Popularity of various openings

[MJMcCready]

I don't think many if any under 2000 bother preparing.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't think many if any under 2000 bother preparing.

That could be why they are under 2000 !

[Michael Farthing]

I don't think many if any under 2000 bother preparing.

The problem is getting your opponent's games.
My own club has a super efficient archivist who pounces on all our games as they finish. The consequence is that we can all prepare for club games and often for local league games (though I don't think many do). I don't do a lot - maybe 20-30 minutes - and often of course it goes out of the window after two moves, but I certainly remember a specific game where I departed from my opponent's favourite line at about move 9 and he never recovered. I am way below 2000.

[Niall Doran]

I'm also way under 2000, and I will generally have a quick look at what my opponent plays before the game, but I'm not sure this counts as 'preparation'!

Incidentally, regarding lack of games available, my opponents are in the enviable position of having over 50 of my games available on the Chessbase online database!!

[Arshad Ali]

At sub 2000 level 1 d4 tells you that your opponent probably isn't a tactician.

Maybe that can be said about those who play 1.c4 or 1.Nf3. The problem with 1.d4 is you can get drawn into maelstroms like the Benko Gambit, the Benoni, the King's Indian, the Grunfeld, and the Dutch. 1.d4 doesn't always result in some quiet line of the QGD.

[Lewis Martin]

Never heard of it.

The Sniper is relatively rare in itself, though there are a few players that play it with some regular occurrence. It is quite potent if White does not know what to reply against it, particularly if the opponent is at least a strong club player.

At sub 2000 level 1 d4 tells you that your opponent probably isn't a tactician.

That is quite a damning statement. I have had (percentage-wise) far more interesting games with 1. d4 in terms of tactics than 1. e4. 1.d4 is more interesting than you think.

[MJMcCready]

Never heard of it.

The Sniper is relatively rare in itself, though there are a few players that play it with some regular occurrence. It is quite potent if White does not know what to reply against it, particularly if the opponent is at least a strong club player.

At sub 2000 level 1 d4 tells you that your opponent probably isn't a tactician.

That is quite a damning statement. I have had (percentage-wise) far more interesting games with 1. d4 in terms of tactics than 1. e4. 1.d4 is more interesting than you think.

It's only a generalization. Some of the sharpest opening lines are from 1 d4 I think. Even 1 f4 and 1 g4 has some sharp stuff, probably only 1 b3 and 1 b4 are truly quiet first moves. I say that because 1nf3 can transpose into sharp stuff.

[Roger de Coverly]

probably only 1 b3 and 1 b4 are truly quiet first moves.

First moves perhaps, but they can transpose. It's playing style really. Premature aggression doesn't always work, whilst co-ordinating pieces and pawn structure is always a plan if possible. If you have White you try to maintain a small advantage, whilst with Black you try to neutralise, equalise or counter attack.

There was a player I met a number of times in the 1980s who was extremely solid, drawish in other words, but who could beat you if you over-reached. The only time I beat him at all and without much trouble was when I punted 1. b3. The game took on the contours of a double Dutch because he played .. f5, which I met with f4 and a reverse Leningrad style g3. I won by nicking a pawn and consolidating.

[Clive Blackburn]

probably only 1 b3 and 1 b4 are truly quiet first moves.

1 b3 often leads to the Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack, which is certainly not quiet.... black often has to endure a ferocious kingside attack, especially if white plays the pawn to f4 before he goes Nf3

[Lewis Martin]

I don't think many if any under 2000 bother preparing.

That could be why they are under 2000 !

Just noticed this. Really Roger?

There are far more important things to improve on than preparation, and it certainly isn't why players under 2000 as rated as such.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are far more important things to improve on than preparation, and it certainly isn't why players under 2000 as rated as such.

You see numerous club players fall into the same bad positions time and time again, or at best spend half their time on positions that more knowledgeable players could reach in ten minutes. If they worked on their chess it wouldn't be preparation for a specific opponent but just having more knowledge.

[MartinCarpenter]

Or who just get stuck with very one sided styles, which has to limit their strength a little bit.

Being able to get ~10 plausible moves and knowing roughly what to do is of course a particular advantage for quicker time limit games like more evening leagues.

[Lewis Martin]

There are far more important things to improve on than preparation, and it certainly isn't why players under 2000 as rated as such.

You see numerous club players fall into the same bad positions time and time again, or at best spend half their time on positions that more knowledgeable players could reach in ten minutes. If they worked on their chess it wouldn't be preparation for a specific opponent but just having more knowledge.

All preparation means is to look at what your opponent plays and nothing at all to do with your own play/repertoire/knowledge which you work on for yourself. I always think it is a waste of time to do preparation for an opponent seriously.

[Roger de Coverly]

I always think it is a waste of time to do preparation for an opponent seriously.

Your definition of preparation, not mine.

I like to have a general idea of my opponent's style of play and whether they have any specialities where I might need to recap my approach or totally avoid. If I can pinch ideas from recent GM games, so much the better.

Difficulties for players towards the middle of the grading distribution adopting this would be the relative paucity of games recorded for the potential opponent and a general unevenness in their own knowledge and playing style.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I have a feeling James Byrne and Theo Slade prepared for me today. I mean, since when does Theo play 1...e5 as black?

[Event "Bude Rapidplay"] [Site "Bude Chess"] [Round "2.1"] [Date "2014.09.27"] [White "Byrne, James"] [Black "Rudd, Jack"] [Result "0-1"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.Bf4 a6 8.a4 Bg7 9.h3 O-O 10.e3 Nh5 11.Bh2 f5 12.Be2 f4 13.O-O Nd7 14.Nd2 fxe3 15.fxe3 Qg5 16.Rxf8+ Nxf8 17.Nf1 Bxh3 18.Bf3 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Rd8 20.Kh1 Bc8 21.Bxh5 gxh5 22.Qf3 Ng6 23.Ng3 Rf8 24.Qxh5 Qxe3 25.Rf1 Rxf1+ 26.Nxf1 Qxc3 27.Bxd6 Qf6 28.Bxc5 Qxf1+ 0-1

[Event "Bude Rapidplay"] [Site "Bude Chess"] [Round "5.1"] [Date "2014.09.27"] [White "Rudd, Jack"] [Black "Slade, Theodore Luke"] [Result "1-0"] 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 O-O 7.O-O-O Re8 8.Bc4 d6 9.Nf3 Bc5 10.Qe1 a6 11.Ng5 Ne5 12.Bb3 h6 13.h4 hxg5 14.hxg5 Nfg4 15.f4 Nf2 16.fxe5 Nxh1 17.g6 Nf2 18.gxf7+ Kf8 19.fxe8Q+ Qxe8 20.Be3 Bxe3+ 21.Qxe3 Nxd1 22.Qf4+ Ke7 23.Nd5+ Kd7 24.Qg4+ Kc6 25.Qxg7 Bd7 26.e6 Rd8 27.Qd4 b5 28.Qa7 Rc8 29.Nb4#