VitolinishBoom wrote on 02/11/11 at 08:08:53:


I play a D-pawn Special when I think it will give my opponent some headaches. However my understanding of more mainstream openings is a bit stronger, so I don't use the D-pawn specials much anymore.

This post is written in my usual "Oh, I just discovered a new continent, say, America, now I must tell everyone"-style.

So, my intention is to include even more rarities in my White repertoire.
For example,
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6/b6/g6 3.Bg5 (Torre) and cut off on theory (White can insert even c2-c4 vs. the KID-setup -- the Smyslov Variation, mentioned just in the previous post)
(like 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3/b3/e3 Bg4 with colors reversed -- in this respect, the Slav + Caro-Kann + 1.c4 c6 + 1.Nf3 d5 are perfect universal defences),
- the quiet Geller System, 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 against the Modern (like the Caro-Kann 2.d3 with colors reversed), 
- 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Qc2 against the Slav (similarities with playing as Black against the "London System versus 1..d5" when White plays early dxc5), 
- without early c4 against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6/b5/g6 and other Benoni Systems (like 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 as Black when I refrain from early ..c5), 
- 7.dxc5 (endgame variation) against the QGA, 
- 4.Qc2 (of course) vs. the Triangle, 
- 2.Nc3 vs. the Dutch, 
and so on.

No point in spending nights studying theory up to move 20, while I have not yet reached, say, 2200. 
(For that aim, I will just need to play in more tournaments a year than I have done until now, with some more work on my physical condition and more time spent on endgame. I already have some idea about main lines from my experience in the past, I wouldn't be at a loss if I had to play them again, but why not invite opponents within the same rating range to my "home ground"...?)

I have some trouble believing in the Barry attack myself, if Black plays one of the recommended main lines that counterattack in the centre immediately (If he doesn't, White can have a lot of fun).

But as you say you can easily keep the rest of the "Killer" repertoire and only do something else against the KID and Grünfeld. The London system is one possibility that's quite in the spirit of the rest of the book.

Hi!

I am considering a switch to queen's pawn openings. Not in every game, but many times.
(with most of the variations recommended in Killer Chess Repertoire, but using other sources as well)

(Reasons: I play few games and most of the time against higher-rated (100-200 points higher) opponents, with more experience in their pet defences. Even if I spend considerable time at home preparing for various main line openings, they just feel more at home OTB even despite a few inaccuracies...)
Interestingly enough, in the past, the _majority_ of my successes with White against higher-rated (even FMs) opponents were connected to _rarities_(!). (Colle-Zuckertort, anti-Benoni, Torre Attack, 5.Nbd2 in the QGD, Geller System (c3+Bd3) vs. the Modern, etc)

I have been studying main lines for a while and I am used to them.
But still, the only serious problem that remains is, how to overcome my aversion against the _Barry Attack_? 
(I don't like the look of Nc3+Bf4+e3 against that d5 pawn. So unnatural.) 
Anyone who did the same change and had the same feelings against the Barry in the past?

I use d-pawn openings as a springboard towards mainstream 1.d4 2.c4 openings. For example I’m building up a repertoire around the following moves 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.Bf4 (London System & Barry Attack) and will at a later stage introduce main lines in my repertoire. 

For instance when Black plays 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 I will go 3.c4.

The advantage of such an approach is that you always have a reliable back-up opening when you don’t feel like playing the main lines. Moreover once you know your d-pawn repertoire well enough you can afford to take the time to thoroughfully study mainline openings.

My advice is to play both mainstream openings and the Torre/Trompowsky. Don't worry if you don't know the theory since the Torre and Trompowsky are two openings where you can more or less find the theoretical moves over the board from move 3. 

Like Bibs, I justify my usage of d-pawn Specials with a massive score and because I like them. The Torre and Trompowsky aren't bad, they are just different ways of playing which don't fight for an opening advantage. Your opponents will not be as well prepared for them, and you will find that often you will win in the middlegame due to your greater understanding and experience of the typical pawn structures and ideas.

winawer77 wrote on 07/19/10 at 17:31:16:

Why? This is exactly what GM's do. These days most of them play the Catalan, but just look what happens if thrilling new ideas are found against the Marshall Gambit, the Petrov or the Najdorf - most of them will play 1.e4 again.
Now we amateurs can't afford the luxury of switching openings every tournament. If you think your Tromp/Torre repertoire is good enough you should be able to use it for a couple of years. As soon as you change your mind - and don't like them so much anymore - it's early enough to switch.