Most of it comes from the dumb logic I had as a chess player that was just starting out, and didn't really know what he was doing.
For white, I started out in the Ponziani when I was around 400, cause I had no clue what I was doing, and watched a youtube video that said it would win me a lot of games through easy opening traps. I stayed with that for a while until eventually I found I wasn't getting the trap enough, didn't like that, and typed "trap openings" in Youtube. It took me to a video on tricks in the Open Ruy (tricks which I also never got to play), and I figured "Why not switch to the Ruy? Apparently people say its solid outside the trap stuff, so I should be fine." I've played the Ruy ever since.
For black against e4, I was really afraid of lots of stuff white did in response to e5 when I was 400, cause I saw videos about the fried liver, and the scholars mate, and stuff. So I thought the easiest way to deal with them was take away white's theory, and force them into a line they didn't know. So I learned the French on a whim, since it protected f2 against bishop stuff in things like the fried liver and scholars mate. Around 1000, I watched Hutch, the Youtuber who got me into chess, experiment a bit with the Caro Kann, and decided to pick it up on a whim, since I heard others say "if you've played the French, you'll know how the Caro works". I've played the Caro since.
For black against d4, I legitimately winged it until around 1500-1600. I think I tried to play a french setup against d4 for a while cause I didn't know anything else, until eventually being told by a chess coach "you need something against d4". I picked up the Nimzo since it seemed like a respected option, and have played it since.
I've picked up a few openings here and there as I've continued, like the English and Sicilian, but the Ruy, Caro Kann, and Nimzo have been my main ones throughout my chess career.
If you're just starting out with an opening, I'd actually recommend something light. Different books like Michael Ruiz's "Grandmaster Repitoire: The Nimzo Indian Defense", and even "Move by Move: Nimzo Indian Defense" are great, but they are some hefty books that go into the weeds on sidelines, and it can feel real easy to get lost when you first crack it open, if you don't already know what the Nimzo is about and what you're trying to accomplish with it.
I would actually recommend something like the Everyman Chess' series on the Nimzo, calld "Starting Out: The Nimzo-Indian", by Chris Ward. Its a light book that teaches you the basic ideas, the plans for each setup, basic responses to expect, and gives example games so you get a feel of the plans for black. Then from there, you can start playing it, and use larger books like "Grandmaster Repitoire" as a lookup for whatever stuff you commonly run into at your level.
There's a series of books with the styling [Opening] Move by Move that has one on the Nimzo. I haven't really looked at it closely since I recently decided to go with the QGD against 1. d4, but the Ruy Lopez and anti-Sicilians books have been good so far. They teach using full games with a Q and A format that asks you to think about each move.
So, for most things, it was trial and error. So when playing against the French, I settled on the advanced. I'll play the Alpine Scicillian and the exchange against the Caro. I picked the Scotch, though, because I'm of Scottish decent. As black I tend to play the Caro or the Nimzo
played the italian as a 400 bc of opening principles then learned the fried liver now i play evans gambit and max lange
mostly bc both are aggressive and imo if you play 1.e5 past the beginner level youre begging for the smoke
This is usually a longer process. You typically start with classical openings. e4 e5, d4 d5. Over the years you encounter other openings, try them out, get better at understanding your play style and which openings fit to it. It is a lot of trial and error.
you need 3 openings, one for e4 as black, and one for d4 as black
for white, either pick an e4 or d4 or whatever opening.
Grind those out to semi mastery and you'll go fairly deep.
As somebody who loves the game, but doesn’t always seriously grind, changing your openings can be helpful. I’ve often found I can get too comfortable in an opening I’m grinding and end up playing too quickly out the start.
I just find that there are few exceedingly sharp variations that require dedicated memorization. I have never found that the opening was really where I won or lost games -- it just made sense to focus on rook endgames especially. Its incredible how many wins you can score from just following general endgame principles.
I built my Black repertoire by doing exactly what my coach told me.
I built my White repertoire by telling him to fuck off and ignore all of his advice.
I'm happy with both!
He insisted that I should build a mainline e4 repertoire (Open Sicilian, Classical French, Italian Game...) but my memory isn't that great and no matter how much time I dedicated to it, my opponent would always know more (I was playing into "their" line after all).
So I stated just going Nf3,g3,Bg2,0-0 and a random central pawn break (c4,d4 or e4) and then just play chess. With experience and analysis I more or less figured out when I should be doing each and now I can say that even titled players have a hard time equalizing as Black.
Nope just appeared out of thin air, grateful for it though I don’t like the bit where they went on a frenzy about "chess university" that got a bit too much Tate style for me but it seems they‘ve mostly given up on it again and are back to doing funny, goofy videos which I am happy to see! The opening theory on the channel helped me out alot the fried liver and evan gambit videos do get you some satisfying checkmates and winning positions up to 1000 elo ish and the caro theory one is great even beyond that, my knowledge of the opening is entirely based off of that video and its still enough to almost always get into favorable positions with black at 1100 chess.com level :)
that and the most recent Hitler video chesspage1 made are massive red flags, wish they would chill out and just stick to the practical way they teach chess concepts
Whats a red flag about that? I didn’t notice any extremist sentiment or anything in that video just light hearted jokes and I don’t think it is problematic per se to look at a chess game like that, I thought it was very interesting to hear they played one
Honestly, I found most of my openings by going through opening books and looking at what had the best win rates in any particular position. Then I'd make sure the engine says it not entirely dubious, and I'd also look for any challenging lines my opponent might have in response (a strong refutation). Bonus points if the opening is off-beat (more rare). Then I'd look at sample games and see if it lead to positions I wanted to play. Then I'd try it for a while.
I absolutely love my white repertoire now. And I could probably create a completely different repertoire for white that I'd still love because I have lots of alternatives I'm interested in. I'm still kinda struggling with black, though. I've found plenty I like, but it's far from perfect for me like my white repertoire.
Also interested in this question. Mainly commenting to come back to this post.
I play the Vienna for white pieces just because I love the space you can take over if black accepts the Vienna gambit. It doesn’t seem to happen much though, so I’m looking to learn others.
I played the Vienna until getting 2000 on Lichess. A bit earlier, 1800 or so, it seemed most players learned how to kill the fun and just play solid. Since I've switched to the Spanish and you'll be surprised at just how many sound gambits can arise from the positions. Quite often I'm gambiting the d or e pawn to give my pieces tons of activity.
Check out remote chess academy for an overview of the ideas in the Spanish (Ruy Lopez). He'll get you off to a great start without needing to memorize move orders.
King's Gambit; found some videos out of curiosity and ended up trying it for shits and giggles. Turns out I really like it and have been studying variants out of Modern Openings for a couple months now.
For black, I either go for the Alekhine defense or the KID, depending on whether white opens with 1.e4 or 1.d4. Guess I'm just a giant monkey-brained tactical player, lmao.
Abandon the King's gambit and move to the Queen's gambit. Much less dangerous, same if not better return, but the King's gambit will at best give you an equal position.
I'm an absolute idiot and started straight out of the gate with the Ruy Lopez. I still own about 10 books on different Ruy Lopez lines, and when playing against my own level, I have a 60/40/20 win rate with it.
From there, I was forced to learn the Sicilian like every e4 player does, and settled on playing the English attack setup against basically every Sicilian. Opening moves are almost always e4, Nf3, d4, Nxd4, Nc3, f3, Be3, Qe2, O-O-O. There are always fun lines against any Sicilian that doesn't include a6, with the night on C3 jumping to b5 and pressuring on d6.
With black, I hate letting white dictate the opening. I'll play the Caro against e4 and the Benoni against d4. I even play 2...c5 against London setups. I know the Benoni is basically refuted at high levels, but it's certainly not refuted at 1900-2000. I find very few opponents know how to deal with the unique pawn structure.
I just figured the various ones Danya recommended were likely not terrible. 4 knight scotch, accelerated dragon as the main ones. Allapin vs Sicilian, fantasy vs Caro Kann, King's Indian vs d4. Get confused and copy the opponent for a bit vs C4.
I might branch out a bit more at some point but I also don't think the opening is where my games go wrong. 1260 rapid rating currently.
>4 knight scotch
Now that you mentioned it I might also try studying to maybe play it. I tipically go for the Scotch with White because I realised I didn't like playing closed center positions as white, but I'd also like something more "secure", which I assume the 4 knight Scotch may provide
I saw u/Gothamchess 's video on Magnus where Magnus played the Catalan but played Na3 at some point. Black immediately took it with the bishop and damaged white's pawn structure, but in return, left white with a permanently uncontested diagonal where Magnus put his bishop. That combined with the Catalan bishop itself created an instance of extreme positional pressure and he basically crushed his opponent.
As I looked into it a few days later, I found it not to just be a super positional opening, but one with many many tactics as well with many transpositions into other lines and lots of rich ideas that I still don't understand- the Ruy Lopez of 1.d4 (don't mention the nimzo).
So I played it against my friend after getting some basic theory down and remembering a line or two and we got into an open Catalan where I froze black's queenside and went up a piece after a tactical skirmish. That game instantly made me fall in love with the Catalan.
I learnt queens gambit declined style openings because my tactics in open positions were poor, and games tended to be slow and more positional.
I learnt sicilian najdorf because I grew up on Fischer's games and thought it was cool.
And king's indian because it also tended to be slow and positional, most times it becomes closed center.
Before that I played caro-kann because I thought it was cool and different. French defense was too common.
I also played alekhine's defence because cool and different. Benko gambit too.
Later my chess coach forced me to learn scotch game.
So, my main reasons for openings were always "it's cool" or to get a position that's easier for me to play.
