I am surprised that you recommend 1 opening per colour. You don't mention it in your blog so I assume you don't have to worry about preparations of your opponents in Australia (or only very rarely).
Here in Europe many (classical) games are saved and stored in public databases (Chessbase ...) . Also players often get time to prepare seriously for their games. This saturday I start a classical tournament in Czechia. My games in that tournament will again be saved and stored in public databases. Also there will be for most games 5-6 hours available to prepare on an opponent.
In Europe most players therefore continuously change their openings (at least the players of whom regularly games are stored in the databases). Even of 1400 rated players you often find games in the database.
Here in Europe many (classical) games are saved and stored in public databases (Chessbase ...) . Also players often get time to prepare seriously for their games. This saturday I start a classical tournament in Czechia. My games in that tournament will again be saved and stored in public databases. Also there will be for most games 5-6 hours available to prepare on an opponent.
In Europe most players therefore continuously change their openings (at least the players of whom regularly games are stored in the databases). Even of 1400 rated players you often find games in the database.
@peppie23 said in #2:
> I am surprised that you recommend 1 opening per colour. You don't mention it in your blog so I assume you don't have to worry about preparations of your opponents in Australia (or only very rarely).
>
> Here in Europe many (classical) games are saved and stored in public databases (Chessbase ...) . Also players often get time to prepare seriously for their games. This saturday I start a classical tournament in Czechia. My games in that tournament will again be saved and stored in public databases. Also there will be for most games 5-6 hours available to prepare on an opponent.
>
> In Europe most players therefore continuously change their openings (at least the players of whom regularly games are stored in the databases). Even of 1400 rated players you often find games in the database.
As your level goes up, naturally it's best and perhaps even necessary to add more options, whether they be different systems or variations. My post I would say is targeted more to intermediate/advanced players (rather than expert/master), who I believe would benefit from spending a decent amount of time getting strong with one opening first rather than try and learn a few (though of course some people might do well with this). If you're avoiding playing your main lines all the time because they get prepared against, can they be called main lines?
As the opening knowledge of the average player goes up (i.e. main lines are better known and it's hard to get an edge against lower-rated players out of the opening), it seems more important than ever to have the 'skill' of
a) being able to outplay players from simply 'playable' positions you know well, not worrying too much about the opening
b) having several sidelines (or main lines) you can choose between.
In the long run, I believe in the idea of having a 'main' opening/s which has the versatility (through various options and ways to play) to overcome the preparation of a player whom you're expected to beat on paper, even if they have hours to prepare.
> I am surprised that you recommend 1 opening per colour. You don't mention it in your blog so I assume you don't have to worry about preparations of your opponents in Australia (or only very rarely).
>
> Here in Europe many (classical) games are saved and stored in public databases (Chessbase ...) . Also players often get time to prepare seriously for their games. This saturday I start a classical tournament in Czechia. My games in that tournament will again be saved and stored in public databases. Also there will be for most games 5-6 hours available to prepare on an opponent.
>
> In Europe most players therefore continuously change their openings (at least the players of whom regularly games are stored in the databases). Even of 1400 rated players you often find games in the database.
As your level goes up, naturally it's best and perhaps even necessary to add more options, whether they be different systems or variations. My post I would say is targeted more to intermediate/advanced players (rather than expert/master), who I believe would benefit from spending a decent amount of time getting strong with one opening first rather than try and learn a few (though of course some people might do well with this). If you're avoiding playing your main lines all the time because they get prepared against, can they be called main lines?
As the opening knowledge of the average player goes up (i.e. main lines are better known and it's hard to get an edge against lower-rated players out of the opening), it seems more important than ever to have the 'skill' of
a) being able to outplay players from simply 'playable' positions you know well, not worrying too much about the opening
b) having several sidelines (or main lines) you can choose between.
In the long run, I believe in the idea of having a 'main' opening/s which has the versatility (through various options and ways to play) to overcome the preparation of a player whom you're expected to beat on paper, even if they have hours to prepare.
@peppie23 said in #2:
> In Europe most players therefore continuously change their openings (at least the players of whom regularly games are stored in the databases).
Do you prepare new openings for each opponent based on their perceived weaknesses or just select from your general prep somewhere you feel will be good?
I would hope to be able to just spend 1 hour of the 5-6 available reviewing my opponents games to select an area of alignment with my general prep then just review my general prep lines once.
> In Europe most players therefore continuously change their openings (at least the players of whom regularly games are stored in the databases).
Do you prepare new openings for each opponent based on their perceived weaknesses or just select from your general prep somewhere you feel will be good?
I would hope to be able to just spend 1 hour of the 5-6 available reviewing my opponents games to select an area of alignment with my general prep then just review my general prep lines once.
@zweb said in #4:
> Do you prepare new openings for each opponent based on their perceived weaknesses or just select from your general prep somewhere you feel will be good?
>
> I would hope to be able to just spend 1 hour of the 5-6 available reviewing my opponents games to select an area of alignment with my general prep then just review my general prep lines once.
In most cases you only have time to select from the general preparation. Only rarely you know an opponent days before which allows to study something completely new.
So the message is of course to have the hard work done weeks/ months in advance.
> Do you prepare new openings for each opponent based on their perceived weaknesses or just select from your general prep somewhere you feel will be good?
>
> I would hope to be able to just spend 1 hour of the 5-6 available reviewing my opponents games to select an area of alignment with my general prep then just review my general prep lines once.
In most cases you only have time to select from the general preparation. Only rarely you know an opponent days before which allows to study something completely new.
So the message is of course to have the hard work done weeks/ months in advance.
@peppie23 said in #5:
> hard work done weeks/ months in advance.
So everyone is prepping full openings to play them for only one tournament?
How many different openings do you consider adequate in a heavy prep environment?
Does everyone favor principled main lines?
> hard work done weeks/ months in advance.
So everyone is prepping full openings to play them for only one tournament?
How many different openings do you consider adequate in a heavy prep environment?
Does everyone favor principled main lines?
@zweb said in #6:
> So everyone is prepping full openings to play them for only one tournament?
Serious players are continuously expanding their repertoire so yes sometimes for only one tournament.
> How many different openings do you consider adequate in a heavy prep environment?
At least 2 you should have so you can switch during a tournament when something is broken.
> Does everyone favor principled main lines?
Nowadays we mix. It is definitely not only main lines anymore as those lines opponents know best.
> So everyone is prepping full openings to play them for only one tournament?
Serious players are continuously expanding their repertoire so yes sometimes for only one tournament.
> How many different openings do you consider adequate in a heavy prep environment?
At least 2 you should have so you can switch during a tournament when something is broken.
> Does everyone favor principled main lines?
Nowadays we mix. It is definitely not only main lines anymore as those lines opponents know best.
In 2018 I made a detailed study of the repertoire of the Russian grandmaster Vladimir Epishin.
60% of the openings he plays only once
80% of the openings he plays for maximum 2,5 years
During his career he played 72 different openings against my repertoire.
In 50% of the games he plays something new.
In 10% of his games he plays some old love.
You can read all this on my blog schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2018/09/de-wetenschappelijke-aanpak-deel-2.html
60% of the openings he plays only once
80% of the openings he plays for maximum 2,5 years
During his career he played 72 different openings against my repertoire.
In 50% of the games he plays something new.
In 10% of his games he plays some old love.
You can read all this on my blog schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2018/09/de-wetenschappelijke-aanpak-deel-2.html