of theory, you just need to choose them wisely.

No, no - I can assure you that the same thing happens a lot even when playing sharp e4 main lines

If people aren't facing something on a regular basis then they won't have something prepared in detail against it. Well probably not that they can remember at least. How could they?

And - in the UK at least! - it often seems like stuff like the main line open Sicillian is the surprise option. Obviously at higher levels this is prone to change slightly.

Still some main lines are easier to play without knowledge than others. The English attack for white say - you've got both a naturally solid position and an exceedingly easy/effective plan if black does 'nothing'.

Carld, you are definitely spending too much time on openings.  I take your point about the appropriateness of studying theory, but this doesn't apply at your level.

Stop switching openings.  If you play a good 1...e5 in reply to 1.e4, Two Knights Defense, Open Defense and so forth, and play nothing but Tarrasch against the closed, that will be a very solid basis for chess improvement -- if improvement is your primary goal, that is.

Or for that matter, play whatever you like, but pick one reasonably good system and stick with it.  

You mentioned ending theory.  Actually at your level, studying up on the theoretical endings is a whole lot more important than studying opening theory.  Chess games tend toward endings; they tend away from openings.  Further ending theory is pretty well timeless, while opening theory is notoriously mutable.

Zatara wrote on 12/16/10 at 01:43:15:


Not all things in life are free.