@dfan - We agree completely then.

@MNb - I wouldn't say "only goal", but rather "a goal". For the amateur, trying to improve (or, in my case, struggling to stem the tide of disimprovement) is quasi-maximizing. Only if you don't care *at all* about results can you play "whatever you like". Or to put it another way, whether or not I like an opening is strongly influenced by the fact that I like winning and dislike losing. Now for the pro I would say it's not only about money. If it were, they know they could quit playing and make more at almost any other job. In that sense (also in other senses, which I leave for another discussion), every pro is also an amateur. We are all trying to "maximize" a complex mix of different variables -- wins, draws, Elo, ego, time, money, enjoyment, flow, what have you -- and we just weight them differently. For sure the amateur and the pro weight prize money differently, but just like with the Elo it's not all or nothing.

I know a Belgian fidemaster whom changed his repertoire around the age of 50 from sharp lines like the Kingsgambit to the Exchange Spanish variation see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2015/03/identity.html

Now there is an argument for claiming this is not about age but rather the impact of the ever stronger playing engines instead.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/19/22 at 19:54:30:

Yes, that is the question I was trying to answer; my answer is no. At least, don't do it preemptively on principle; do it if playing your old openings makes you feel bad (because it's too tiring or your results are terrible or what have you).

dfan wrote on 02/19/22 at 18:55:01:

I agree with that, but to clarify, my point about age was a little different. We can quibble about the age at which one's play starts to decline, but there is no doubt it will eventually happen. The question is, should one change openings based on the decline? I don't think so, or rather I think maybe a little bit but not radically so. It's not only the sharp opening that puts pressure on the opponent, but the *threat* to play the sharp opening. So we might play sharp openings less frequently as we age, but we should still play them *sometimes*.

Monocle wrote on 12/21/16 at 13:52:44:

Looking at 4NCL games by players of "good club standard", it seems their opening knowledge runs the gamut, from "plays the opening like a clown", all the way to "knows the latest theory like an IM". It seems a little surprising an opening clown could be good club standard. It's just as surprising an opening "IM" could be. So one answer seems to be: it doesn't matter!

Well of course it does matter. But I don't think the answer depends on age at all. Openings are openings, the way to success is the same for everybody. And as for sharp vs grinding, do both! It depends on the circumstances. Long term I basically suggest three openings for white and three openings for black.

1. A system opening where you play the same thing no matter what the opponent does, such as KIA, or Botvinnik English, or London/Colle/Torre, etc. Or for black Modern Defense, or 1...d6 Universal, or Hippo (for black there are not as many "etc." available.)
2. A solid but not-quite-system opening like Sielecki's e4 or d4 repertoires. For black not-quite-system there would be different answers vs 1.e4 and 1.d4, e.g. 1.e4 French and 1.d4 Classical QGD, or 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 Nimzo+something.
3. A sharper and more ambitious try. If your solid try is 1.e4 then your sharper try should be 1.d4+2.c4; if 1.d4 then 1.e4 respectively. Also your black sharper try should be radically different. Say 1.e4 Sicilian, or Marshall Gambit, etc., and 1.d4 Benoni, or KID, or Dutch, etc.

As a practical matter you learn the system opening first, and the solid opening second, or vice versa. You *start* learning the sharp opening right away, but you will never actually finish that one. And once you more or less have all three, you will basically be bullet-proof in the opening.

Monocle wrote on 12/21/16 at 13:52:44:


I certainly agree with other posters that you should find something that you like, and also, something that is good. I tend to migrate between looking at, and playing, about three lines for black and maybe a couple for white.

For example, I first studied and played the King's Indian Defense, then the Nimzo, finally double queen pawn. I still check things out in the KID, and I may return to the Nimzo. I suspect the Nimzo is best, but I'm having fun with double-queen pawn right now.

Sometimes I run into a brick wall. At one time or another I think I have looked at everything in the fianchetto KID. The only line I believe to be satisfactory is ...c6, ...d5. So far, I have been unable to develop any enthusiasm for a KID that is also an exchange Slav! I keep looking at the KID, but with reduced frequency.

As white, I played the Open Sicilian for decades. I then played the Closed Sicilian for a couple of years. Now I play the Rosolimo against 2...Nc6. I need to tune up the Open lines that start with 2...d6 and 2...e6. Even the Rosolimo may turn out to be a temporary diversion, like the Closed Sicilian.

After playing the Ruy Lopez for decades, I've had fun with primitive openings that I never played as a youngster: the Evans and Scotch Gambits. However, I reserve the right to return to the Ruy.

I do not consider an opening repertoire choice to be irrevocable. Granted my approach has not been "efficient" or "optimal" from a particular perspective. I just adopt a different perspective.

For example, I play QG as white. I use Burgess for the Bg5 variation. I use Dunnington for Benoni and Budapest, Palliser for a few others, a few things recommended by Markovich, etc. So, essentially I’ve taken parts from various d4 books to try to form a rep.

I play e5 as black and I’m starting to do the same thing for my e5 rep. Which is what gave me the idea for a conversation topic.