I think it has a lot more to do with your playing strength.
the openings are mostly just the development of the pieces to optimal squares, and the development and centralization of those pieces as fast as possible. the player to do this the fastest has won the opening advantage.
I actually teach this in a course called "beyond centralization".
its not rocket science but if you open your eyes out to who finishes development first and the fastest every time you will be opening your eyes to an instructive monster.

Because of this I don't think you should go too crazy on how important this might be however it is important to guide yourself as to what positions you want to reach and the placement of your pieces. In other words, what's comfortable for you to play based on the placement of the pieces.

There are simplistic openings which are easy to learn like the caro kann per say, or the rubenstein french, or the semi-tarrasch, or even the tarrasch defence.

finding these systems is useful because you can pick more than one up to play versus opposition.

Having said that if you ask for a recommendation for a repertoire I would suggest d4 given that it is stable, reputable, and there are plenty of easy systems to adopt to try to play for an advantage.

Kaufman and Moret are a couple others with e4 reps that I just thought of.

Just play whatever you want to play, provided that it's sound, main-line stuff.  Sheesh.

LeeRoth wrote on 12/22/16 at 16:18:50:


I think that applies even if you've been playing continuously. You can find that moves and plans once considered dubious are in fact completely playable whilst here and there, whole openings have become too dangerous because of the number of near refutations that have been devised. It's Black's openings that are suspect. These days I would regard the Pirc, Modern Benoni and Benko as risky propositions unless you have hot theory to keep them alive.

@OP -- Based on my own experience, I would say that, when you come off a break, the key thing is to reach middle game positions with which you are familiar.  You may feel like you don't remember your openings from 10 years ago, but you have probably retained some feel for the types of positions you got.  If you're still somewhat comfortable with Open Sicilian structures, plans, tactics, then aim for those positions.  Of course, you need to make sure none of your old lines has developed a serious problem, but you are basically looking to make tweaks in your old repertoire (to the extent you had one), and not move to entirely new systems.  After my break, the biggest problems I faced at the board were time trouble and seeing ghosts; it wasn't a good time to be dealing with new positions, trying to remember theory or trying to work things out at the board.  I went back to my old openings, even if they were no longer the latest or greatest, and at least got my types of positions. YMMV.

Here's the first advice I give to players at my club, at least to the players who, although they will probably never play professionally, love chess and would like to achieve their potential, given all the constraints of work and family.

The way you choose your chess openings should be regarded very much in the same way as you would invest your money. Of course, you can choose to gamble with your money, say on a race-horse, and you might pick the occasional winner, but in most cases your money will end up in the bookies' pockets.

In contrast, a prudent investor tries to place his or her money somewhere where it is fairly safe from the fluctuations of the stock market but will continue to produce a small profit year after year after year. Chess openings are bit like that. It requires an investment of your time, energy and sometimes your money as well (spent on a chess book or perhaps a DVD) to learn a chess opening, so choose carefully. Invest in sound openings that will continue to pay off for years to come, ideally for as long as you want to keep playing chess.

Don't waste your investment on quick fixes, trappy lines or irregular openings that most professional players would not touch with a barge-pole.

Your opening repertoire should therefore consist mainly of "sound investments": solid, main-line openings that have stood the test of time, are trusted by the professionals (who after all have to earn a living using them) and which consistently score at least averagely, based on a large sample such the Chessbase Mega database.

A further important criterion for choosing your openings is matching them against your present playing strength and skill level. Some openings are more difficult to handle than others. To use a different simile, chess openings are a bit like cars. It takes far greater skill to drive a Formula-One racing car than to drive a family saloon! That's why most coaches agree that it's best to start with openings that involve simple, direct strategies and that conform to all the basic principles of the opening.

Having a few surprise-weapons up your sleeve is not a bad thing in itself, but they are best judged by considering their "risk-reward ratio". Are there plenty of ways for the opponent to go wrong? If he does go wrong, how hard can he be "punished"? How much learning is involved to thoroughly master a particular surprise-weapon? - because if you are not in total control of it, it can easily blow up in your face.

If the only aim of a surprise weapon is to avoid "theory", then I suggest that the time spent on learning it is largely wasted. Why not learn "theory" instead, and reach a reliable position?

However, for anyone who plays in events where the games end up in Magabase or TWIC, it is undoubtedly useful to have at least a small degree of variety in one's repertoire, to make opponents' preparation more difficult. John Emms has compared this to a bowler in cricket: 

"Bowlers possess what is known as a ‘stock delivery’, that is a delivery they use most frequently. They then supplement their stock delivery with subtle variations and surprise weapons. Crucially, the best bowlers in world cricket are those who can reproduce their stock delivery without fail, ball after ball. Their variations offer a slightly different challenge, while their surprise weapons such as the slower ball or bouncer are used sparingly, basically so that they remain surprises."

This is all a bit general, I know, but I hope it provides some good background criteria for building your repertoire. Good luck and enjoy your chess!

Thanks everyone for your advice.   

I think I may have overstated my proficiency at the open sicilian.  A lot of club players play the Najdorf without enough knowledge, and play it far too slowly, so you can win in 20-25 moves just by having a lead in development.  That's the sort of thing I'd feel I'm missing if I went to 1.d4, but I expect players rated 2000+ to know what they're doing and not give me the same opportunity quite so much.   

I stopped playing for 15 years.   

Came back about 10 years ago, switched from 1. e4 to 1. d4 2. c4 and aim to play every main line & sharpest position that Black is willing to allow.

My rating is at its highest point ever,  in my 6th decade on the planet. 

Life is short.  Carpe Diem.