If it helps, I'm an IT professional with limited time to study (and a terrible memory for concrete variations), and after coming back to chess a couple of years ago, have more or less built a manageable repertoire to aim for 2200 with (I'm around 2000ish now).

With Black:

1.e4 e5   
1.d4 d5 (Tartakower QGD and b6 lines vs 5.Bf4)

With White:

1.d4 2.Nf3, playing the London or CZ against setups with an early e6, otherwise going 3.c4.  Bg5 main lines against QGD, Slow Slav, 6.h3 vs KID, Dutch main lines, e3 & Qb3 or Bf4 vs Gruenfeld (I face this so rarely, I don't really have a consistent repertoire).  I will probably switch to a 1.d4 2.c4 move order eventually, but at the moment this cuts down a lot of stuff I need to know.   

I have very classical preferences, and I think this repertoire gives the best bite for the least effort, without violating classical principles.  The only area of this repertoire that gives me any real trouble is 1.e4 e5, because I can never remember what to play against the Scotch, Evans, or King's Gambit, and the exchange Spanish is both very common and super boring.  I'm sticking with it more because playing the Spanish is supposed to be good for your chess and because I feel like every chess player should be able to play 1.e4 e5.  I'm tempted to change to the Petroff or Philidor, though.

ErictheRed wrote on 06/26/16 at 01:52:18:

Bibs wrote on 06/26/16 at 05:24:30:


There are more diplomatic and straightforward ways to ask a relatively new member of the forum to clarify their post. This kind of tone is not conducive to helping this community grow. This is not the point of this thread, though, so I won't derail it further.

My 2c is the following:

Maybe some lines which you feel are too much theory actually aren't and you can keep things the way they are. When you analyse your games and realise that you are losing because of your theoretical knowledge, then maybe it's time to consider narrowing your repertoire.

Here you have to choose either a highly paid job or a full return to chess

Studying the Gruenfeld is almost as bad as studying the Sicilian (though Rowson's conceptual book, though dated, is great)...if you already know it and like it, congratulations. Honestly I think playing mainlinish as you like to do (a healthy thing I think) then learning by doing, using references after the games, is the way to go. I mean, in each game, opening theory buys you exactly one move, usually your opponent's, and unless it falls into your trap, that's not worth so very much. If you like the positions you are getting, go for it!

I've been avoiding the Qgd like the plague but you might be right.. It may be time to take a serious look at it 

slates wrote on 06/26/16 at 16:36:11:


I'm just throwing my thoughts up here and hoping to see what others did in similar situations. No sense of entitlement here 

I'm not entirely sure what the point of the thread is. You don't appear to be asking any real questions, just stating thoughts about your situation.
Perhaps you feel entitled to free advice and assume you don't need to actually ask questions or engage with others in exchange, preferring them to guess at your intentions and motivations. 

I guess the point of the thread is to check whether your opening choices will work well in your current life situation, i.e. good openings for an enthusiastic but time-poor player. 

You seem to have a clear idea of what positions you like, which is good. That you like the main line positions is even better. But it's harder to offer good suggestions without knowing your approximate playing strength. 

So while there will be theoretical developments in the openings you're playing, you can rely on your current experience to know the middlegames well, and having done some work already, you'll find it easier to notice any new ideas and to perhaps have a less trendy deviation ready, for instance you might stick with Avrukh's recommended 7...Nc6 in the Russian Variation of the Grunfeld, instead of following the crowd with 7...Na6 or 7...a6. 

To save time, you could decide to follow the games of one expert in an opening. Continuing the Russian Variation example, you might be inspired by Wei Yi's most recent game:

Sicilian is "time consuming", but with White "main lines with 1.e4 and 1.d4" are not?