English Chess Forum

is to fully learn and only play one opening

Steven DuCharme wrote:is to fully learn and only play one opening

Unfortunately, it is difficult/impossible to do that as black!

Clive Blackburn wrote:

Steven DuCharme wrote:is to fully learn and only play one opening

Unfortunately, it is difficult/impossible to do that as black!

JustinHorton wrote:

Clive Blackburn wrote:

Steven DuCharme wrote:is to fully learn and only play one opening

Unfortunately, it is difficult/impossible to do that as black!

Yes, that comes under the "difficult" category rather than "impossible"

Steven DuCharme wrote:is to fully learn and only play one opening

After the opening comes the middle game (usually) and being as strong as possible in the middle game is necessary for chess success. But is it better to know something about almost everything or everything about a limited number of positions? If your general chess sense is good enough to be able to spot the "normal" move or moves in almost every early position, the need to "know" what to do is lessened outside of those positions where a long sequence of tactics is about to be set off.

Whilst it's possible to play .. g6, .. Bg7, .. d6, .. a6 against almost everything, the parallel attempt with White does nothing to seize the initiative and dictate the course of the game. There's also every danger that Black will get the tempo back and you end up playing Black in every game.

Steven DuCharme wrote:is to fully learn and only play one opening

I think you'd be a sitting duck if you did that.

It can work for some - I believe Mark Hebden has a fairly limited repertoire for a GM but knows the openings he does play really well so even opponents with prior knowledge cannot easily prep for a win.

I think Mark has said himself that he might have achieved greater heights as a chess player if he had gained experience in a wider range of mainstream openings. Winning the Grand Prix does not require quite the same skills as taking on the world's best.

I would rather have good knowledge in a small number of openings then mediocre in a lot of them.

MJMcCready wrote:

Steven DuCharme wrote:is to fully learn and only play one opening

I think you'd be a sitting duck if you did that.

Better to only play one opening but largely wing it.

Colin McNab

Duncan Suttles

David Norwood

It used to be much easier to have a narrow repertoire in years gone by. Nowadays your opponent regularly comes to the board armed with database theory against any line you play with regularity.

After a recent league game, a certain forum regular told me that after seeing me play the Sicilian Wing Gambit had had studied a particular line with an engine for an hour before the game!

That would be me then. Outed at last.

For what it's worth, it was not going to be the pusillanimous and limp-wristed line that Number Two Son adopted against you a few months back.

I cannot recall a time when a player known to rely on the Wing Gambit would not have found diligent opponents preparing for him. If you don't like that, play 2.Nf3 like other people and see if he can refute that with an hour on an engine.

NickFaulks wrote:I cannot recall a time when a player known to rely on the Wing Gambit would not have found diligent opponents preparing for him. If you don't like that, play 2.Nf3 like other people and see if he can refute that with an hour on an engine.

Seen played on one occasion is not quite the same as 'known to rely on'. However, the fact that that game was played against Mikes' son ws the reason I played 2.Na3 - a much superior square for a knight than the much overated f3.

As it happens the wing gambit cannot be refuted with an hour on an engine.

I played the Caro-Kann exclusively for a couple of seasons, and it took me an embarrassingly long time to realise why I was facing long, obscure, theoretical lines against it in the 4ncl etc. Unless you are a booked up opening rain-man, in the modern game you need to remain a moving target.