A little while ago I started discussing the subject of building a chess opening repertoire in How To Build A Chess Opening Repertoire – Part I: Getting The Lay Of The Land. I discussed which considerations play a role in building your chess opening repertoire and gave some advice. If you have not yet read it, I strongly suggest you do that first. In this second part, I want to discuss the issue of your style, your experiences with certain openings and how your style relates to certain openings. Next I will do some suggestions.

Your Experience Sofar

If you are reading this it could be that you have no opening repertoire at all or you have “some sort” of an opening repertoire. In either case you would like to improve the situation and start making that “set of agreements with yourself” that I spoke of in How To Build A Chess Opening Repertoire – Part I: Getting The Lay Of The Land. Your previous experience with certain openings can be a useful indicator for building your repertoire. If you have taken notes of your games and created a history of them in a database for instance, I suggest you go through them and analyze your overall results with all the different openings you have played so far. This exercise should provide you with some statistics as to what openings you played the most and which ones you had success with or not. Try to figure out if you liked playing certain openings or not and why that was. This is a big indicator for your preferred playing style! Also try to figure out in what measure the opening played an important role in the outcome of the game.

Different Styles

The previous exercise has probably given you some pointers as to what positions you like to play or not. If the exercise does not suggest differently, then it makes sense to build on the openings you already play (if they are decent that is), start calling them “My repertoire” and try to deepen you knowledge and understanding of them. If for some reason the exercise does not provide you with a clear picture, or if you would like some pointers for your playing style, then it makes sense to start looking for style indicators. Below I will list a number of different style indicators. Your preferences most likely refer to one or more of the terms below:

1.    visionary
2.    detailed
3.    positional
4.    tactical
5.    calculation
6.    feeling
7.    concrete
8.    intuition
9.    defensive
10.    attacking
11.    counter-attacking
12.    waiting
13.    initiative
14.    open
15.    closed
16.    contact
17.    maneuvering
18.    (big) center
19.    guerilla
20.    dynamics
21.    statics
22.    single plan
23.    multi plan

These terms refer to one of two:
1.    the way in you which you like to approach chess
2.    the specifics of a chess position

It makes sense now to place them in a table and describe them in more detail while simultaneously matching them to certain example openings.

Ok, so we have done that! The table is not meant to be exhaustive by the way. You can probably think of more style indicators pointers and matching openings. Also some of the pointers are closely related such as visionary, positional and intuitive on the one hand and detailed, tactical and concrete on the other.

What’s important to note here is that ideally you strive for a mixture of these styles, because we all need them from time to time to handle different chess positions. Positional games hopefully lead to a build up where you have to use tactics to reap the fruits of your earlier play. And likewise if you are good at tactics you need some strategical skills to bring about favorable positions. This brings us at a funny point however.

All the big guns have plenty of both strategical and tactical skills, right? Yes, I suppose they do! And yet, we can still clearly point out any differences in style. Kasparov is (was) the great attacker, calculator and proponent of concrete play. His great nemesis Anatoly is (was) pretty much the opposite namely the visionary, positional and intuitive player.

So there seems to be a point where standard and basic chess skill cross a border and shift into style. And beyond this point you can really try and incorporate your style into your own chess games. This is the area where preference and avoidance emerge. It is after all possible to prefer or avoid certain moves and lines without doing harm to the basic objective value of your position. I suppose that’s what makes our game also so enjoyable!

For instance Kasparov might choose to play 6.Bg5 in a Najdorf, Karpov may prefer 6.Be2 etc. without doing any objective harm to their position. It is just that they prefer the positions that arise from these respective moves. Bg5 normally leads to sharp and concrete play, whereas 6.Be2 tends to lead to a quieter game. What both players were trying to do, was getting into positions where they could optimize their chances to make use of their strong points and diminish those of the opponent.

And why do you think Anand beat Kramnik in Bonn 2008? Because Anand managed to bring about dynamic, imbalanced and tactical positions, and Kramnik wasn’t up to the task at some moments. Do you remember the 5th game for instance? Kramnik was relying on the better endgame, but the position was more concrete than that and all of a sudden he was surprised by Anand’s tactical 34…Pe3!, which immediately won the game. He simply had not treated the position with enough concreteness whereas Anand had  calculated this trick several moves earlier.