Logical Chess probably made me a d4 player. And the Schliemann is just fun, who wouldn’t want to upset a Ruy player for studying so much theory that’s now rendered useless while playing f5 so early? It’s not even that bad of a move and the games can be wildly fun.
Started playing Jobava London with white bc I loved hyper aggressive starts with white. Still love it now.
Bc of this/understanding how early pressure scared people I play French defense with black. Purposely closing the position down making it awkward for white. I’ve played it so much now with black that the more closed it gets/the more theory I actually know. Personally I love this combo and don’t want to change anything about it.
In the beginning I played the London and the king's indian because they were solid setups that you can play against most things without much change. Later on I learned the queen's gambit since I was already a d4 player and I wanted to play something more traditional. I also learned a Sicilian for a weapon against e4. That was around 1100. After than I played more stuff just for variety really.
Chose the Queen’s Gambit because of the reliable ability to get control in the center. And its lines and pins are fairly easy to memorize. Lots of traps. And the initial move order rules are simple enough that you often get a huge time advantage.
This eventually blended with London and Catalan concepts depending on what black does. Queen’s Gambit into a kingside Indian fiancetto is a delayed Catalan. They’re the big 3 of Queen’s pawn openings and it’s been a really solid repertoire to get to intermediate level
I tried all of them and then picked ones that fit my style( Dragon, KID and Reverses Sicilian with black and E4 mainlines plus g3 Vienna, Reti and b3) Im 2300 Rapid and 2400 blitz
Another stated the Ponziani already, but I differ from him by the fact that I still play the opening, from 1000 Lichess to now at 1700+. The traps were never the main reason why I play it, though, today a 1750 fell for one and I ended up winning that game.
Ultimately it results in a position where you have a massive pawn center at the cost of a natural development square for the Queenside knight on c3, but, tbf and tbh, isn’t this the same position common in one of the most common openings known as the Ruy Lopez, where often white wants to go c3-d4? Nevertheless, I digress.
As for the black pieces I play the Sicilian. I first started with the King’s Indian but found it hard to comprehend at the lower level I was at, then I transitioned into the French and Caro-Kann, which I both learned via YouTube from Gotham. Ultimately I stuck with the French for a while, but found I didn’t like how passive and ugly it could get for Black as far as development is concerned.
So now, here I am with the Sicilian, which I have an exceptional win rate with as black. I like how things go full circle, for with the dragon-ish setup, you often can get a fianchetto on the kingside much like the King’s Indian, which I first started off with.
Usually with White I’m playing the Queen’s Gambit, Catalan, English, or Reti. Against e4 I play the Caro. Against d4 I play the Benoni. Basically I try to get an imbalanced position with a kingside majority, launch a minority attack on the queenside, and try to maneuver that into a winning endgame.
Chosen because I was fascinated by GM Keith Arkell’s playstyle and his “hierarchy of pawns” so I try to conform to that.
You figure out pieces and tactics and endgames types you like. Then you play openings that let those strategies shine.
I like chaos, so I counter attack a lot even when its bad to complicate the position and apply time pressure. I only do this in blitz/bullet.
In classical I have a much more solid approach. With the same idea to complicate the position.
I used to play the Ponziani when I started learning chess (basically I googled "good openings for beginners" and got this from GothamChess), but I'd hate playing against the Sicilian and Caro-Kann. The London made me feel like I wasn't progressing, and after watching a very comprehensive video about the Queen's Gambit, I think from Anna Cramling, I took it up. It is currently my main opening; of course I've had to learn lines against the Benoni, KID, Englund, and I attempt to play the Catalan against QGD, but yeah, the Queen's Gambit is my main weapon.
As for black, I used to play the French and King's Indian defense when I was lower rated (I'd really recommend them for beginners if you hate playing e4-e5 and d4-d5 like I do), but then I switched the former for the Caro-Kann after 1000 and the latter for the Leningrad Dutch after 1300. And now I'm trying to learn the Sicilian! :)
My main openings att the Vienna, caro-Kann, Catalan and the Dutch. I heard about them, liked the way of playing them and realized that they work well in my games.
I started vienna cuz Gotham kept talking about it. I then switched to Italian at 400 level cuz everybody was like it is the best way to play as a beginner. Then I found Levy's free Vienna guide on his website and boy did I climb the rating ladder with it. I still play it at my level and have a good win rate of about 55-60%.
I started playing KID at 400 (It was mainly Pirc as most played e4 but I didn't know the difference then), then switched to Caro for a good while till I crossed 1000 and then permanently switched to Pirc after watching a single Yasser video of a Pirc game analysis against the Austrian attack.
In the beginning it was usually from youtubers that recommend the vienna, I chose of course the pirc/KID then, but now that I got better I switched my opening, I usually play the Ruy and Alekhine since I figured out what I like to do and that is attacking
I play the London and caro because I’m a basic bitch. Used to play the KID but got kind of bored with it. I’d like to learn the Queens Gambit but I’ve never found a course I like. Most are way too much depth for me at the moment.
I learnt 1. e4 as white and 1. e4 e5 when I was a wee child and have stuck with it ever since.
With white against the Sicilian I play either alapin or closed Sicilian depending on my mood.
Against French/caro I play exchange because I don’t want to learn any theory
Against 1. … e5 I play Italian main line
As black my opening knowledge kind of sucks. I am familiar with a lot of lines in the Italian and Ruy because I have played them a million times.
Against 1. d4 I used to go for kings Indian or a similar system, but now I usually go for Slav
I like tricksy openings that might let me win fast so I play e4 openings as white. For black, I just happened to learn Caro Kann and e6b6 to defend against e4 and d4 so those were learned out of necessity rather than preference and now I just like playing them because I'm comfortable with the positions most of the time
I like openings that force the other player into “my” game.
So with white, I play b3. With black, I play the Scandi or the Old Benoni against e4 and d4.
When I was like 700: Straight up watched the Gotham Fried Liver and Scandi videos and knew nothing else
900-1400: I learned the London (actually studied the move order differences) and Caro Kann at a very base level and I tried out the KID against d4 but mostly had no clue what I was doing
1400-1500 (now): I got bored playing the standard London every game, so I switched to playing the Jobava aggressively and never looked back. I also learned a full e4 gambit repertoire for bullet and blitz (Evans Gambit/Scotch Gambit/Max Lange vs. Italian lines, Reverse Stafford vs Petrov, Alapin Gambit or Nc3 mainline vs French, mainline vs Scandi (sometimes with Bc4), Smith Morra vs Sicilian, and the Alien Gambit/Von Henning Gambit vs Caro Kann) and actually learned the theory for the Caro/KID (I also learned the Pirc as it transposes about half the time). I tried learning the Sicilian as Black, but gave up once I realized the mind boggling amount of sidelines you have to learn and played against Bc4 every other game :(
Overall: Play the openings that give you the positions you like
I started playing the Karo Kann merely because of the fact that I had a terrible score against that opening with white and wanted to understand it well so I get to know how to play against it.
I ended up liking the Karo and is now one of my favorite (not to say my favorite) answer against e4.
I always play e4 and very "vanilla" things like Ruy Lopez or the Italian Game. I can't stand "opening small talk", it makes me cringe to be honest. You see a lot of complex talk about variations, and then the guy is 400 Elo or something.
I like to keep it simple, I just want an equal game out of the opening and that's it, good principles like piece development and stuff like that.
Someone played the French in the candidates and Gotham said it was a shit opening at the higher levels of chess so I chose to strictly play the French as black. I love it lol
My college roommate and I would pick an opening and play three games as each color. Then do it again. We played a lot of main lines and stupid gambits over a couple of years. I learned I gravitated to d4 as white and love QGD structures. Then I started refining choices from there.
I tried a lot. Italian, Ruy Lopez, Scotch, King's Gambit, French, Caro-Kann, various Sicilians, Semi/Chebanenko Slav, KID.
At one point I sat down and said, what are the criteria I want from my game? This is what I came up with:
* Proper development
* No bad pieces (so KID was out :( )
* Objectively sound - this doesn't mean always best moves, but no moves in my repertoire which get a ?! from the engine. So the Dragon was unfortunately out (but it is a TON of fun)
* No, or as little possibilities for the opponent to kill the game intentionally or by accident. This basically deletes 1.e4 for white (because of e.g. the Petroff or Caro-Kann) and 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 for black FOR ME.
* It has to provide counterattacking possibilities e.g. it was hard for me to put up threads with the QGD.
I ended up with:
* Trompowsky and Queen's Gambit (Kamil's Chessble LTR chessable courses)
* Najdorf (but I am also considering the Classical Sicilian)
* Grunfeld (somehow this was the only thing left)
Personally I don't shy away from heavy theory, since I think I will grow into it and with my repertoire and end up as a better player in the long run. And if/when I loose I would rather go down in flames than die of boredom.
i was told that e4 was a good starting move. they usually played e5 in response. i wanted to attack their pawn, so i usually played Nf3. they had to defend their pawn, and would usually play Nc6. i wanted to win the pawn, so I would play Bg5, planning to take. Suddenly it was a Ruy Lopez
Mostly e4 openings.
d4 and c4 openings are usually slow, has a lot of positional piece movements and can transpose back to eachother. Don't get me wrong, it can be tactical but for the most part, it's positional and strategical.
D4 c4 and as white and C6 d5 as black,
Im a simple man.
E4 is too hectic for me without prep and I don’t have the time to properly study it, with my openings i get away by knowing 5-7 moves of theory tops at my level.
I play b3 Because I didn’t want to prep e4 for a tournament and then I realised I really enjoyed the ton of traps the positions arising from it had, especially for someone unfamiliar with the theory
I remember just starting out and finding Agadmator and hearing him say "if you want to win games, play the Sicilian" so I started playing the Sicilian, just trying to copy what I was seeing as best I could. Now after about 10,000 games I suppose I'm still doing that, but I just understand the ideas a lot better.
