What opening should a player use?

Chessrookie

Having read one of the comments from Colm earlier this week, he made some general recommendations on what type of opening to play.
I am a low level intermediate players who is only back playing a few years. By nature I would be conservative and don't like a very open style game. Colm recommended staying away from the "English, Slav and Caro-Kann" and instead try play the "QGD, Sicilian or French" I would love to know the reasoning/logic behind this advice

I also remember one of Ireland's strongest players, telling one of our better juniors at Bunratty this year to "stay away from the English Opening"

What do others recommend as an opening? and why?

Another thing i have noticed is that a lot of younger players seem to be turning to the French opening. Again, what do people think? I don't have the time to read up on all openings, but would like to have a go at learning one new opening over the coming months.

Finally I am curious as to what resource people use when learning a new open. Do you prefer a "book" a "training DVD" or an online website?

LiamMc

To answer the thread title question is one they are confident with, whether that is because it suits their personalty or they have been instructed to play it and trust their instructor.

You are right to challenge yourself in learning/familiarise a new Opening. bearing in mind the fashion for Openings change as well as moves or move-order.

Adhering to Opening Principles is the best advice, central pawn moves and developing pieces. What is your view of sharp Open (e.g Giouco Piano, Ruy Lopex) and Semi-Open (e.g French, Sicilian) 1.e4 games? and the more positional from the beginning 1.d4 and responses?

The English Opening is considered a Flank Opening and so may not fit all of the Opening Principles.

Hungarian GM Andras Andorjan in his many arguments that Black is OK! writes that White with 1.e4 needs to be able to respond to a huge variation of responses that Black can give. Where as Black just needs to know/be aware of their response to 1.e4.

So sticking with Opening Principles reduces the workload of learning specific responses until the Player has time to consider them.
Relying more on Tactics and Endgame to play their games.

Previous boards.ie discussion
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056182728

Sparks

Chessrookie wrote: »

I would love to know the reasoning/logic behind this advice

I'm not sure it was well-considered advice given the context

And I've heard higher-ranked players advise people to use the English specifically to reduce the amount of opening theory you'd have to learn.

Personally, I played e4 for a few years, but never liked it (I wasn't kidding when I said the exchange roy lopez was too sharp for my tastes, even if it's not as sharp as other open games -- I *really* dislike the hard slap around the face that some e4 lines try to deliver); I tried a few other openings and I found I liked playing c4; and since I play for fun, I play what I like to play. (And the English is hardly disreputable given how much it's played at high level).

However, what I try hardest to do with openings is to not study them. It's way too easy to buy opening books and read them for hours and not study tactics or endings, even though the universal advice from every chess coach from the last century has been to do the opposite

I usually use the colle system
Gets things going

reunion

I think it depends on your rating level and how long you've been playing. This is just my kinda impression anyway.

I think if you are aiming for the masters section you need a general idea in nearly every opening and know a ton of side variations with at minimum 4 openings for each colour.

If you are in the challengers you would need to roughly know what you are doing in a few openings. This section is more about stopping stupid blunders and not losing silly tempos. I personally think to go from major to challengers the middle game becomes more important.

If you are in the major section you would need to know an opening for each colour pretty well and then have a rough idea about some common ones

In the minor section you need to know roughly what to do in 2 openings but mainly try to get to know your end games pretty well. Typically to get out of this section you just need experience so play as many games as possible online.

My 2 cents anyway.

Ciaran

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure it was well-considered advice given the context

In fairness, I think it was pretty reasonable.

And I've heard higher-ranked players advise people to use the English specifically to reduce the amount of opening theory you'd have to learn.

A big realisation I had as I moved up the ranks was that higher rated people don't know anywhere near as much opening theory as I thought they would. I'd played a sideline against the Sicilian for years because I didn't want to learn a load of different lines but after switching to the main line, most of my opponents deviate from theory quite quickly.

Personally, I played e4 for a few years, but never liked it (I wasn't kidding when I said the exchange roy lopez was too sharp for my tastes, even if it's not as sharp as other open games -- I *really* dislike the hard slap around the face that some e4 lines try to deliver); I tried a few other openings and I found I liked playing c4; and since I play for fun, I play what I like to play. (And the English is hardly disreputable given how much it's played at high level).

There's nothing wrong with the English at all. The only thing is that by playing e4, you'll get more different types of positions from closed centres with a space advantage to open, tactical games to boring drudgery to slow manoeuvring games. I'm open to contradiction on this, never really having played the English, but I get the impression that there's less variety in English games.

Sparks

Ciaran wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the English at all. The only thing is that by playing e4, you'll get more different types of positions from closed centres with a space advantage to open, tactical games to boring drudgery to slow manoeuvring games. I'm open to contradiction on this, never really having played the English, but I get the impression that there's less variety in English games.