Now you might argue that it was an ordinary blunder to go for the trade-off into the endgame and that normally Kramnik would have seen in coming – basic chess skill, right? – but that’s also my point. The earlier play had forced Kramnik to solve concrete problems. He could not use any of his dogma’s or strive for a small and clear advantage. It is very conceivable that that cost him considerable time, effort and psychological energy. From that point of view it seems understandable that he would crack up and allow the trade-down resulting in 34…Ne3! Let me say one more thing about this match. Go try and figure out in what style Kramnik won their 10th game! Need I say more?

Ok, it is nice to look at the great players, but the idea is that you try this with your own repertoire. What style oriented decisions can you make? Well, preferably those that bring about positions in which you can put your strong points to work! Let me be your gimmy pig.

My Style And Repertoire

You have probably noticed that the style indicators come in pairs. Let me describe my style by indicating in which direction the scale of the balance tips for each pair. I will indicate my preferences in bold:

visionary – detailed
positional – tactical
calculation – feeling
concrete – intuition
defensive – attacking – counterattacking
waiting – initiative
open – closed
contact – maneuvering
(big) center – guerilla
dynamics – statics
single plan – multi plan

My (global) repertoire is as follows:
I play 1.d4 to try and reach strategical positions in which I can be guided by my intuition. I tend to choose clearer lines over complicated ones.
Against 1.e4 my defense of choice is the counterattacking Sicilian. I don’t like to be passive and always want to have some plans of my own… I often play the Accelerated Dragon, because I know it quite well and have build up some experience with it. It also has some nice ambush-like features to it and fits in with my style.
Against 1.d4 I like to play the King’s Indian. It normally leads to clear cut chain pawn plans and closed maneuvering positions or otherwise static positions (f.i. the exchange variations with d4xe5) that I know pretty well and have a lot of experience with. It also fits in with the notion of counter attack.

Suggested Steps

Well, we have come to end of part II of this article. I hope you bring the following elements together:
1.    Do the “Previous Experience” exercise
2.    Match the style indicators with the result of that exercise to figure out your playing style or let the style indicators suggest your playing style by reading through the descriptions and asking yourself: “Is this me?”
3.    Compose or adjust your opening repertoire by choosing openings that match your style indicators. I have given some example openings in the overview. If you have questions on how to classify a certain opening feel free to contact me.

In the third and last part of this article I will discuss the issue of how to relate to your opening repertoire. In the mean while, leave your comments if you like.

Cheers,

Waldemar
Styling

Are you struggling to define a good opening repertoire for yourself?
Then continue reading.

Probably one of the most discussed topics in chess is that of having a good, solid, attacking, defensive, broad, specialized, surprising or otherwise useful opening repertoire. I must admit it has always been a challenge for me to construct an opening repertoire. In the process I have gathered a lot of knowledge and experience on the subject, so in the article below I will share my views with you and give you advice on how to build a decent opening repertoire.

8 reasons why every chess player should have a decent opening repertoire

It is important for a number of reasons to have a decent opening repertoire. So let’s begin with the end in mind. I have listed eight of them, it is possible to think of more.

1. With White: To reach an opening advantage and put the pressure on your opponent
2. With Black: To reach a playable middle game position
3. To know what to play
4. To deepen your play
5. To be able to play faster
6. To feel at ease
7. To punish your opponents mistakes more often
8. To know which tabya to study (typical middle game positions, pawn structures, endgames and tactics that arise from certain openings)

Making choices regarding your opening repertoire should take these considerations into account.

What does it mean to have a chess opening repertoire?

Having an opening repertoire means more than just deciding to go 1.d4 or 1.e4 on the first move or deciding to counter 1.e4 with for instance 1…c5 – The Sicilian Defense. Ideally what constitutes an opening repertoire is:

“A set of agreements with yourself based on prior relevant research and corresponding decisions regarding the systems, defenses, lines and moves you would like to play during the first phase of a chess game.”

Of course it doesn’t stop there. This set of agreements with yourself needs to be evaluated, checked and undergo maintenance if necessary. Also it demands a certain attitude from you, the chess player.

Ok, enough introduction, let’s get our hands dirty. Ideally your opening repertoire is a happy merger of two things: you and decent chess. But what about you and what about decent chess?