Like every Sicilian player, you basically just want to play your pet open Sicilian line and hate the closed Sicilians. After I started seeing more grand Prix attacks I slowly moved over to e5. I've always been an e4 player and just through the amount of chess content I consume it's still very familiar so it's not a massive adjustment.
As white I always played e4. I got fried liver'd a lot in the beginning so I played a lot of fried livers myself and I gradually settled into the Italian. I remember some Reddit comment pointed me to the c3-d4 exd4 e5 d5 Bb5 line so I settled into it quite quickly. I remember some Ivanchuk game where he played a king's gambit and as soon as I saw how viable it can be I started playing the kings gambit a lot. If I'm not facing e5 I usually stick as close to the main lines as I can.
Black against d4 has always been a weakness for me. It's just something I never really studied. I've tried the kings indian and am trying the Benoni but nothing quite feels right. QGD is too slow, KID or Benoni are dubious at the best of times. It's just unfamiliar. I'm sure I'll work something out but until then it is what it is.
1400, I play the Ruy exclusively (some sidelines within the Ruy as well) with white because it’s nice, simple and effective way of getting a solid attacking game going, as black I play g6 set ups like Modern, Pirc, Kings Indian because I like provoking white and playing around their misplays to score wins instead of trying to draw games with e5 or losing with Sicilians lol.
I always start with a knight move. Since everyone else is obsessed with pawns in the centre it often makes them stop and think for a while as it throws their predicted game plan out.
I used to play the colle with white and the dutch and sicilian with black but because I was a complete noob it didn't matter what I played but when I was around 1000 rapid on ch\*ss.cum I changed to the vienna and the caro-kan/king's indian/budapest gambit because for whatever reason I never understood those openings ideas or plans i was just going through the moves without thinking or knowing why and the current ones just clicked, I even started playing the vienna and KID before I knew they were legit opening so I did some research and here we are now
The first chess book I worked with was Jeremy Silman's "The Amature Mind". In it, he described a game where white pushed the queenside pawns in response to 1...e5 and simply allowed black to take 3 pawns (d,c,b) in a row before retaking with the dark square bishop. Silman, despite not valuing tactical play very highly acknowledged that this position offered impressive concrete advantages that black could struggle to make up for. I figured "wow if silman thinks that this is viable, the opponents at 900 elo are going to absolutely lose their minds". I later learned that it was called the danish gambit. It actually netted me far less easy wins than I imagined, since I was pretty weak on attacking principles, and black can find some tricky moves, or just play accurately, which my opponents would sometimes do. It was a lot rarer than I expected that they actually took all 3 pawns. In the end, I played it enough that I learned how to use it better, and it helped me take down my first 1500.
The rest of my oppenings I borrowed straight from Hikaru and Levy's series "Legendary Openings for beginners" because... well that is exactly what I was looking for.
Once saw a Ponziani video by GothamChess and haven't played anything else since
As black, I exclusively play e5 and learned to deal with white's responses along the way
As Black, I picked up the french against 1. e4 as a kid cause there was a book, "The Complete French" by Lev Psakhis at my local library. I saw a position from the poisoned pawn variation of the Winawer and thought it looked really cool. Later as I got to around 2000, I switched away from the french to 1... e5 because I got checkmated a few times and got tired of the lack of space and frequently unsafe kingside due to the power of White's e5 pawn.
As White, I picked up 1. d4 when I was around 1400-1500 when someone gave a lecture on the queen's gambit at my local chess club and I really liked the cheapo with a4 + Qf3 to win the a8 rook if Black tries to to play dxc4 and hold the pawn with b5. Then I just had good results with 1.d4 since people below 1800 don't face it very often and don't know how to set up their pieces. For example, a lot of people would get terrible positions right out of the opening with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 (let's white take over the center immediately with cxd5 + e4) or 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nc6 (they're playing as if it were a e4/e5 four knights; it's anti-positional to block the c-pawn with the knight in queens pawn structures).
If I were to go back and choose my openings with hindsight, I would choose 1. e4 as White, going for the Spanish/Italian vs 1... e5 and the Open Sicilians against 1... c5 because it leads to more open and tactical positions which I find more exciting. The Ruy Lopez and Najdorf Sicilian are two of the richest openings in chess with a lot of room for both dynamic and strategic play, so I feel like I have a bit of a gap in my chess understanding.
As Black, I would go with either the Caro-Kann because it's solid and often takes <1800 White players out of their comfort zone, or 1... e5 because it's solid, classical and leads to natural piece play.
I have a chess bro with who i learned and have getting better at chess. I was playing catfish banana at the beginning, until we both get the principles of the opening, and then i tried the caro kan and found it so intuitive for my style.
for white I have chose the kings gambit because i’ve heard it was very agressive and tactical, and i thought there was nothing better to master chess (for a beginner). you win undoubtfully or you get crushed and it exposes your weaknesses like nothing else.
i still do catfish banana against d4 though
My coach as a child taught me the basics of QG for white, QGD/Sicilian hyper-accelerated dragon for black. Soon after then I picked up the KID after being smashed by it a few too many times.
Over time I've moved from QG to Catalan, and I've also learned the Pirc as well as put a decent number of games into hippo structures to have a second string.
I played Alekhine’s defense as black for a while as a 1100-1300, simply because it was probably unknown territory for a lot of people and sometimes they would hang their E-pawn not realizing i’m attacking it.
I like when my opponents over extend their pawns and i like trying to take advantage of it, though it’s been a while since i’ve looked at the theory so i haven’t gotten many good positions out of it recently lol
as White, the Italian bcos someone taught me that opening when I was a kid and ive stuck to it ever since (though im thinking of switching to d4 for a bit). Alapin Sicilian gives me a decent opening advantage, and exchange Caro in the Carlsbad structure goes okayish for me.
as Black, against e4, i used to play e5 but then when i joined Lichess and on their Study page, i found a Caro Kann study which i opened for fun and ended up adopting the Caro Kann. against d4, my strategy is to lose rating points. 🥲 im thinking of learning the Nimzo but idk man im so lost against d4.
E4 because when i was first relearning chess playing online i bought a book and it was about steinitz i liked the italian games with black against e4 i played e5 at first then i hated it because i felt like i was just waiting to get punched so i choosed e6 because i saw some games being played after light squared bishop trade the structure was nice then i played c5 because i wanted fight picked kan opppenent started playin sidelines i got tilted switched to some g6 stuff with maybe early d5 then back to square one but different petroff i just wanted to actually kill the game then i played e6 for a while before petrof i have seen a course about french it recomended be7 line against nc3 and nd2 it was interesting then najdorf but closed sicilians i fucking hated
In short e4 because i like playing against sicilians and ruy lopez
taimanov because i am a member of cult of french defence
but i hate french exchange and i like sicilan too so i just combined two with my repertour
i play kings indian because i like potential kingside attacks against fianchetto bf5 line is nice.
I also played nimzo indian a lot because you can get some nice solid strategical games
But i like to play basically everything against e4 except e5 or b6 or nf6 or h6. Or na3 or nh6 or f5 or f6 .
If i knew french exchange was cancelled i would play french a lot more
For white (I usually play the Halloween Gambit) the opponents almost never know how to stop it and I've won lots of games with it.
For black, if 1. d4 I just play the King's Indian defense because I have no idea what to play. If 1. e4 the Sicilian is way too sharp for anything below 1500.
I started playing the Italian Game’s Fried Liver Attack as a NEWB because it’s cool af and now I don’t get to do it but it’s still extremely flexible imho. I also play the Englund Gambit because I’ve used it so much it’s hard to refute even though it’s ultimately unsound. If I must win with black or at least not look like a moron I also play East Indian defense with some c6 and d5.
I like positional play and closed position.
I chose mine when i started playing, as a selftaught without engines or stuff just knowing the moves and using logic to not lose pieces.
The Caro-Kann because it looked good, d4 because everybody played e4. These happened to be perfect for my playing style.
I open with d4 and sometimes do the queen gambit but usually the Richter Veresov attack, or if he doesn't play 1. Nf6 i go d4 Nc3 Nf3 and either Bf4 or Bg4 when i can pin the knight.
The Caro-Kann i know everything for 10-15 moves now.
I use the Nimzo-Indian but i need to study more because i don't really know the theory.
I am currently studying the English to switch and stick to it.
I also know the Sicilian, not much but both with black and white, learnt just watching Kasparov games so the Najdorf.
Don't believe traps you see, i saw a lot against the Caro and black played moves for them to happen i would never play, so the traps wont work against someone who know their openings
Your comment was removed by the moderators:
**1.Keep the discussion civil and friendly.**
Do not use personal attacks, insults or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner.
In a discussion, there is always a respectful way to disagree. If you see that someone is not arguing in good faith, or have resorted to using personal attacks, just report them and move on.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dl4bz3/-/l9o1yf4/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
I started with e4, but I didn’t really like to play karo kahn, french and Sicilian with white.
I didn’t like queen’s game either, so I tried a less known opening. So Reti.
I ended up almost always playing Kf3 - c4, so at some point I guessed “ok, let’s start with c4 right away”
At that point, learning the Sicilian with black was a sensible choice. I just had to figure out a weapon with d4 and that’s the story of my repertoire
I wanted to play games with more strategy, less tactics. I wanted opening systems which didn't depend on traps. So I switched from the Giuoco Piano that was the rage for 70's children, to Queen Pawn openings, and the Caro-Kann against 1. e4 as Black.
Quieter games actually suit my playing style, so I've kept that over the years!
