Sandman wrote on 09/28/09 at 16:18:38:


In my opinion, for an adult at class player level, the importance should be placed not on picking and choosing openings, but on making sure that you understand the openings you currently play and know all the basic traps and strategies. You may find my threads 'What White opening should you play?' and 'What Black opening should you play?' useful as they are aimed at providing answers to very general questions such as those above. 

Having said that, I would say that at class player level, it is better to have a narrow repertoire than a broad repertoire, as then you can specialise in the middlegames of your opening and become an expert at a small number of openings, instead of having a shallow understanding of a large number of openings. 

I would also recommend you steer clear of 'system' openings since these are usually theoretically harmless, and condition you to a certain type of position, making it more difficult to broaden or change your repertoire later. For example, it would be difficult for someone who has played only the London system as White for five years to suddenly start playing 1.e4 as they have become used to playing London-type positions and are uncomfortable when the position does not have similar characteristics to the London. Not that the London system is a bad opening (I play it myself on occasion), but it makes changing your repertoire much more difficult in the future, thus holding you back.

A very good question, to which I have no easy answers, since there tend to be a lot of variables.

Some factors to consider:

a) previous chess experience
b) general intelligence
c) level of education
d) strength of memory
e) willingness to study
f) available study time
g) availability of opportunities to put learning into practice 
h) ability to calculate accurately 2-3 moves ahead
i) arsenal of tactical motifs
j) degree of positional understanding and familiarity with position-types and associated plans
k) arsenal of basic endgame knowledge
l) any stylistic preference exhibited/expressed, often related to personality traits
m) current opening repertoire written out [then matched against a)-l) for congruence].

Most good coaches would not give any but the most general advice to an adult student without having first examined a fairly large and representative sample of his/her games. Then it's a question of trying to build on strengths and reduce weaknesses. 

More often than not, the openings are not the main blockage to progress, but they are often a symptom of other problems.

With many adult players, the best opening solution is a fairly low-maintenance repertoire based on clear, straightforward, easy-to understand ideas and plans, leaving plenty of the available study time for going over well annotated (verbally) games (starting with the classics), doing tactics exercises and studying/practising endings. 

Once established, a repertoire should be stuck to for at least a full season, and after that changed (or added to) only gradually, a piece at a time. (It is very common for weak players to blame the opening for a bad result and so keep chopping and changing openings, learning very little in the process. Experience in itself is of little value; it is essential to make a conscious and honest effort to learn from it and build on it.)

Like Markovich, I am often horrified at the number of apparently low rated players on this forum who seem to want to play truly sophisticated openings and spend hours poring over books such as Avrukh's. 

The learning process in chess, as with any subject, should surely be based as far as possible on a steady progression, from the simple to the complex.