Considerations when building a chess opening repertoire

Let’s start with listing some of the basic considerations when building a chess opening repertoire:

1. What is my playing style?
2. What is my previous experience and what are my results?
3. How much time do I have available to study?
4. Should I play theory and main lines or not?
5. Should I play to surprise or not?
6. Am I playing for a specific result or not (win or draw)?
7. Who is my opponent, should I be pragmatic?

OK, that was a nice exercise. Now what? To be able to decide on your opening repertoire it would seem you need to answer all of these questions. And ideally you would also like to know which questions are the most important so they can guide your decision making process step by step. In this case you would take a software-wizard-like approach where the answer to the first and most important consideration influences the options for the second one and so on, until you have the ultimate answer. But here comes the catch: building and maintaining your opening repertoire is very much a practical issue and it is virtually impossible to take all the above considerations into account and put them in some kind of expert system that will provide you with the perfect answer.

Cutting through the thicket, my opinion and advice for you

Let’s revisit the considerations listed above and see if we can split them into groups. I suggest the following labels: “You”, “Chess Considerations” and “The Circumstances”.

• You
  • What is my playing style?
  • What is my previous experience and what are my results?
• Chess Considerations
  • Should I play theory and main lines or not?
  • Should I play to surprise or not?
• The Circumstances
  • How much time do I have available to study?
  • Am I playing for a specific result or not?
  • Who is my opponent, should I be pragmatic?

OK, that helps! Now allow me to share my opinion with you and give you advice which is based on the assumption that you want to optimize your chances to experience that winning feeling and also satisfaction about the way you went about it:

Forget about The Circumstances and focus on yourself and decent chess!

In my opinion it really does not matter how much time you have to study. As if a limited amount of time would suggest you would do better to build your repertoire around lesser known (surprise) systems that do not involve a lot of studying?! I don’t think that holds true. You will find that studying (dodgy) surprise systems or side lines can take up as much time as studying main theory, since after all the game is still played with the same 32 pieces on the same 64 squares. Believe me, I have been there. Besides, what is time? What is the difference between learning a surprise system in one month, and learning more theory oriented lines in two or three months time? Will you be playing chess after those months also? I sure hope so. So why not think long term, study for the years to come and have a strong and solid opening base?

Also it is well possible that studying main theory has statistically more practical value since your opponents will more often play these lines as well. And last but not least, certain (dodgy) systems or side lines may have surprise value, but what if the surprise has evaporated? Then statistically your chances of reaching an objectively better position or a playable middle game position will have deteriorated. The difference between += and = is significant! Of course, sometimes you will be able to surprise your opponent, force them to think for themselves and benefit from it. But in the end all you have at your disposal is the objective value of the position on the board, not some surprise value that has evaporated. This becomes more and more apparent if you improve and continue to play higher rated players, since they will see through your surprises, schemes and traps. To further stress this point let me refer to a game I played over a week ago. After 1.e4 my opponent played some kind of a side line of the Closed Sicilian against my 1…c5. I obtained an easy game and went on to win. After the game we had a short discussion:

“I thought your opening was rather tame”, I remarked.
“Yes, could be, but I wanted to play my own game”, my opponent answered.

Well, my opponent played his own game (by the way what does that mean?) and lost.
Therefore: Striving to have an edge is a vital element of playing stronger chess.

Of course it is important to try and figure out which systems are dodgy or not, and which ones give decent chances for an opening advantage or a playable middle game. I plan to discuss certain systems in How To Build A Chess Opening Repertoire – Part II. Some I am more critical about than others.

Also the question if you are playing for a specific result should preferably not lead to a change of your opening repertoire. In how many cases can we say that we definitely need a win or a draw? Maybe in that last tournament round where we could emerge victorious? Maybe once per year in our club competition? By the way, aren’t we chess lovers always playing for a win? And even then, I advise you to stick to your guns, since playing what you know combined with decent positions is what makes draws or wins games.

Also I advice you not to be influenced by the person of your opponent in the sense that you would deviate from your opening repertoire. Why build an opening repertoire only to deviate from it? You would miss out on probably another useful experience that could deepen your understanding of that very same repertoire. Just play your pet defense or prepare for his pet defense against your repertoire moves.

You

Having said that, all it boils down to is You!
In How To Build A Chess Opening Repertoire – Part II, I will further discuss the issues of previous experience and results and style. I will discuss in detail what different chess styles there are, which steps you can take to determine your own style and which opening systems fit your style.

Cheers,

Waldemar
Giving advice