I have the final round of a 75 Min tournament in 5 days (not for money or anything) and a player who I'm pretty sure I might play in the finals (2150 r.) plays 1. e4 as white. Recently I've been going through an opening repertoire renovation, and after discussing with others on lichess about the Colorado Gambit (what I used to play against 1. e4) I've gathered the courage to stop playing it. Right now I have a few candidates for what to play next week. They are:
- Sicilian Sniper (Accelarated Dragon): 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 (Also 1. e4 g6). I have quite a lot of material with GM Ron Henley available to me, and this will probably be the one I play. It's a pretty solid opening, although I need to get more game experience with it.
- Pirc: 1. e4 d6. This one I have gotten slightly more experience with than Sniper, although I'm a bit scared of the 150 Attack by white.
- Caro Kann: 1. e4 c6. This one I know requires a lot of theory, and I can't find very many sources for Caro Kann basics on the internet (YouTube) I have gotten no practice with this opening whatsoever. The question is, do I take the time to learn the theory? I know it's better than the French in terms of you get your bishop out nicely, but I don't I would be too comfortable having it harassed on the kingside.
I'm not playing Sicilian Najdorf or Taimanov because they require lots of experience/practice and I get too nervous about white kingside attack. I feel French just says no to a potentially good minor piece, and once again, white's kingside attack. 1...e5 I know close to nothing about...lol.
So what do you guys think I should use? As far as my other openings:
White: Queen's Gambit/Catalan
Anti-d4: Nimzo/Queen's Indian
Anti-c4: Reverse Grand Prix Attack
Anti-f4/Nf3: King's Indian Setup
Anti-e3: 1...e5 with simplifications and goal of castling and placing rooks on central files...
I appreciate the time you took to read this... Happy Checkmating!
If you want to be successful: play your pet lines
If you want to learn something: try something new out
You won't learn a new system in a couple of weeks because praxis is paramount. I cannot conclude what turns out to be best e.g. what is your knowledge level. Sounds a bit harsh, but I don't think the openings are that decisive (this is often the case, the openings were ok, but the outcome rather not)
m.youtube.com/watch?v=LzvVKh7C3gsm.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_yagozyy4Hope this helps...
No advice. You're a bit better than me.
But I am curious. You know d6 but not e5?
Go with the colorado shenanigans, that should be your best pick since you play it regularly.
The French (1... e6) should be the best alternative for you. Really not theory heavy, so you can just play logical moves. And it holds many different solid setups for black, so it's not that easy to do something wrong
In your place I would play the Nimzovich/Colorado thing. You know it and your opponents surely do not.
@Sarg0n "You won't learn a new system in a couple of weeks"
I kinda disagree with this for u2200. A while ago, right before I played in a major Canadian tournament, I binge watched the Chessbase DVD by Simon Williams on the London System. I had to absorb approximately 6 hours worth of content in one day, as I was planning to play the opening for the first time ever in classical OTB play. It was a massive success, and I even managed to draw a 2300 NM with it. If someone can draw a strong NM after only one day of studying a brand new opening, I don't see why anyone u2200 should be dissuaded from playing an opening just because they don't have a lot of experience playing it.
@Jacob531 I'm just not very familiar with 1...e5. I know the most common lines (2. Nf3 Nc6 Bc4) and stuff like that but to me it just seems very standard and...boring, but that's just me. This is the reason why I play 1. d4 as white, because it allows for more positional cases which I prefer to sharp ones. Thank you for the videos, by the way.
Well i would like to add only 2 things:
1.What to play against 2150? Just the same system you play agaisnt anybody else. Let's say you have 2000 Elo. Well your strenght comes from a certain understanding of your positions. Does not matter if main lines or pet lines. This is your style, your stranghts, your understanding. If you want to test your skills against a stronger opponent, do your best. And your best is the thing you play most.
*The only viable situation this question will make sence in, is if you would have 2 different equally good openings, then you jsut decide if you rather want to play sharper or more positional or something. If there is the case, that you basicly "do not know anything", then sincerly, before playing your next tournament rather learn a decent opening, so you will not have to ask that kind of question again.
2.About the thing, how muc it takes to learn an opening. I would like to tell you a story of Dr. Siegbart Tarrasch. An outsider (non chess player) asked him, how much it takes to master chess. His answer was "it is depending on how much talent you have, how much motivation you put in, how strong your will is,..." (something in that kind). The stranger asked "and what if you don't possess any of these". Tarrasch replied "in that case 5 mins..."
So if you get the joke, that is basicly the same with openings. If you know nothing, then yes, indeed you can master a different opning in 2 weeks. But not because you "master" it, more bcs you do not master anything before. Of course it depends on your strenght etc., and how good you want to understand a decent opening. If you have a good source you are able to understand an opning to a decent degree, which might be enough for you. I also sometimes switch around and play an opening against Grandmasters where I jsut learned a few mainlines the night before and it can be enough. But in terms of really understaning an opening, well I have put in >200h and 50 OTB games in Grünfeld and I still do not consider to be the master of it. I still do realize what I do not know and where I should improve, it is just not my biggest ches issue at the moment. But anyway, 5 years of playing at the top european leagues and I still am not the master of my favourite opening. So regarding that, if we understand the same thing as "mastering", in that case I highly doubt 2 weeks are enough to master any opening. In case you regard your old opening as "weak, without foundation and you have never worked on it in any way", well yes, in that case 2 weeks are enough to master it, aswell as 5 mins are enough to master chess for someone who will not go any further beyong the base rules....
Did u see what i done, came in a black benz left in a white one
@tpr You think so? After the discussion I have a feeling that such an experienced player ELO 2150 would possibly know how to blow me away, even the 2. d4 line; white just fianchettoes on the kingside and black's plan is much harder to carry out. An ELO 2000 rated player (head of the club) played a similar-to-the-Nimzowitsch type of opening against me in the previous round of the tournament (I gained more space but black had a kingside plan, similar to Nimzowitsch positions I play). He probably used it to intimidate me and throw me off, but I had seen similar middlegame positions in the past, so the game was a draw. The point is that if he can play that type of opening, maybe I could... Still, the comments on the Colorado are in the back of my head. What if he plays 2.Nf3? I can't play e5 because I've had no preparation. Do you think I should I try to learn the d5 or even d6 line or go with Sniper? Sniper is played by more GMs but I'm more familiar with Nimzo.