That was what I was hoping for myself (fewer opening lines meaning less to learn before you have an opening that gets you past the first few moves and into the game proper without the game already being crippled), but there's quite a variety even before you consider transpositions (which the English has quite a huge amount of). I certainly haven't gotten bored with it yet

Mel O Cinneide

Although I've played the English for a long time, I wouldn't recommend it to junior/intermediate players. The most valuable style of chess to learn initially is direct, forthright play with clear plans and plenty of tactics. Less direct systems like the English/Catalan etc. tend to lead to subtle positions that are fiddly and hard to play. Systems like the Colle are relatively easy to learn, but they are rather limited and there's so much to chess that it's a pity to see developing players playing them in every game.

Chessrookie

Mel,
I am a 1200-1300 level player. When I starter playing again 2 years ago, I felt that my opening knowledge would not hold up against seasoned players, so I went for a more conservative opening, ie the English. I had tried the Scotch game first but my opponents seemed well versed in how to play against it. Now that I have gotten a bit stronger and am playing a different type of opponent I wanted to re-assess my style.
I find now I am getting cramped position wise so I need to open it up a bit. I had worked a lot on my endgames over the last year, but now feel it is time to go back to the opening.
Bluewolf,
You mentioned the Colle which is interesting as I used to play this 30 years ago when in secondary school. When I first went back playing I had forgotten a lot of the theory, so I didn't use it anymore.
sparks,
In relation to the Roy Lopez, I guess I had put both the Spanish and Italian openings In a bracket as beginner openings and did not give them a fair look. When my kids started to play in school, I though them the Italian as a way to quickly develop pieces, and as it is so similar to the Spanish, I Perhaps was too quick to write them of as a possibility.
I do know the success of the two Juniors from Spain the year before last when they dominated the Lcu junior scene by both playing the Roy Lopez opened a lot of eye, as the younger juniors did not know how to first play against it. it forced them to learn how to counter it - I think with the Berlin deference, but I'm not sure and showed how effective it could be.

I suppose I am looking to try make a jump to circa 1500 over the next couple of years, with something solid, that regular club players won't tear apart, and which will hopefully take them off book or out of their comfort zone early on. I am thinking of D4 as so many players use E4, whilst I am probably adverse to playing a gambit line.

cdeb

Chessrookie wrote: »

whilst I am probably adverse to playing a gambit line.

Gambit lines are worth a try if you want to get people out of book. A player who plays e5 in response to 1. e4 will probably know most about the Ruy Lopez or Giuco Piano lines; they might have a basic line against the King's Gambit, the Danish or the Evans, and those are lines where black (and white, granted!) can go dramatically wrong with just one or two inaccurate moves. They can be good fun too.

Sam Collins' "1. e4 repertoire" is good; think it's in book as well as DVD format. Gives a broad grounding in e4 openings, with the idea that he tries to set out a repertoire which is as similar across the board as possible (so the c3 Sicilian has a similar pawn structure to the Panov-Botvinnik against the Caro-Kann). Some would criticise that approach (need experience in lots of structures, not just one), but if your goal is to get to 1500, it's a good investment, I think. I'm sure there's similar for 1. d4.

RQ_ennis_chess

If you are a 1200-1300 player chessrookie then you should probably follow Mels advice and play an open tactical game, 1e4 and pick one from the Vienna, Scotch, Italian gambit. As black you can play the sicilian but to be honest unless you find you are consistently getting bad positions from the opening in your games you should probably not spend too much time in the opening but focus on studying tactics and good quality annotated games.

mikhail

Mel O Cinneide wrote: »

Although I've played the English for a long time, I wouldn't recommend it to junior/intermediate players. The most valuable style of chess to learn initially is direct, forthright play with clear plans and plenty of tactics. Less direct systems like the English/Catalan etc. tend to lead to subtle positions that are fiddly and hard to play. Systems like the Colle are relatively easy to learn, but they are rather limited and there's so much to chess that it's a pity to see developing players playing them in every game.

I reckon this is sound advice for anyone below expert level.

Mel O Cinneide

@ChessRookie: I think aiming for 1500 makes sense -- it's good to target one category higher from where you are now. I think 1. d4 is a fine choice, and actually the Colle is absolutely fine to play too. It's more for an up-and-coming junior that I'd suggest a richer opening choice. If you want to try 1.e4, Sam Collins dvd as proposed above is a good choice to give you a complete repertoire. And I'll contradict myself here: it's often best to get advice from players just a grade higher than you are (about 200 rating points), as they usually understand best where you're coming from. Good luck with your plan!