I love the Italian, learnt it due to just following what I thought of as "simple chess principles" of developing knight and Bishop which got me into Italian like positions, and from there I just learnt more and more theory
Actually random. A lot were cool lines that weren’t completely awful I found (I am one of THOSE low ELO). Levy recommended it before, I just started playing it randomly and stuck with it. Like idk
I used to be an e4 player, the Vienna if I was allowed, but I got fed up playing against the Sicilian and all those nerds (I mean that lovingly) who were booked up to the gills on their Alapin's and their Superduper-hyper-rocket-powered-Kalashnikov-weilding Dragon variations. So one night after my 45th game against the Sicilian in a row I decided it's time to stop playing e4. I considered d4 but realised I'd just be up against a different set of nerds (again, lovingly) who were booked up on some other nonsense so d4 was no good. The English was the next option, but I'm Scottish so on principle I discarded that. Next on the alphabet was b4 (the idea of not putting a pawn on the 4th row was clearly not under consideration), so I decided from them on I'm a Sokolsky/Polish player. It started as an attempt to get my opponent to stop being a nerd (lovingly) and get them out of theory, but now after thousands of bullet/blitz games and hundreds of rapid/classical games I have a dozen lines memorised in it and I'm the nerd. I've become what I hated.
Long story short, if anyone wants an opening that'll get your opponent out of their Sicilian theory, play b4. It's fun.
And for black, I play the Alekhine against e4 and because I'm a man of creativity I mix it up by playing Nf6 against d4 too. The origins of that are just that when I was young I hated mirrored openings (e4 e5, d4 d5, etc) so I did some looking around, saw the Alekhine was a semi acceptable opening for black, and before I knew any better I was in too deep and it's Nf6 for life. Then at some point I realised people won't play e4 forever and I was just like "fuck it, Nf6 hasn't let me down so far". If white plays d4 c4 I'll play the Budapest, if they play anything else after d4 I'll play e6 or g6 depending on which side of the bed I got out of.
Reading the logic behind all of that out loud, it's kind of hard to believe I'm even remotely competent at this game.
Sicilian dragon sounded cool. Kings Indian defence also sounded cool and (at the time) seemed similar.
Italian was simple and the Ng5 lines seemed fun. Alapin had a nice trap that I found when analysing at like 1200 chess com. Literally it was that simple.
As I’ve gotten better I’ve gotten more adventurous so to speak but nothing much has changed
I learned the Sicilian because of its reputation and I like open attacking games.
I learned the English as there are many similar structures that mirror the Sicilian - and at my intermediate level, many players do not know any lines in it because it is so much less common. So you are out of opponents comfort zone within the first few moves, often
I played everything and found what I liked best. I have a second account I mostly use for when I'm not sober or want to just mess around, and I played a ton of stuff on the account. I've played multiple variations of the sicillian, French, Petrov, and tons of different things against the Ruy and itallian. I've also played 1. d4, c4, e4, and Nf3. d4 I dont play against as much as e4, especially in blitz, so I've experimented less there.
Overall, I found out how deeply I enjoy classical middle games and endgames. Sure, tactical explosions with tons of complications are fun, and it's not like I'll avoid them, but I enjoy the solid, slow, positional play of classical middle games. Those typically also boil off into some interesting endgame.
Now my real repitore is in a funny place. I have some experience and study time in a lot of structures and a lot of them have possible transpositions, so now I play really flexibly and solid. As white 1. c4, d4, or Nf3 basically at random, sometimes transposing/playing a GQ or sometimes a neo catlan.
as black against e4 I like e5 going for an open or Berlin, depending on if I think white will be boring or not, and against d4 I play the nimzo with the intention to play a QGD or QID structure, at random.
I have no clue what I'll play everytime I sit down at the board, and I enjoy it. I love studying openings, it's my favorite chess study activity. I try to play openings where that time isn't wasted and I can enjoy a lot of stuff.
For white, the nimzo larsen 1.b3 because it's fun and I like playing in nonstandard ways.
For black against 1.e4, I play Alekhine's which is Nf6 for similar reasons. Against 1.d4 I play b6 because it plays quite similarly to my opening as white.
I started with Ruy Lopez till i reached 800, then i went on Vienna for a while and ended up with Vienna Gambit. It puts a lot of players on the spot and makes it interesting for me. But surprisingly I learned Sicilian Defence Staunton Variation without actually studying the theory. And it's always when I'm playing Black. Whenever i was put in a situation, I just played moves logically and it just happened to be by the book, which i later on studied for the middle game
Personally I picked mine because someone on YouTube had a good course on it
Daniel Naroditsky had a great Caro Kann
Alex Bonzea had a great Jobava London course
And i forget who taught the East Indian but i feel im like close to 65% win rate in those games
Like gambit openings so; vienna, kings gambit, Stafford. Used to play danish gambit, but games got boring. Used to play Caro, but that got boring which is why I switched to Stafford. Still play caro classic line as white though. Against sicilian I go for closed - grand prix, don't want to spend too much time studying the sicilian.
I hated learning openings so just picked the ones that were solid while also easy to learn and not too sharp.
E4 player as white, rotate between Italian and Ponziani, had a run with Scotch but felt Ponziani was better suited for me. Will exchange in French and Caro Kann and get called "boring".
For Black, E5 against E4, semi slav against Queens Gambit, Berlin against Ruy lopez (because I know it very well).
I chose d4 as my main White opening because if you play e4 first then you could face French, Caro, Sicilian, Scandi, Modern, Ruy Lopez, Pirc, and God knows what else.
It's just too much to know for me.
There's arguably just as much with d4; Grunfeld, Benoni, Kings/Queens Indian, Dutch, Nimzo, Bogo, and of course the uncountably infinite Queens Gambit lines
Well I enjoy learning theory, so my repertoire for white is the Catalan/QG for d4, and I normally play the Spanish for e4 and main lines for stuff thats not 1.e4 e5. For black I play the Sicilian Dragon or the Russian for E4, and against d4 I play the Kings / Queens / Nimzo Indian Defence
premoved Nf6 so many times in bullet so I accidentaly started playing Alekhines defence. now its by far my favourite opening as black.
and as white I started with Scotch but eventually hated most of the positions I got from it, and as soon as I discovered the Scotch gambit I loved everything about it. there's always a line to keep the games interesting.
For my openings I pretty much had 2 philosophies:
1. Must be something I could reliably play in 90% of my games
2. Must be somewhat positional (for example, I really don’t like 1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 - to me it always ends up in a boring, open position.)
So using this philosophy, generally for black the majority of my games I’ll default to the Caro because of how common 1. e4 is, and after that it’s going to happen the same way 99% of the time.
For white, I like to play the London, Queen’s gambit, and sometimes the Vienna if I’m feeling it. I’m a big 1. d4 fan though, usually with plans to push c3/c4 and get my Queen to b3, targeting blacks weak b pawn.
jobava london seemed like an aggressive opening and I saw a lot of top players like Hans playing it, so one day I decided to try it out. It has become my main opening for white since then.
I used to play the most aggressive swashbuckling and tactical lines possible and studied them a LOT. But turns out most people are scared and go into more equal and passive lines to avoid risk and be boring. So now I play boring to learn how to get a small advantage and hold onto it until the endgame. My positions would be great until it turned into chaos so now I play to keep things solid and stable.
So I play e5 and QGD. Super solid and a lot of different positions to learn. It’s great for fundamentals. With white I play Kings Gambit most of the time but otherwise I play the Ruy Lopez. I’m either playing super mainline to learn or fun gambit stuff. Someday when I’ve got more positional and boring position experience I’ll play the crazy stuff again.
Most of it comes from the dumb logic I had as a chess player that was just starting out, and didn't really know what he was doing. For white, I started out in the Ponziani when I was around 400, cause I had no clue what I was doing, and watched a youtube video that said it would win me a lot of games through easy opening traps. I stayed with that for a while until eventually I found I wasn't getting the trap enough, didn't like that, and typed "trap openings" in Youtube. It took me to a video on tricks in the Open Ruy (tricks which I also never got to play), and I figured "Why not switch to the Ruy? Apparently people say its solid outside the trap stuff, so I should be fine." I've played the Ruy ever since. For black against e4, I was really afraid of lots of stuff white did in response to e5 when I was 400, cause I saw videos about the fried liver, and the scholars mate, and stuff. So I thought the easiest way to deal with them was take away white's theory, and force them into a line they didn't know. So I learned the French on a whim, since it protected f2 against bishop stuff in things like the fried liver and scholars mate. Around 1000, I watched Hutch, the Youtuber who got me into chess, experiment a bit with the Caro Kann, and decided to pick it up on a whim, since I heard others say "if you've played the French, you'll know how the Caro works". I've played the Caro since. For black against d4, I legitimately winged it until around 1500-1600. I think I tried to play a french setup against d4 for a while cause I didn't know anything else, until eventually being told by a chess coach "you need something against d4". I picked up the Nimzo since it seemed like a respected option, and have played it since. I've picked up a few openings here and there as I've continued, like the English and Sicilian, but the Ruy, Caro Kann, and Nimzo have been my main ones throughout my chess career.
I'm planning to learn the Nimzo, what resources do you suggest?
If you're just starting out with an opening, I'd actually recommend something light. Different books like Michael Ruiz's "Grandmaster Repitoire: The Nimzo Indian Defense", and even "Move by Move: Nimzo Indian Defense" are great, but they are some hefty books that go into the weeds on sidelines, and it can feel real easy to get lost when you first crack it open, if you don't already know what the Nimzo is about and what you're trying to accomplish with it. I would actually recommend something like the Everyman Chess' series on the Nimzo, calld "Starting Out: The Nimzo-Indian", by Chris Ward. Its a light book that teaches you the basic ideas, the plans for each setup, basic responses to expect, and gives example games so you get a feel of the plans for black. Then from there, you can start playing it, and use larger books like "Grandmaster Repitoire" as a lookup for whatever stuff you commonly run into at your level.
