Changed my mind, I will play the Tarrasch after all. I didn't come back to bump my silly thread, just to thank the people who gave advice and I finally listened to

The Kings Indian really helped me to understand how to use my pawns to attack and create weaknesses in my opponents position, and how pawns could be incorporated into a game plan. I started learning it right around the time I became 1650 uscf.

Fllg wrote on 05/29/11 at 12:38:17:


I understand the logic of this, but some of my best openings were those that might have been disapproved by this reasoning. For instance, the King's Indian made me think about strategic issues that challenged my understanding of chess. When I began to understand something that was once mysterious, I felt like I had made a breakthrough. It took a lot of hard work sometimes, but I feel like it paid off and developed my appreciation for the game. I knew some juniors that played "approved" openings and advanced quickly early on, but seemed to become frustrated when reaching the next level and eventually dropped out of competitive chess. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered anyway, but I feel like the importance of opening choice is overrated sometimes. I don't like to discourage someone from a challenging opening if they find it to be inspiring. I'd be more concerned about someone happy with playing Giuoco Pianos and Petroffs all the time.

One should only learn openings from books/videos advocating the appropriate side of the opening.  It's the 21st century!

Okay, not really.
One could even start by looking at an opening encyclopedia or "understanding the openings" book, playing over some QGA games from game collections/middlegame books etc. one already owns ...

I agree with Hehmer.  It's almost impossible to recommend an opening to someone you don't know and haven't seen play, but based on what you say, the QGA seems much better than the Gruenfeld, which has loads of theory to learn, and the Chigorin, which is anti-positional.   

ChevyBanginStyle wrote on 05/29/11 at 07:16:53:


Not at all. But someone rated 1650 shouldn´t spend too much time worrying on opening theory. Contrary to the Grunfeld, Chigorin and QGA the Tarrasch has the big advantage to be not only playable after 1.d4/2.c4 but the same setup can also be used vs. almost everything except 1.e4. It also solves the problem of the QG exchange.

And it leads to positions where a player should excel first before going on to strategically more complicated stuff. Yes, on this part I totally agree with Markovich. 

Fllg wrote on 05/28/11 at 20:49:05:


lol is the recurrent Markovich doctrine?

In response to the question, I'll say it can't hurt to watch videos on openings that interest you. Get a feel for the openings and pick the ones you like. Watching a video isn't an unreasonable time commitment and allows you to get an overview of the types of positions and strategic themes that occur.

The Gruenfeld is probably the hardest of the three to learn, but the challenge can motivate some people.

The Chigorin is a perfectly acceptable opening at 1650. There are plenty of tactics and Black can build from his knowledge of the Chigorin to advance to other QGD lines such as the Lasker Defense. (There are quite a few positions in the Chigorin where Black will play Ne4 with similar effects to the Lasker variation of the QGD.)

However, the choice of opening depends on more than just the player's strengths and weakness. It also depends on what the player hopes to get out of chess. 

If the player is hoping to win a few tournaments and doesn't really intend to push for master, almost any opening will do. Just study hard and learn the key lines by heart. If the player has long-term goals of breaking 2200 or beyond, the openings must be suited to these goals.   

No engine can tell significant differences between the qualities of the various openings. Even horribly passive openings can be played without serious punishment below the ~2000 level. 

If your goal is to have some general improvement, win a few local tnmts and possibly break 2000, then choose the opening that seems the most fun to you  (after you've studied them all for a few weeks). 

If your goal is greater, you should plan an opening that you can build on. As with all chess endeavors, the player who sees the farthest into the future usually ends up with the more satisfying results.