Grivas's method for assessing one's strengths and weaknesses (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7008) is astonishingly similar to that given by Simon Webb in Chess for Tigers.

What he does is to build a simple matrix with Intuition and Logic on the one axis and with Facts and General concepts on the other. Then he plots in the various types e.g. the Pragmatist is one who is strong in the combination of Logic and Facts and hence, he likes open centre and mobile centre  – the Reflector is one who is strong in the combination of Intuition and General concepts hence he feels at home with closed centre, Rigid centre and dymanic centre.  The real eye-opener in this I think is the concept of focusing more on middlegame structures than on specific openings. And then look for specific variations in different openings where you can control the transition to middlegame structure.
I think I´m a reflector too but wish to work on my Activist weakness.  

In ”How chess games are won and lost” GM L.B. Hansen gives some advice on how to choose opening repetoire. First you got to find out what kind of player you are -  if you are an activist, reflector, pragmatist or theorist. Second you need to focus on which kind of pawn structure fits your play in the middlegame and on how you can control the transition from opening to middlegame in different openings.  As an example he gives that he loves to play with a light-square restraint structure (Watson) and he shows how he over the years have been able to enter different openings and control the transition to middlegame with this pawnstructure by choosing specific move-orders .   

Best,
Larsen_fan

Jay wrote on 01/19/11 at 05:16:15:


Absent any more info about your chess skill, but assuming you're rated at least 2100, I recommend the Gruenfeld, which I regard as the most principled response to 1.d4.  There are two ways to play it.  Either you can play 1...Nf6 versus 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.d4, and tough it out in a pseudo-Gruenfeld if White goes that way in one of the two latter cases; or you can add the Symmetrical English to your repertoire and answer only 1.d4 with 1...Nf6, and versus 1.Nf3 or 1.c4 play 1...c5.   The latter option is available only to Sicilian players, but it seems you are one.

Personally I would suggest the first route, since I'm not all that impressed with White's anti-Gruenfeld machinations after 1.c4 and 1.Nf3.  There are those here who feel differently, especially those who have White repertoires based on avoiding the Gruenfeld.

If however you're not rated at least 2100 or so, I would recommend instead the Tarrasch, which can be played equally well against 1.d4, 1.Nf3 or 1.c4 (play 1..e6 in the latter case).

 
Delaying 0-0 is not a trick, it's the main line...

And the correct response for white is 10. Qc5, which after 10...0-0 (alternatives don't impress - check it with any engine) 11. Be2 transposes to Gustafsson-Araschenko, EU Championship (rapid) 2008 (1-0) and Bu Xiangzhi-Vachier Lagrave Wijk aan Zee 2007 (1-0).

Notice that the very same Vachier Lagrave that played it in 2007 chose not repeat the line when faced with Ivanchuk in 2010, an opponent that had surrendered a draw to Kamsky in 2009 in the same line.