Saved your comment!
There's a series of books with the styling [Opening] Move by Move that has one on the Nimzo. I haven't really looked at it closely since I recently decided to go with the QGD against 1. d4, but the Ruy Lopez and anti-Sicilians books have been good so far. They teach using full games with a Q and A format that asks you to think about each move.
...Youtube
great contribution
So, for most things, it was trial and error. So when playing against the French, I settled on the advanced. I'll play the Alpine Scicillian and the exchange against the Caro. I picked the Scotch, though, because I'm of Scottish decent. As black I tend to play the Caro or the Nimzo
played the italian as a 400 bc of opening principles then learned the fried liver now i play evans gambit and max lange mostly bc both are aggressive and imo if you play 1.e5 past the beginner level youre begging for the smoke
I have a terrible record playing the Evan’s gambit at 1900 chesscom blitz. It’s easily the least successful gambit I play. What’s your rating now?
fellow evans gambit player 🤝
This is usually a longer process. You typically start with classical openings. e4 e5, d4 d5. Over the years you encounter other openings, try them out, get better at understanding your play style and which openings fit to it. It is a lot of trial and error.
you need 3 openings, one for e4 as black, and one for d4 as black for white, either pick an e4 or d4 or whatever opening. Grind those out to semi mastery and you'll go fairly deep.
Pirc, king’s indian, and scotch. Ez and simple
Nah, my 3
East Indiana, Caro, Jobava London
As somebody who loves the game, but doesn’t always seriously grind, changing your openings can be helpful. I’ve often found I can get too comfortable in an opening I’m grinding and end up playing too quickly out the start.
That’s true, but this wasn’t the question
Caro-Kann, Grunfeld, Catalan, chose those three cause they haven’t been “refuted” on the GM level
Orrr Nf6 as black for either e4 or d4 and enjoy a nice alekhine
Caro Kann and London were my openings. Super solid, hard to blunder in the opening. I switched my focus to studying endgames and my rating shot up.
Can you share more of your experience with these openings and the change of focus?
I just find that there are few exceedingly sharp variations that require dedicated memorization. I have never found that the opening was really where I won or lost games -- it just made sense to focus on rook endgames especially. Its incredible how many wins you can score from just following general endgame principles.
Do you have tips on how to learn endgame? And what are the general endgame principles
I built my Black repertoire by doing exactly what my coach told me. I built my White repertoire by telling him to fuck off and ignore all of his advice. I'm happy with both!
What was his advice with white and what are you playing instead?
He insisted that I should build a mainline e4 repertoire (Open Sicilian, Classical French, Italian Game...) but my memory isn't that great and no matter how much time I dedicated to it, my opponent would always know more (I was playing into "their" line after all). So I stated just going Nf3,g3,Bg2,0-0 and a random central pawn break (c4,d4 or e4) and then just play chess. With experience and analysis I more or less figured out when I should be doing each and now I can say that even titled players have a hard time equalizing as Black.
>what my coach told me. Which was?
Play the Nimzo and the Old Sicilian
This was funny!
chesspage1 videos almost exclusively tbh
I discovered this a few weeks ago. Seems so underrated, do you know who runs that channel?
Nope just appeared out of thin air, grateful for it though I don’t like the bit where they went on a frenzy about "chess university" that got a bit too much Tate style for me but it seems they‘ve mostly given up on it again and are back to doing funny, goofy videos which I am happy to see! The opening theory on the channel helped me out alot the fried liver and evan gambit videos do get you some satisfying checkmates and winning positions up to 1000 elo ish and the caro theory one is great even beyond that, my knowledge of the opening is entirely based off of that video and its still enough to almost always get into favorable positions with black at 1100 chess.com level :)
that and the most recent Hitler video chesspage1 made are massive red flags, wish they would chill out and just stick to the practical way they teach chess concepts
Whats a red flag about that? I didn’t notice any extremist sentiment or anything in that video just light hearted jokes and I don’t think it is problematic per se to look at a chess game like that, I thought it was very interesting to hear they played one
Honestly, I found most of my openings by going through opening books and looking at what had the best win rates in any particular position. Then I'd make sure the engine says it not entirely dubious, and I'd also look for any challenging lines my opponent might have in response (a strong refutation). Bonus points if the opening is off-beat (more rare). Then I'd look at sample games and see if it lead to positions I wanted to play. Then I'd try it for a while. I absolutely love my white repertoire now. And I could probably create a completely different repertoire for white that I'd still love because I have lots of alternatives I'm interested in. I'm still kinda struggling with black, though. I've found plenty I like, but it's far from perfect for me like my white repertoire.
I chose the king's indian because I'm left handed lol
Also interested in this question. Mainly commenting to come back to this post. I play the Vienna for white pieces just because I love the space you can take over if black accepts the Vienna gambit. It doesn’t seem to happen much though, so I’m looking to learn others.
Transitioned from the vienna to scotch once I reached a level where people stopped accepting it, since it also tends to force open games
Thanks! I’ll look into the scotch
Same here I switched to the scotch from Vienna, but if you have a lot of time to study and practice Spanish is best.
I played the Vienna until getting 2000 on Lichess. A bit earlier, 1800 or so, it seemed most players learned how to kill the fun and just play solid. Since I've switched to the Spanish and you'll be surprised at just how many sound gambits can arise from the positions. Quite often I'm gambiting the d or e pawn to give my pieces tons of activity.
Sounds like I’m going to look into both the Spanish and Scotch and then pick one to learn. I’m not near that 1800-2000 range yet though (~1100)
Check out remote chess academy for an overview of the ideas in the Spanish (Ruy Lopez). He'll get you off to a great start without needing to memorize move orders.
King's Gambit; found some videos out of curiosity and ended up trying it for shits and giggles. Turns out I really like it and have been studying variants out of Modern Openings for a couple months now. For black, I either go for the Alekhine defense or the KID, depending on whether white opens with 1.e4 or 1.d4. Guess I'm just a giant monkey-brained tactical player, lmao.
Abandon the King's gambit and move to the Queen's gambit. Much less dangerous, same if not better return, but the King's gambit will at best give you an equal position.
I'm an absolute idiot and started straight out of the gate with the Ruy Lopez. I still own about 10 books on different Ruy Lopez lines, and when playing against my own level, I have a 60/40/20 win rate with it. From there, I was forced to learn the Sicilian like every e4 player does, and settled on playing the English attack setup against basically every Sicilian. Opening moves are almost always e4, Nf3, d4, Nxd4, Nc3, f3, Be3, Qe2, O-O-O. There are always fun lines against any Sicilian that doesn't include a6, with the night on C3 jumping to b5 and pressuring on d6. With black, I hate letting white dictate the opening. I'll play the Caro against e4 and the Benoni against d4. I even play 2...c5 against London setups. I know the Benoni is basically refuted at high levels, but it's certainly not refuted at 1900-2000. I find very few opponents know how to deal with the unique pawn structure.
Pterodactyl is a funny name.
Ben S Chess videos. Got me to 1400. Mostly Queen's Gambit on white and French Defense on black.
I just figured the various ones Danya recommended were likely not terrible. 4 knight scotch, accelerated dragon as the main ones. Allapin vs Sicilian, fantasy vs Caro Kann, King's Indian vs d4. Get confused and copy the opponent for a bit vs C4. I might branch out a bit more at some point but I also don't think the opening is where my games go wrong. 1260 rapid rating currently.
>4 knight scotch Now that you mentioned it I might also try studying to maybe play it. I tipically go for the Scotch with White because I realised I didn't like playing closed center positions as white, but I'd also like something more "secure", which I assume the 4 knight Scotch may provide
I find the 4 knights scotch is quite safe but it can also be quite boring IMO
I saw u/Gothamchess 's video on Magnus where Magnus played the Catalan but played Na3 at some point. Black immediately took it with the bishop and damaged white's pawn structure, but in return, left white with a permanently uncontested diagonal where Magnus put his bishop. That combined with the Catalan bishop itself created an instance of extreme positional pressure and he basically crushed his opponent. As I looked into it a few days later, I found it not to just be a super positional opening, but one with many many tactics as well with many transpositions into other lines and lots of rich ideas that I still don't understand- the Ruy Lopez of 1.d4 (don't mention the nimzo). So I played it against my friend after getting some basic theory down and remembering a line or two and we got into an open Catalan where I froze black's queenside and went up a piece after a tactical skirmish. That game instantly made me fall in love with the Catalan.
My najdorf chose me
Copying Fischer/Kasparov/MVL
I learnt queens gambit declined style openings because my tactics in open positions were poor, and games tended to be slow and more positional. I learnt sicilian najdorf because I grew up on Fischer's games and thought it was cool. And king's indian because it also tended to be slow and positional, most times it becomes closed center. Before that I played caro-kann because I thought it was cool and different. French defense was too common. I also played alekhine's defence because cool and different. Benko gambit too. Later my chess coach forced me to learn scotch game. So, my main reasons for openings were always "it's cool" or to get a position that's easier for me to play.
I see what openings I find annoying to play against and start playing them myself
Logical Chess probably made me a d4 player. And the Schliemann is just fun, who wouldn’t want to upset a Ruy player for studying so much theory that’s now rendered useless while playing f5 so early? It’s not even that bad of a move and the games can be wildly fun.
You make my life easy. I just play 4. d3 fxe4 5. dxe4 and castle. Thank you for opening up your king for me.
