As I hope to provoke some thoughts I suggest something completely different: buy a book from GM Viktor Moskalenko. Or more - I own four since last week plus have read The Diamond Dutch. As I'm an old hence inflexible patzer it took me a long time to take over his approach, but I find it rewarding. He continuously stresses the importance of creativity, trying new angles, challenging theoretical consensus and looking for dynamic ideas. He even does so in dull (Slav Exchange) and static openings (Dutch Stonewall). They may not improve on existing theory, but hey, the time is gone that White tries to prove an objective advantage anyway.
Again, given that he's a GM and I'm far from it it is very demanding for an amateur like me. But I simply don't know any author on openings who encourages the reader to do his/her own research as GM Moskalenko. Not even GM Ivan Sokolov, who has written some excellent books as well.

cathexis wrote on 05/15/21 at 12:35:43:


I haven't found the videos for the "Advanced" level yet, only Beginner, Intermediate and GM level.
Intermediate was defined about 1200 to 1800 iirc. Has anyone seen the suggestions for players above Intermediate but below GM level?

cathexis wrote on 05/15/21 at 12:35:43:

This kind of ranking is great. Of course I have zero interest in youtube for myself, but many people will prefer it. Is there any chance you could give a slightly more detailed summary? How many rankings are there? Garbarge to Legendary, but what are the ones in between? Even better would be an example opening at each intersection of ranking and level. Then people could get an idea of what the levels mean and what the rankings mean. Or if that's too much work, maybe just an example of each ranking for the Intermediate level. I have no idea what Nakamura would consider intermediate, but I might be able to guess if I saw a few openings named.

On You-Tube Nakamura & Gotham Chess have a lengthy series of opening Tier-Rankings, but at three levels: Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced. Multiple parts at each level. They are ranked from "Garbage" to "Legendary." For example, The Gruenfeld (IIRC) is ranked garbage for beginners - not because it is garbage, but because it is a waste of a beginner's time to try to tackle it. The discussion proceeds in a leisurely manner, often with snarky humor along the way. Some choices are just for yucks, like "Bongcloud" is Legendary for Advanced. Because they are tier-rankings they don't dwell on any details, just opinions on this vs. that. Openings can move up or down the list based on how they judge average ability at various levels.

Anyway, I found it really interesting and it did give me ideas. I'm not citing it as the be-all and end-all of opening rankings. Instead, I'm suggesting that having a World-Class GM tell you what openings are strongest for you at various levels of experience seemed a kind of Sillman-like approach that might be adapted to meet some of your needs. People like to have choices. Fair warning: They were live feeds and are long and meandering at times. 

FWIW,

Cathexis

If you're curious to see, the finale for Advanced is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HShiBcGbfeA&t=819s

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/15/21 at 01:35:26:


I like the Smerdon/West list.

You make a good point also, namely how to choose a repertoire. To some degree, that proceeds from the listed steps, but I think especially step 2:

"Start to play the opening in less serious outings, either online, in blitz games, or with friends."

Experience helps reveal whether you actually like the opening and find it compatible with your style and abilities.

Perhaps young players can benefit from direction from a coach or  more experienced player, however I suspect that is far from guaranteed.

This is pretty good, it's both a book review and an article about how to study the opening: 
Vanessa West "How To Really Learn An Opening - Review: First Steps The French" Chess Life Online (2019.09.29)
https://new.uschess.org/news/how-to-really-learn-an-opening-review-first-steps-t...

She quotes five steps from David Smerdon (2015) Smerdon's Scandinavian, and notes "The key to Smerdon’s advice is alternating between studying and practice games."

1. Read the chapter introductions (of an opening book) and illustrative games. 
2. Start to play the opening in less serious outings, either online, in blitz games, or with friends. 
3. Go back and check the theory for the lines that caused you problems. 
4. Start to play the opening in 'real' games. 
5. Learn the theory in more depth.

But all the sources I have looked at recently actually make a big assumption, that you already know which opening to study. Building a repertoire has to include a step where you make the choice.

FreeRepublic wrote on 05/14/21 at 14:51:10:

On my part this is intentional. If you go back to my first post, the idea is to provide relevant advice for different levels of player. I thought if I started out with advice for the experienced players I would never get around to the advice for the inexperienced players. Before I read Soltis, I read Ehlvest (2018) Grandmaster Opening Preparation, but I'm holding off on that post.

Of course others can comment on any level that interests them.

I used to have trouble as black against the English. So I started playing it for white, and strong opponents quickly showed me the best ways to answer it. There's no magic, it's just another opening that black has to learn. And being black, sometimes you may end up in a position that you don't really like. That's actually only a problem if you let it drive you crazy, and start making irrational moves as a consequence. For instance, trying to "force" the game into some channel that you like, as opposed to simply making the moves required by the position.

Thanks all for the many excellent posts. They demonstrate effort and insight on your part and can prove valuable to anyone who takes the time to consider them.

I have skimmed the posts and intend to examine them further. I may have too many ingrained habits, both good and bad, to actually change my ways.

A few random thoughts follow.

I have generally accepted the conventional wisdom not to memorize variations. However I have certainly done so as a biproduct. For example, if one always starts from the initial position and plays out to a tabiya and possibly beyond, one will memorize the moves to the tabiya. It is pointless to say memorization does not occur. In fact it is useful that it does occur.

It is good to acknowledge that there is too much information. This is especially true in the electronic era. Hunting down all games, books, etc. on an opening can be counterproductive. On the other hand, if one enjoys an in-depth look at a variation, then dig to your heart's content. You may take a hit by not being adequately prepared for other openings, but that may be O.K.

Some of the discussion may have tilted towards new players learning the opening. Related, but somewhat different, is the case of experienced players learning a new opening. An example follows.

As black, I've long believed that one should tackle the English opening directly with 1...e5 or 1...c5. I periodically make attempts, yet I keep trying to finesse the English out of existence through transposition.

The latter approach always has issues. For example, 1c4 e6 2Nc3 d5 3d4 does indeed force a transposition to the QGD. However it makes no effort to limit white's options in the exchange variation (4cxd). (I prefer 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nf3 d5, when cxd is less effective.).

Reverse variations do not reverse! Consider 1c4 e5 2Nc3 Nc6 3Nf3 f5 4d4 e4. I am learning this line, which I suspect is quite adequate for black. Isn't this a reversed Sicilian Grand Prix Attack? No! After 1e4 c5 2Nc3 Nc6 3f4, black would never play 3...Nf6 as white has 4e5. Instead black plays 3...g6. Well can we reverse that with 1c4 e5 2Nc3 Nc6 3g3? One can, but black is under no obligation to play 3...f5 entering a reversed Grand Prix attack.

We have probably all learned to evaluate a position through such concepts as material balance, space, development, pawn structure and king safety. However there are many tempting shortcuts: looking at row evaluations in ECO, reviewing the commentary of titled players, game statistics, and engine evaluations. I have little to add here but the need to strike a sensible balance between a truly chessical approach to evaluating positions (and openings) and the use of shortcuts.

In the Najdorf example provided in an earlier post, I would definitely look at game statistics. The lines that score better would get my attention.

That is not to deny that some line might irrationally catch my eye. An example is the Polugaevsky variation, 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5!? 8. e5). Looking it over I might conclude that it is too wild, or just not good enough. Only time would tell.

I am truly bemused by the logical 7...Nbd7 which is so old that I learned that it was second rate a long time ago, only for it to become cutting edge more recently. Had I used my own eyes, instead of relying on the judgment of others, I might have been decades ahead with many scalps on my belt.