ChessPub Forum - Two opening repertoires

(UTC)

Latest Updates:

Open Sicilians - 16 Sep King Pawn - 16 Sep Dragon Sicilians - 11 Sep

ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Two opening repertoires

(Moderators: proustiskeen, trw, RoleyPoley)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Topic Tools

Two opening repertoires (Read 955 times)

Straggler Senior Member Offline Posts: 382 Joined: 08/09/09	Re: Two opening repertoires Reply #4 - 06/09/23 at 19:30:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	Simon Webb argued in Chess for Tigers (1978) that you should aim for complications if your opponent is much stronger, and avoid them if your opponent is much weaker. The logic is that the more chaotic the position, the greater the chance of a blunder by either player. But I don't think he suggested that it would be sensible to maintain two opening repertoires for this purpose. I don't think it makes much sense to avoid "drawish" openings when playing weaker opponents, except perhaps at the highest level. I can't do better than quote the late Markovich: Markovich wrote on 11/22/04 at 08:27:40: I think that you can play any sound system, below the top levels, and expect to win if you are the stronger player or if you understand a given position better or, for that matter, if your opponent just plays a bad move -- which even FMs not infrequently do. I would not worry about this opening's drawish reputation if the middlegame positions arising from it appealed to me. The most important thing about winning is to believe that you can and to WANT to. And who knows, maybe your draw-seeking opponent does not understand king and pawn endings very well! I can imagine myself (in my dreams) sitting down opposite a super-K and playing 1. e4. Play proceeds 1...e5 2. Nf3 Nf6. Do I say to myself, "Oh great, now I draw!" Yeah, right.


	IP Logged

an ordinary chessplayer God Member Offline I used to be not bad. Posts: 1628 Location: Columbus, OH (USA) Joined: 01/02/15	Re: Two opening repertoires Reply #3 - 05/23/23 at 16:49:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sadler and Regan (2016) Chess for Life has some good discussion on this topic. I used to vary a lot, but I started to get much better results when I played the same classical openings against both weak and strong players. My familiarity with the opening was much more important than any surprise or unbalancing effects. In effect the weak players were helping me prepare for the strong players. It's true the weak players would sometimes earn a draw. Just learn the endgame and you can sometimes win those despite the equalish opening, if not c'est la vie. There's something to be said for playing correct chess all the time. I suppose the calculation is different if all your games go into the database. There are other approaches, e.g. GM Alexander Ivanov as black vs 1.e4 1...e5 vs GMs, in particular the Zaitsev Ruy Lopez, and inviting the Nf3-g5 ...Re8-f8, Ng5-f3 ...Rf8-e8 repetition. 1...c5 vs IMs, mostly Classical Sicilian if I recall correctly. 1...g6 vs others. In a multi-round weekender it's a good idea to have a backup opening, in case an opponent might spend a short time "booking up" versus something you played in an earlier round. I remember winning one black game in a swiss with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4!?. Two rounds later a strong expert played the same white moves against me, clearly he was expecting the same line. I varied with 3...Bc5 4.c3 Bb6!? and he didn't know what to do. (After 3.Bc4 I also play the main lines 3...Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5, 3...Bc5 4.c3 Nf6, and some other things, but then again I have been playing this opening for over 50 years.) This I think is the best way to defeat special preparation. Instead of playing a completely different opening, play a different (sub-)variation within the same opening. You can still rely on your understanding of the positions, and your opponent has to think rather than bashing out their prep. Also as white if you mostly start with 1.e4 it's good to have one of 1.d4, 1.c4, or 1.Nf3 available. If you mostly start with 1.d4 it's not necessary to play 1.e4, varying with 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 from time to time is probably good enough.


	IP Logged

Confused_by_Theory God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 637 Location: Europe Joined: 05/13/15 Gender:	Re: Two opening repertoires Reply #2 - 05/23/23 at 01:28:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hi. Against much weaker opposition you would either like to play stuff that broadens yourself as a player or play the lines you are performing best in and try to beat the opposition as effortlessly as possible. I think that option one is better in the longterm but not very popular. When it comes to facing vastly higher rateds I think you just try and result maximise. Usually this means playing solidly as white and whatever you play best as black. If it looks like it simplifies the game without downside, some concrete play is usually pretty desirable as well. Have a nice night.


	IP Logged

cathexis God Member Offline No matter where you go, there you are. Posts: 567 Joined: 03/03/20	Re: Two opening repertoires Reply #1 - 05/22/23 at 22:31:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	Perhaps, just always bring your best? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua_TZ84hmEA


	IP Logged

Marc Benford Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 100 Joined: 07/17/13	Two opening repertoires 05/22/23 at 15:24:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	I had an idea: build two opening repertoires, one good against much stronger opponents, and one good against much weaker opponents. So two questions: - Which kinds of openings are good against much stronger opponents? - Which kinds of openings are good against much weaker opponents? Mainlines or sidelines? Open or closed? Tactical or positional? Sharp or slow? Chaotic or quiet? Theory-heavy or theory-light? When playing against much weaker opponents, an opening can be good either because it maximizes your winning probability (or more precisely the winning probability plus half of the drawing probability) or because it allows you to relax and play on autopilot without needing to focus intensely. Against much weaker opponents, Black should probably not play the French and the Slav, because this would allow White to play the drawish Exchange variations, and a draw would be a bad result for the much stronger player (though of course still not as bad as a loss). What about the London + Caro-Kann + Slav with ...Bf5, a system which I currently play, is this system good against stronger or weaker opponents? I did some research on ChessBase, and the conclusion is that surprisingly a very large rating gap does not alter the usual frequencies at which openings are played. Which proves that when they face much stronger or much weaker opponents, almost no one tries to exploit the gap in strength by choosing specific openings. E.g. When White is much stronger than Black, White doesn't play 1.e4 2.Qh5 at a much higher frequency than usual.
	« Last Edit: 05/22/23 at 20:14:53 by Marc Benford »

	IP Logged

Pages: 1

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

« Board Index ‹ Board Top