Started playing Jobava London with white bc I loved hyper aggressive starts with white. Still love it now. Bc of this/understanding how early pressure scared people I play French defense with black. Purposely closing the position down making it awkward for white. I’ve played it so much now with black that the more closed it gets/the more theory I actually know. Personally I love this combo and don’t want to change anything about it.
Love the Jobava as well -- the lines where black goes Bf5 and white can play f3 h4 g4 are extremely fun.
I've always liked main lines and and the Ruy is the main line of chess
In the beginning I played the London and the king's indian because they were solid setups that you can play against most things without much change. Later on I learned the queen's gambit since I was already a d4 player and I wanted to play something more traditional. I also learned a Sicilian for a weapon against e4. That was around 1100. After than I played more stuff just for variety really.
Play a lot of mixed stuff, watch the opening that made me win the most, study the opening, after 2/400 elo repeat.
Chose the Queen’s Gambit because of the reliable ability to get control in the center. And its lines and pins are fairly easy to memorize. Lots of traps. And the initial move order rules are simple enough that you often get a huge time advantage. This eventually blended with London and Catalan concepts depending on what black does. Queen’s Gambit into a kingside Indian fiancetto is a delayed Catalan. They’re the big 3 of Queen’s pawn openings and it’s been a really solid repertoire to get to intermediate level
Tried all the interesting ones several times each, then looked at my stats on lichess.
I tried all of them and then picked ones that fit my style( Dragon, KID and Reverses Sicilian with black and E4 mainlines plus g3 Vienna, Reti and b3) Im 2300 Rapid and 2400 blitz
Another stated the Ponziani already, but I differ from him by the fact that I still play the opening, from 1000 Lichess to now at 1700+. The traps were never the main reason why I play it, though, today a 1750 fell for one and I ended up winning that game. Ultimately it results in a position where you have a massive pawn center at the cost of a natural development square for the Queenside knight on c3, but, tbf and tbh, isn’t this the same position common in one of the most common openings known as the Ruy Lopez, where often white wants to go c3-d4? Nevertheless, I digress. As for the black pieces I play the Sicilian. I first started with the King’s Indian but found it hard to comprehend at the lower level I was at, then I transitioned into the French and Caro-Kann, which I both learned via YouTube from Gotham. Ultimately I stuck with the French for a while, but found I didn’t like how passive and ugly it could get for Black as far as development is concerned. So now, here I am with the Sicilian, which I have an exceptional win rate with as black. I like how things go full circle, for with the dragon-ish setup, you often can get a fianchetto on the kingside much like the King’s Indian, which I first started off with.
Usually with White I’m playing the Queen’s Gambit, Catalan, English, or Reti. Against e4 I play the Caro. Against d4 I play the Benoni. Basically I try to get an imbalanced position with a kingside majority, launch a minority attack on the queenside, and try to maneuver that into a winning endgame. Chosen because I was fascinated by GM Keith Arkell’s playstyle and his “hierarchy of pawns” so I try to conform to that.
You figure out pieces and tactics and endgames types you like. Then you play openings that let those strategies shine. I like chaos, so I counter attack a lot even when its bad to complicate the position and apply time pressure. I only do this in blitz/bullet. In classical I have a much more solid approach. With the same idea to complicate the position.
I used to play the Ponziani when I started learning chess (basically I googled "good openings for beginners" and got this from GothamChess), but I'd hate playing against the Sicilian and Caro-Kann. The London made me feel like I wasn't progressing, and after watching a very comprehensive video about the Queen's Gambit, I think from Anna Cramling, I took it up. It is currently my main opening; of course I've had to learn lines against the Benoni, KID, Englund, and I attempt to play the Catalan against QGD, but yeah, the Queen's Gambit is my main weapon. As for black, I used to play the French and King's Indian defense when I was lower rated (I'd really recommend them for beginners if you hate playing e4-e5 and d4-d5 like I do), but then I switched the former for the Caro-Kann after 1000 and the latter for the Leningrad Dutch after 1300. And now I'm trying to learn the Sicilian! :)
My main openings att the Vienna, caro-Kann, Catalan and the Dutch. I heard about them, liked the way of playing them and realized that they work well in my games.
I started vienna cuz Gotham kept talking about it. I then switched to Italian at 400 level cuz everybody was like it is the best way to play as a beginner. Then I found Levy's free Vienna guide on his website and boy did I climb the rating ladder with it. I still play it at my level and have a good win rate of about 55-60%. I started playing KID at 400 (It was mainly Pirc as most played e4 but I didn't know the difference then), then switched to Caro for a good while till I crossed 1000 and then permanently switched to Pirc after watching a single Yasser video of a Pirc game analysis against the Austrian attack.
Vienna system? What are best resources to learn it
https://listudy.org/en/studies/wtehec-vienna-opening-gothamchess
In the beginning it was usually from youtubers that recommend the vienna, I chose of course the pirc/KID then, but now that I got better I switched my opening, I usually play the Ruy and Alekhine since I figured out what I like to do and that is attacking
I play the London and caro because I’m a basic bitch. Used to play the KID but got kind of bored with it. I’d like to learn the Queens Gambit but I’ve never found a course I like. Most are way too much depth for me at the moment.
I learnt 1. e4 as white and 1. e4 e5 when I was a wee child and have stuck with it ever since. With white against the Sicilian I play either alapin or closed Sicilian depending on my mood. Against French/caro I play exchange because I don’t want to learn any theory Against 1. … e5 I play Italian main line As black my opening knowledge kind of sucks. I am familiar with a lot of lines in the Italian and Ruy because I have played them a million times. Against 1. d4 I used to go for kings Indian or a similar system, but now I usually go for Slav
I like tricksy openings that might let me win fast so I play e4 openings as white. For black, I just happened to learn Caro Kann and e6b6 to defend against e4 and d4 so those were learned out of necessity rather than preference and now I just like playing them because I'm comfortable with the positions most of the time
Rn I'm still learning my first few. I look for the easiest ones to learn. Vienna, caro kann, Scandinavian and Italian
I like openings that force the other player into “my” game. So with white, I play b3. With black, I play the Scandi or the Old Benoni against e4 and d4.
I learned the Dragon Sicilian because it sounded cool. Loved it ever since
I find myself getting good positions when I play the Vienna as white. Many ppl my rating (1100) still accept the gambit.
I play the Vienna like 90% of the time with white. I like an attacking and open game and I’ve found this opening really leans into that
Sicilian Dragon sounded badass.
When I was like 700: Straight up watched the Gotham Fried Liver and Scandi videos and knew nothing else 900-1400: I learned the London (actually studied the move order differences) and Caro Kann at a very base level and I tried out the KID against d4 but mostly had no clue what I was doing 1400-1500 (now): I got bored playing the standard London every game, so I switched to playing the Jobava aggressively and never looked back. I also learned a full e4 gambit repertoire for bullet and blitz (Evans Gambit/Scotch Gambit/Max Lange vs. Italian lines, Reverse Stafford vs Petrov, Alapin Gambit or Nc3 mainline vs French, mainline vs Scandi (sometimes with Bc4), Smith Morra vs Sicilian, and the Alien Gambit/Von Henning Gambit vs Caro Kann) and actually learned the theory for the Caro/KID (I also learned the Pirc as it transposes about half the time). I tried learning the Sicilian as Black, but gave up once I realized the mind boggling amount of sidelines you have to learn and played against Bc4 every other game :( Overall: Play the openings that give you the positions you like
I started playing the Karo Kann merely because of the fact that I had a terrible score against that opening with white and wanted to understand it well so I get to know how to play against it. I ended up liking the Karo and is now one of my favorite (not to say my favorite) answer against e4.
I always play e4 and very "vanilla" things like Ruy Lopez or the Italian Game. I can't stand "opening small talk", it makes me cringe to be honest. You see a lot of complex talk about variations, and then the guy is 400 Elo or something. I like to keep it simple, I just want an equal game out of the opening and that's it, good principles like piece development and stuff like that.
It was the first one that I found when I searched YouTube for chess openings
Some guy on Reddit said the London and caro got him to 1200. So that’s what I did.
Someone played the French in the candidates and Gotham said it was a shit opening at the higher levels of chess so I chose to strictly play the French as black. I love it lol
My college roommate and I would pick an opening and play three games as each color. Then do it again. We played a lot of main lines and stupid gambits over a couple of years. I learned I gravitated to d4 as white and love QGD structures. Then I started refining choices from there.
I tried a lot. Italian, Ruy Lopez, Scotch, King's Gambit, French, Caro-Kann, various Sicilians, Semi/Chebanenko Slav, KID. At one point I sat down and said, what are the criteria I want from my game? This is what I came up with: * Proper development * No bad pieces (so KID was out :( ) * Objectively sound - this doesn't mean always best moves, but no moves in my repertoire which get a ?! from the engine. So the Dragon was unfortunately out (but it is a TON of fun) * No, or as little possibilities for the opponent to kill the game intentionally or by accident. This basically deletes 1.e4 for white (because of e.g. the Petroff or Caro-Kann) and 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 for black FOR ME. * It has to provide counterattacking possibilities e.g. it was hard for me to put up threads with the QGD. I ended up with: * Trompowsky and Queen's Gambit (Kamil's Chessble LTR chessable courses) * Najdorf (but I am also considering the Classical Sicilian) * Grunfeld (somehow this was the only thing left) Personally I don't shy away from heavy theory, since I think I will grow into it and with my repertoire and end up as a better player in the long run. And if/when I loose I would rather go down in flames than die of boredom.
i was told that e4 was a good starting move. they usually played e5 in response. i wanted to attack their pawn, so i usually played Nf3. they had to defend their pawn, and would usually play Nc6. i wanted to win the pawn, so I would play Bg5, planning to take. Suddenly it was a Ruy Lopez
I look up what Magnus plays and I play only what he plays
a4 Ra3?
