13 comments so far.

1. Anonymous January 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM
   So let's say you switch your entire repertoire. Do you think you won't face positions you're gonna hate using a new rep? There will always be positions you're gonna hate, no matter what you play.
2. Unknown January 28, 2009 at 6:08 PM
   I understand completely. I used to play the Caro-Kann Defense religiously. But I got so bored with it, I switched from the Semi-Open Game to the Open Game with the Black pieces. Now White plays any opening he/she wants and I'm a lot less bored. In fact, despite its higher percentage of draws, I think it's a better game, at least for me anyway.
3. Unknown January 28, 2009 at 7:33 PM
   Znosko-Borovsky classifies "The Openings" into these groups, in which he is correct:
   
   1) The Open Game (Double King Pawn)
   2) The Semi-Open Game (Caro, French, Sicilian, etc.)
   3) The Closed Game (Double Queen Pawn)
   4) The Modern Defenses (Indian Defenses)
   
   Economically speaking, any one player can eliminate at most, one group from study if he or she wishes to, for instance, since I meet the King Pawn and meet the Queen Pawn and play the Queen Pawn, I can if I wish eliminate the Semi-Open Game. If I elect to also play the King Pawn as White, then I cannot elimiate any one group of Openings. One is either on the White side, the Black side, or both.
   
   One does have to be careful about specific and tricky move-orders though, mostly coming from the English and the Reti set-ups.
   
   So if you eliminate 1...c5 and 1...d5, then you are going to leave the Semi-Open Game and the Closed Game for either the Open Game or the Modern Defenses. Or you are going to choose other defenses in the Semi-Open Game and the Closed Game.
   
   If as White, you leave the move 1. e4 and concentrate on the move 1. d4, then to some extent, you are leaving the Open Game for the Closed Game and substituting the Semi-Open Game for the Modern Defenses.
   
   Again, if you play both, then you cannot be also economical as you will then be on either the White side or the Black side of all categories of Openings.
4. drunknknite January 28, 2009 at 9:13 PM
   CMoB - I will eventually run into positions I hate, this is for sure. But! Right now there are certain moves that I cringe when I see, and it's not because I am bad at the ensuing positions it's just because I'm bored. So for the whole opening I am just sitting there miserable, and it affects my performance. I feel like looking at fresh positions might keep me interested.
   
   The other very important point is that I would be able to avoid certain lines like say I hated a player's response to e4 but I liked their response to d4, I could play d4 and get a game I like. The more theory I know the easier it is to find a position I want to play during the game.
   
   Eric - Yeah I've played the Accelerated Dragon for my whole competitive chess career and I was going to switch to another Sicilian but I would rather just learn something completely different. Something new. That classification is pretty standard these days although certain lines in each opening can be put in other categories, like the indians are definitely closed games and so are a lot of lines in the french. Also this is referring mostly to the nature of the pawn structure. I am not averse to any pawn structure and I am not trying to be economical (patching up my current repertoire is very easy to do and it is solid and ambitious). I am trying to broaden the base of positions that I understand and also infuse creativity into my early middlegame. Right now I rattle off 12-13 moves of theory and then use typical plans and I am not thinking enough. I just want to be in positions that are new to me. Doesn't really matter what kind of position it is I need to understand all positions to move forward.
5. Anonymous January 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM
   Right now there are certain moves that I cringe when I see, and it's not because I am bad at the ensuing positions it's just because I'm bored. So for the whole opening I am just sitting there miserable, and it affects my performance.
   
   I see... Yeah i know that "bored" feeling. It affects my performance as well. Like say, you're trying to get this cool Sicilian position (i like O' Kelly and Scheveningen) and they lash out with 3.Bc4... I get bored instantly.
6. katar January 29, 2009 at 1:12 AM
   Consider Dynamic Reti by Nigel Davies. Lots of fresh ideas in that book, and manageable theory. sample games here. It's a gentle transition because it's so flexible. E.G., 1.Nf3 c5 you could just go 2.e4 until you get a grip on the Symmetrical English.
   
   1.d4 repertoires
7. Anonymous January 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM
   I understand you very well. I found myself somewhat bored with the openings I play, even a bit with Ruy, which I like to play with both colors. Recently I won an OTB game playing Petrov with Black (I didn't want to play that person's favorite Scotch), it kind of stimulated me to look at it closely and play a couple of correspondence games with it. Funny that I lost both, but now I look at it as a challenge and will play more, then will decide if I want to play it OTB. I started "French Defense, Tarrasch" online correspondence tournament just because I didn't like to play Exchange variation and wanted to know a decent variation. Very unexpectedly I realized that I actually like playing French, it's completely different game with original ideas. So, I can sign under your phrase "I am trying to broaden the base of positions that I understand and also infuse creativity into my early middlegame." I think, if you play the same openings, even very well, it kind of defers your development as a chess player and also lowers your interest to the game.
8. Will January 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM
   Seems to me that if you have reached a decent level in your all round game that adding more depth in the opening is sensible. Not only to freshen up by to continue your development.
   If your not enjoying it would you really bother putting the effort it takes to play this game fairly well? Probably not, goodluck with the switch
9. drunknknite January 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM
   katar - thanks for that link, Nf3 is an interesting first move, but I like d4 as a second move more. Especially like you said with e4 against c5 this seems like a powerful weapon. I should own those books by cox and palliser shortly.
   
   You guys are making me think of when I first started making my repertoire for White. I had hit a sort of plateau and just adding new theory helped me break through. I'm getting excited.
10. wang February 2, 2009 at 7:45 AM
    One thing about the Davies book, I didn't care for his Reti accepted move. 1.Nf3, d5 2)c4, dxc4 3)e4,
    
    I don't like this move, it just looks awkward to me.
11. drunknknite February 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM
    wang - this move does look awkward. i am guessing he includes it because there is relatively little theory and this allowed him to keep the book brief, it is certainly not the most ambitious move.
12. katar February 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM
    To each his own, but i think 3.e4 is a wonderful example of the "fresh" ideas in Davies' book. 3.e4 is probably the most *dynamic* move available in the position, it is surprisingly the first choice of "Dynamic Rybka 3.0" after 20 seconds or so, and it has only been played 20-odd times and therefore has considerable surprise value (on move 3!!). Personally i love it when authors present original analysis on obscure lines instead of re-hashing old analysis. You could play the well-trodden paths Na3 or Qa4, which are in dozens of other books. As white, i would hope black thinks it looks "awkward" or "wrong". In my experience, a lot of weaker players will allow white to play Bxc4 and then d2-d4 when white has a dream-come-true center and active play typical of 1.e4 gambits, but without losing a pawn. Compare it to a reversed Sveshnikov where the other side can't even play P-K4. I haven't played this line much (only in blitz), but these are my first impressions. peace out.
13. David Rudel May 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM
    If you are interested in trying out the Queen's Pawn game, I could send you a review copy of my book: Zuke 'Em.
    
    -David

Something to say?