Openings Diversity

[Joey Stewart]

As we all know, being ,"prepared against" is one of the greatest scourges of modern chess, and can wreck a game before your opponent even needs to exert any brainpower.

Watching the top grand masters play now it seems obvious that they are now counting this problem by playing a much more diverse range of openings rather then the traditional idea of trying to be an expert in a few - but the question i would put to you is how much do you think a mortal player who wants to remain competitive should know?

[Chris Goodall]

At what point in the tree?

You can achieve a state of complete unprepareagainstability by simply learning two possible moves in every position where there are two possible moves. Do you count that as two openings, or 128 "variations"?

[Joey Stewart]

At what point in the tree?

You can achieve a state of complete unprepareagainstability by simply learning two possible moves in every position where there are two possible moves. Do you count that as two openings, or 128 "variations"?

That sounds like you are leading towards the first option, just having one opening you know well enough to be able to branch into multiple variations and still be comfortable that you'll have a safe position to play with each deviation.

[Roger de Coverly]

That sounds like you are leading towards the first option, just having one opening you know well enough to be able to branch into multiple variations and still be comfortable that you'll have a safe position to play with each deviation.

You can also use ideas like reaching the same position from different openings.

For example the French Exchange
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3

is also the Icelandic declined
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. d4

as well as the Petroff
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d3 Nf6 6. d4 d5 7. c4 with Nc3 to follow.

The 9 d4 line in the Spanish can also be used as an anti-Marshall.
so
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 0-0 9. d4
or
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 0-0 8. d4 d6 9. c3

[Chris Goodall]

I think your metric needs refining. When I'm working on openings, I can only improve my own moves. Learning something better against the Qf3 line of the Two Knights is conceptually no different to learning something better against 1.e4 e5. Either way you can make my effort irrelevant by playing something else.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I voted for 2, mainly because even players with only "one opening" have one for White and one for Black. When you say "1 opening", do you mean as White? I would hazard a guess that most casual players have "one opening" as White, and have to know several openings as Black to avoid being squashed in the opening.

(You also need a "zero opening theory" option - some people do try this, making it up as they go along, though arguably this means they have an infinite number of openings...)

[Roger de Coverly]

(You also need a "zero opening theory" option - some people do try this, making it up as they go along, though arguably this means they have an infinite number of openings...)

You can argue that an erudite player will know lots of main lines, but nothing cutting edge in any of them.
It used to be claimed that Tal's approach was to get out of the opening with a playable position and then find ideas.

Computer engines when allowed to think for themselves have demonstrated that a lot more lines are playable, whilst thinking some are decidedly dodgy. I've seen the sequence 1. e4 e5 2. f4 marked up as advantage Black for instance. Equally engines distrust many if not all Kings Indian positions.

[MJMcCready]

I stick to what Simon Webb taught me as a teen. I answer 2.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I was paired with Tiger Hillarp-Persson at Guernsey some years ago. I looked at Chessbase to find that he played, 1.e4 or d4 or c4 or Nf3 mainly, but sometimes something else... So it's clear what he does!

[MartinCarpenter]

As we all know, being ,"prepared against" is one of the greatest scourges of modern chess, and can wreck a game before your opponent even needs to exert any brainpower.

Watching the top grand masters play now it seems obvious that they are now counting this problem by playing a much more diverse range of openings rather then the traditional idea of trying to be an expert in a few - but the question i would put to you is how much do you think a mortal player who wants to remain competitive should know?

The top players - who all have perfect memories, are playing each other very regularly etc etc, obviously need massive variety.

Mortal players? It's a very rare occurrence in my experience.

For starters, as white on 20-30 games a year you'll face any given non trivial variation once every couple of years or so, leaving it absurd to carry a huge weight of theory about on spec. Also pretty tough to do specific opponent prep.

Most games in leagues/congresses etc except the 4NCL are outwith databases, so even if someone is playing quite specific lines it's very hard to pin down the detail you'd actually need. And then you hardly ever actually know who you'll be playing in advance.

I've always tended to switch about a bit, more out of interest than worry.

[Clive Wismayer]

Simple is best for mortals, unless gifted in tactics, which I am not. Also, common sense. If you want to play the Najdorf you need to know how to play against all W set ups of which there are what? 6? More? And the anti-Sicilians. That’s another half dozen or so. White has only to know 1. Completely crazy.

I can’t tell you how many years it took me to realise that. I have never been able to play … e5 against e4 so opted for the Sicilian. Then one day I asked myself, an e4 player, what do I hate facing the most? The French! So I took it up & never looked back.

Long strings of incomprehensible theory should also be eschewed in favour of general patterns & structures. It’s still an awful lot of work, but necessary & rewarding. Eventually.

[Roger de Coverly]

if you want to play the Najdorf you need to know how to play against all W set ups of which there are what? 6? More?

After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6, the lack of threat and waiting nature of 5. .. a6 has resulted in almost every plausible move being tried. These have included 6. Rg1 (threat of g4) and 6. Nb3 meeting the move .. e5 that hasn't happened. It's only really the lines after 6. Bg5 that can go completely mad, most of the others are just variations on a theme depending on whether Black opts for a plan involving .. e5, .. e6 or perhaps neither where .. g6 is played.

One good reason why even at amateur level players will duck and weave in the opening is to avoid positions where your opponent is an expert and you aren't. When you play the same local or even national opponents year after year, you get to know how they play even without database assistance. When you face a supposedly weaker opponent who you know or establish plays a specialist opening or one difficult to face, should you take it on by brushing up your theory, or just dodge it?

[MJMcCready]

At club level most dodge it I think.

[NickFaulks]

I think people who play the Najdorf are secretly hoping for 6.Bg5, but I still consider it a matter of honour to give them their wish. At professional level there may be too many deeply analysed lines leading to a forced draw.

[MJMcCready]

I think people who play the Najdorf are secretly hoping for 6.Bg5, but I still consider it a matter of honour to give them their wish. At professional level there may be too many deeply analysed lines leading to a forced draw.

I can't recall who it was, perhaps Svidler, who said since computerization black doesn't play for a win anymore, excluding the sicilian Nadjorf and slav. I think that's what he said. Since he's a grunfeld expert that's hard to digest.