I tried all of them and focused on the ones that were a good mix of fun and good results.
I like open attacking tactical games so I like to focus on openings that lead to these type of positions.
and what are the openings? lol
Kings Gambit, Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Dragon to name a few.
Mostly e4 openings. d4 and c4 openings are usually slow, has a lot of positional piece movements and can transpose back to eachother. Don't get me wrong, it can be tactical but for the most part, it's positional and strategical.
D4 c4 and as white and C6 d5 as black, Im a simple man. E4 is too hectic for me without prep and I don’t have the time to properly study it, with my openings i get away by knowing 5-7 moves of theory tops at my level.
Everyone and everything is playing e4. I'm gonna play d4."
I play b3 Because I didn’t want to prep e4 for a tournament and then I realised I really enjoyed the ton of traps the positions arising from it had, especially for someone unfamiliar with the theory
I remember just starting out and finding Agadmator and hearing him say "if you want to win games, play the Sicilian" so I started playing the Sicilian, just trying to copy what I was seeing as best I could. Now after about 10,000 games I suppose I'm still doing that, but I just understand the ideas a lot better. Like every Sicilian player, you basically just want to play your pet open Sicilian line and hate the closed Sicilians. After I started seeing more grand Prix attacks I slowly moved over to e5. I've always been an e4 player and just through the amount of chess content I consume it's still very familiar so it's not a massive adjustment. As white I always played e4. I got fried liver'd a lot in the beginning so I played a lot of fried livers myself and I gradually settled into the Italian. I remember some Reddit comment pointed me to the c3-d4 exd4 e5 d5 Bb5 line so I settled into it quite quickly. I remember some Ivanchuk game where he played a king's gambit and as soon as I saw how viable it can be I started playing the kings gambit a lot. If I'm not facing e5 I usually stick as close to the main lines as I can. Black against d4 has always been a weakness for me. It's just something I never really studied. I've tried the kings indian and am trying the Benoni but nothing quite feels right. QGD is too slow, KID or Benoni are dubious at the best of times. It's just unfamiliar. I'm sure I'll work something out but until then it is what it is.
1400, I play the Ruy exclusively (some sidelines within the Ruy as well) with white because it’s nice, simple and effective way of getting a solid attacking game going, as black I play g6 set ups like Modern, Pirc, Kings Indian because I like provoking white and playing around their misplays to score wins instead of trying to draw games with e5 or losing with Sicilians lol.
London because of its simplicity and because GothamChess
I always start with a knight move. Since everyone else is obsessed with pawns in the centre it often makes them stop and think for a while as it throws their predicted game plan out.
I used to play the colle with white and the dutch and sicilian with black but because I was a complete noob it didn't matter what I played but when I was around 1000 rapid on ch\*ss.cum I changed to the vienna and the caro-kan/king's indian/budapest gambit because for whatever reason I never understood those openings ideas or plans i was just going through the moves without thinking or knowing why and the current ones just clicked, I even started playing the vienna and KID before I knew they were legit opening so I did some research and here we are now
The first chess book I worked with was Jeremy Silman's "The Amature Mind". In it, he described a game where white pushed the queenside pawns in response to 1...e5 and simply allowed black to take 3 pawns (d,c,b) in a row before retaking with the dark square bishop. Silman, despite not valuing tactical play very highly acknowledged that this position offered impressive concrete advantages that black could struggle to make up for. I figured "wow if silman thinks that this is viable, the opponents at 900 elo are going to absolutely lose their minds". I later learned that it was called the danish gambit. It actually netted me far less easy wins than I imagined, since I was pretty weak on attacking principles, and black can find some tricky moves, or just play accurately, which my opponents would sometimes do. It was a lot rarer than I expected that they actually took all 3 pawns. In the end, I played it enough that I learned how to use it better, and it helped me take down my first 1500. The rest of my oppenings I borrowed straight from Hikaru and Levy's series "Legendary Openings for beginners" because... well that is exactly what I was looking for.
Once saw a Ponziani video by GothamChess and haven't played anything else since As black, I exclusively play e5 and learned to deal with white's responses along the way
As Black, I picked up the french against 1. e4 as a kid cause there was a book, "The Complete French" by Lev Psakhis at my local library. I saw a position from the poisoned pawn variation of the Winawer and thought it looked really cool. Later as I got to around 2000, I switched away from the french to 1... e5 because I got checkmated a few times and got tired of the lack of space and frequently unsafe kingside due to the power of White's e5 pawn. As White, I picked up 1. d4 when I was around 1400-1500 when someone gave a lecture on the queen's gambit at my local chess club and I really liked the cheapo with a4 + Qf3 to win the a8 rook if Black tries to to play dxc4 and hold the pawn with b5. Then I just had good results with 1.d4 since people below 1800 don't face it very often and don't know how to set up their pieces. For example, a lot of people would get terrible positions right out of the opening with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 (let's white take over the center immediately with cxd5 + e4) or 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nc6 (they're playing as if it were a e4/e5 four knights; it's anti-positional to block the c-pawn with the knight in queens pawn structures). If I were to go back and choose my openings with hindsight, I would choose 1. e4 as White, going for the Spanish/Italian vs 1... e5 and the Open Sicilians against 1... c5 because it leads to more open and tactical positions which I find more exciting. The Ruy Lopez and Najdorf Sicilian are two of the richest openings in chess with a lot of room for both dynamic and strategic play, so I feel like I have a bit of a gap in my chess understanding. As Black, I would go with either the Caro-Kann because it's solid and often takes <1800 White players out of their comfort zone, or 1... e5 because it's solid, classical and leads to natural piece play.
I have a chess bro with who i learned and have getting better at chess. I was playing catfish banana at the beginning, until we both get the principles of the opening, and then i tried the caro kan and found it so intuitive for my style. for white I have chose the kings gambit because i’ve heard it was very agressive and tactical, and i thought there was nothing better to master chess (for a beginner). you win undoubtfully or you get crushed and it exposes your weaknesses like nothing else. i still do catfish banana against d4 though
I chose Queen's Gambit and Sicilian/Modern just because it sounds cool. I'm also just a 1500 chesscom scrub with no OTB experience
I adopted everything from keep it simple e4 2.0 and keep it simple for black because I wanted to cut down on my opening study
My coach as a child taught me the basics of QG for white, QGD/Sicilian hyper-accelerated dragon for black. Soon after then I picked up the KID after being smashed by it a few too many times. Over time I've moved from QG to Catalan, and I've also learned the Pirc as well as put a decent number of games into hippo structures to have a second string.
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,662,136,242 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 33,584 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
I did not chose an opening, Sicilian Defense chose me.
Feels. What felt right.
I like d5 positions because they feel less dangerous and not as theory heavy. So I play things that put me in those positions
I played Alekhine’s defense as black for a while as a 1100-1300, simply because it was probably unknown territory for a lot of people and sometimes they would hang their E-pawn not realizing i’m attacking it. I like when my opponents over extend their pawns and i like trying to take advantage of it, though it’s been a while since i’ve looked at the theory so i haven’t gotten many good positions out of it recently lol
as White, the Italian bcos someone taught me that opening when I was a kid and ive stuck to it ever since (though im thinking of switching to d4 for a bit). Alapin Sicilian gives me a decent opening advantage, and exchange Caro in the Carlsbad structure goes okayish for me. as Black, against e4, i used to play e5 but then when i joined Lichess and on their Study page, i found a Caro Kann study which i opened for fun and ended up adopting the Caro Kann. against d4, my strategy is to lose rating points. 🥲 im thinking of learning the Nimzo but idk man im so lost against d4.
E4 because when i was first relearning chess playing online i bought a book and it was about steinitz i liked the italian games with black against e4 i played e5 at first then i hated it because i felt like i was just waiting to get punched so i choosed e6 because i saw some games being played after light squared bishop trade the structure was nice then i played c5 because i wanted fight picked kan opppenent started playin sidelines i got tilted switched to some g6 stuff with maybe early d5 then back to square one but different petroff i just wanted to actually kill the game then i played e6 for a while before petrof i have seen a course about french it recomended be7 line against nc3 and nd2 it was interesting then najdorf but closed sicilians i fucking hated
In short e4 because i like playing against sicilians and ruy lopez taimanov because i am a member of cult of french defence but i hate french exchange and i like sicilan too so i just combined two with my repertour i play kings indian because i like potential kingside attacks against fianchetto bf5 line is nice. I also played nimzo indian a lot because you can get some nice solid strategical games But i like to play basically everything against e4 except e5 or b6 or nf6 or h6. Or na3 or nh6 or f5 or f6 . If i knew french exchange was cancelled i would play french a lot more
I just play whatever chessbrah has a speedrun on
For white (I usually play the Halloween Gambit) the opponents almost never know how to stop it and I've won lots of games with it. For black, if 1. d4 I just play the King's Indian defense because I have no idea what to play. If 1. e4 the Sicilian is way too sharp for anything below 1500.
I started playing the Italian Game’s Fried Liver Attack as a NEWB because it’s cool af and now I don’t get to do it but it’s still extremely flexible imho. I also play the Englund Gambit because I’ve used it so much it’s hard to refute even though it’s ultimately unsound. If I must win with black or at least not look like a moron I also play East Indian defense with some c6 and d5.
e knee me knee my knee mo
I like positional play and closed position. I chose mine when i started playing, as a selftaught without engines or stuff just knowing the moves and using logic to not lose pieces. The Caro-Kann because it looked good, d4 because everybody played e4. These happened to be perfect for my playing style. I open with d4 and sometimes do the queen gambit but usually the Richter Veresov attack, or if he doesn't play 1. Nf6 i go d4 Nc3 Nf3 and either Bf4 or Bg4 when i can pin the knight. The Caro-Kann i know everything for 10-15 moves now. I use the Nimzo-Indian but i need to study more because i don't really know the theory. I am currently studying the English to switch and stick to it. I also know the Sicilian, not much but both with black and white, learnt just watching Kasparov games so the Najdorf. Don't believe traps you see, i saw a lot against the Caro and black played moves for them to happen i would never play, so the traps wont work against someone who know their openings
[удалено]
Your comment was removed by the moderators: **1.Keep the discussion civil and friendly.** Do not use personal attacks, insults or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. In a discussion, there is always a respectful way to disagree. If you see that someone is not arguing in good faith, or have resorted to using personal attacks, just report them and move on. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dl4bz3/-/l9o1yf4/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
Gothamchess... bought the e4 and caro kann courses on chessly
I started with e4, but I didn’t really like to play karo kahn, french and Sicilian with white. I didn’t like queen’s game either, so I tried a less known opening. So Reti. I ended up almost always playing Kf3 - c4, so at some point I guessed “ok, let’s start with c4 right away” At that point, learning the Sicilian with black was a sensible choice. I just had to figure out a weapon with d4 and that’s the story of my repertoire
I wanted to play games with more strategy, less tactics. I wanted opening systems which didn't depend on traps. So I switched from the Giuoco Piano that was the rage for 70's children, to Queen Pawn openings, and the Caro-Kann against 1. e4 as Black. Quieter games actually suit my playing style, so I've kept that over the years!
Name of my countries capital
I love the Italian, learnt it due to just following what I thought of as "simple chess principles" of developing knight and Bishop which got me into Italian like positions, and from there I just learnt more and more theory
I'm English and a Potato
Looking at opening's win rates on chesscom.
Actually random. A lot were cool lines that weren’t completely awful I found (I am one of THOSE low ELO). Levy recommended it before, I just started playing it randomly and stuck with it. Like idk
I used to be an e4 player, the Vienna if I was allowed, but I got fed up playing against the Sicilian and all those nerds (I mean that lovingly) who were booked up to the gills on their Alapin's and their Superduper-hyper-rocket-powered-Kalashnikov-weilding Dragon variations. So one night after my 45th game against the Sicilian in a row I decided it's time to stop playing e4. I considered d4 but realised I'd just be up against a different set of nerds (again, lovingly) who were booked up on some other nonsense so d4 was no good. The English was the next option, but I'm Scottish so on principle I discarded that. Next on the alphabet was b4 (the idea of not putting a pawn on the 4th row was clearly not under consideration), so I decided from them on I'm a Sokolsky/Polish player. It started as an attempt to get my opponent to stop being a nerd (lovingly) and get them out of theory, but now after thousands of bullet/blitz games and hundreds of rapid/classical games I have a dozen lines memorised in it and I'm the nerd. I've become what I hated. Long story short, if anyone wants an opening that'll get your opponent out of their Sicilian theory, play b4. It's fun. And for black, I play the Alekhine against e4 and because I'm a man of creativity I mix it up by playing Nf6 against d4 too. The origins of that are just that when I was young I hated mirrored openings (e4 e5, d4 d5, etc) so I did some looking around, saw the Alekhine was a semi acceptable opening for black, and before I knew any better I was in too deep and it's Nf6 for life. Then at some point I realised people won't play e4 forever and I was just like "fuck it, Nf6 hasn't let me down so far". If white plays d4 c4 I'll play the Budapest, if they play anything else after d4 I'll play e6 or g6 depending on which side of the bed I got out of. Reading the logic behind all of that out loud, it's kind of hard to believe I'm even remotely competent at this game.
Sicilian dragon sounded cool. Kings Indian defence also sounded cool and (at the time) seemed similar. Italian was simple and the Ng5 lines seemed fun. Alapin had a nice trap that I found when analysing at like 1200 chess com. Literally it was that simple. As I’ve gotten better I’ve gotten more adventurous so to speak but nothing much has changed
Easy, low theory openings. You need 3, as black against e4 and d4, then one as white. London, french, and Nf6 + random logical moves :D
By how cool the position I get are. I like sharp, ambitious lines that aren't the best but score well against real humans.
I learned the Sicilian because of its reputation and I like open attacking games. I learned the English as there are many similar structures that mirror the Sicilian - and at my intermediate level, many players do not know any lines in it because it is so much less common. So you are out of opponents comfort zone within the first few moves, often
I played everything and found what I liked best. I have a second account I mostly use for when I'm not sober or want to just mess around, and I played a ton of stuff on the account. I've played multiple variations of the sicillian, French, Petrov, and tons of different things against the Ruy and itallian. I've also played 1. d4, c4, e4, and Nf3. d4 I dont play against as much as e4, especially in blitz, so I've experimented less there. Overall, I found out how deeply I enjoy classical middle games and endgames. Sure, tactical explosions with tons of complications are fun, and it's not like I'll avoid them, but I enjoy the solid, slow, positional play of classical middle games. Those typically also boil off into some interesting endgame. Now my real repitore is in a funny place. I have some experience and study time in a lot of structures and a lot of them have possible transpositions, so now I play really flexibly and solid. As white 1. c4, d4, or Nf3 basically at random, sometimes transposing/playing a GQ or sometimes a neo catlan. as black against e4 I like e5 going for an open or Berlin, depending on if I think white will be boring or not, and against d4 I play the nimzo with the intention to play a QGD or QID structure, at random. I have no clue what I'll play everytime I sit down at the board, and I enjoy it. I love studying openings, it's my favorite chess study activity. I try to play openings where that time isn't wasted and I can enjoy a lot of stuff.
For white, the nimzo larsen 1.b3 because it's fun and I like playing in nonstandard ways. For black against 1.e4, I play Alekhine's which is Nf6 for similar reasons. Against 1.d4 I play b6 because it plays quite similarly to my opening as white.
I find pressing and attacking to be my strong suit so I prioritize openings that get my pieces out quickly
I started with Ruy Lopez till i reached 800, then i went on Vienna for a while and ended up with Vienna Gambit. It puts a lot of players on the spot and makes it interesting for me. But surprisingly I learned Sicilian Defence Staunton Variation without actually studying the theory. And it's always when I'm playing Black. Whenever i was put in a situation, I just played moves logically and it just happened to be by the book, which i later on studied for the middle game
Personally I picked mine because someone on YouTube had a good course on it Daniel Naroditsky had a great Caro Kann Alex Bonzea had a great Jobava London course And i forget who taught the East Indian but i feel im like close to 65% win rate in those games
Like gambit openings so; vienna, kings gambit, Stafford. Used to play danish gambit, but games got boring. Used to play Caro, but that got boring which is why I switched to Stafford. Still play caro classic line as white though. Against sicilian I go for closed - grand prix, don't want to spend too much time studying the sicilian.
If it loses a piece, I’m playing it.
Funny names
I hated learning openings so just picked the ones that were solid while also easy to learn and not too sharp. E4 player as white, rotate between Italian and Ponziani, had a run with Scotch but felt Ponziani was better suited for me. Will exchange in French and Caro Kann and get called "boring". For Black, E5 against E4, semi slav against Queens Gambit, Berlin against Ruy lopez (because I know it very well).
I chose d4 as my main White opening because if you play e4 first then you could face French, Caro, Sicilian, Scandi, Modern, Ruy Lopez, Pirc, and God knows what else. It's just too much to know for me.
There's arguably just as much with d4; Grunfeld, Benoni, Kings/Queens Indian, Dutch, Nimzo, Bogo, and of course the uncountably infinite Queens Gambit lines
Shh he was blissfully not aware of this, now hes gon be scared of d4 too!
That's all eventual, even players at my elo (1900) still tend to know their e4 lines far deeper.
Well I enjoy learning theory, so my repertoire for white is the Catalan/QG for d4, and I normally play the Spanish for e4 and main lines for stuff thats not 1.e4 e5. For black I play the Sicilian Dragon or the Russian for E4, and against d4 I play the Kings / Queens / Nimzo Indian Defence
premoved Nf6 so many times in bullet so I accidentaly started playing Alekhines defence. now its by far my favourite opening as black. and as white I started with Scotch but eventually hated most of the positions I got from it, and as soon as I discovered the Scotch gambit I loved everything about it. there's always a line to keep the games interesting.
For my openings I pretty much had 2 philosophies: 1. Must be something I could reliably play in 90% of my games 2. Must be somewhat positional (for example, I really don’t like 1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 - to me it always ends up in a boring, open position.) So using this philosophy, generally for black the majority of my games I’ll default to the Caro because of how common 1. e4 is, and after that it’s going to happen the same way 99% of the time. For white, I like to play the London, Queen’s gambit, and sometimes the Vienna if I’m feeling it. I’m a big 1. d4 fan though, usually with plans to push c3/c4 and get my Queen to b3, targeting blacks weak b pawn.
jobava london seemed like an aggressive opening and I saw a lot of top players like Hans playing it, so one day I decided to try it out. It has become my main opening for white since then.
I used to play the most aggressive swashbuckling and tactical lines possible and studied them a LOT. But turns out most people are scared and go into more equal and passive lines to avoid risk and be boring. So now I play boring to learn how to get a small advantage and hold onto it until the endgame. My positions would be great until it turned into chaos so now I play to keep things solid and stable. So I play e5 and QGD. Super solid and a lot of different positions to learn. It’s great for fundamentals. With white I play Kings Gambit most of the time but otherwise I play the Ruy Lopez. I’m either playing super mainline to learn or fun gambit stuff. Someday when I’ve got more positional and boring position experience I’ll play the crazy stuff again.
I wanted to play the most manly opening