Answers.Body: <p>Opening advantages are fine things. Maybe you can even find an opening that lends itself to your 'style' of play. But what value does any of this have? Really?</p>
  
  <p>Firstly, to become a master you must be able to play all sorts of positions well. Playing a limited set of openings directly contradicts the goal of practicing a wide variety of positions. Or does it? Really? You see, we're not masters yet, so our games are likely to be unpredictable and messy.</p>
  
  <p>What this means is that until your middlegame and endgame skill is at the master level your opening choices matter very little. Think of it the other way; if you're playing a master and you've somehow managed an opening advantage the master will just dig in and outplay you in the middlegame or endgame. To become a master, you will also need to acquire these skills - so you'd better find ways to get opening-<em>dis</em>advantages as much as possible!</p>
  
  <p>I guest the real point is that even heavily unbalanced positions often have excellent drawing chances for the disadvantaged player. A master will be able to make use of these to greatly reduce the chances of a loss. The difference in opening choices in this sense comes down to the master's goals for a particular game. Would they be happy with a draw? How much do they want to risk pushing for a win if complications might also favour their opponent? Perhaps they check a database and find that their opponent only wins 2% of games that feature a Queen-side attack when the dark-square Bishop is exchanged - interesting, maybe it's worth trying a Trompovsky as White and pushing c4 early?</p>
  
  <p>This line of reasoning is just beyond being useful for non-master players.</p>
  
  <p>So now we see what Kasparov means when he says that all openings are playable. In almost all cases openings are simply <em>irrelevant</em>. Masters might try to expose each other's weaknesses with them but even at the highest level, it is middlegame and endgame skills that decide games.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-18T17:25:32.483Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-18T17:25:32.483Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: QuiteClose
Answers.Body: <p>I have a very simple criterium to decide whether an opening is playable:</p>
  
  <p>Every opening that is currently regularly played by at least one grandmaster against other grandmasters, is playable. </p>
  
  <p>The idea is obviously that if there is a clear cut refutation GMs will find it and they will play it.</p>
  
  <p>Edit: This answer is written from my perspective (Elo 2150) and still applies for players up to FM. Once you are a GM yourself it makes sense to look at what very strong GMs are playing, Elo 2650+. The point is to look at what is still being played regularly by players <em>significantly stronger than you</em> against players <em>significantly stronger than you</em>. That way you should be on the safe side, while still having quite a lot of choices. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-19T10:41:16.203Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for answering! Your idea of observing grandmasters is obvious and correct, but, for instance, when Topalov plays a Benoni against Kramnik only occasionnally, it does not entail it is fully playable (and in any move order). A one-game surprise weapon cannot be repeated. At my modest level (+- 2250 Fide), i have been doing this time and time again, one shot openings (but not completely incorrect, just offbeat), with some success. My wish is now to deepen my knowledge by choosing a good opening against d4 and e4 and fathoming its middlegame and typical endings.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-19T10:57:05.430Z
Answers.Text: That's why I wrote "regularly played".
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-19T13:54:42.570Z
Answers.Text: You are right. Apologies for my distraction. Interesting would be to define "regularly". I don't know if it is a good example, but Bauer used to play b6 and it is no longer the case (refutation or difficulty to obtain correct positions or too much analysed). So, he played b6 regularly against gms, and yet... I mean, if you play mainline openings less probabilities of being refuted exist. In the top, for instance, who is playing "regularly" the Benoni? What does Kasparov really mean? Did you read  Lars Bo Hansen's comments on opening choices? I'd like to know what you think about his books.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-19T14:26:14.893Z
Answers.Text: I didn't read Hansen's books, though they have been on my radar. I intentionally said "GMs" not top players, the point is players that are significantly stronger than you, and my guess is you'll find GMs playing the Benoni regularly. "Playable" is not the same as "great" or "super solid".
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-19T15:18:48.730Z
Answers.Text: You should read gm Hansen who is significantly stronger than you and see what his opinion on benoni is. Read also Dreev and his book on benoni. By the way, no need to be aggressive. Top players are all gms also and they know better than other gms.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-20T08:05:30.480Z
Answers.Text: Sorry, if I came across as aggressive, that wasn't my intention at all. I just tried to answer your questions as short and concise as possible, but I guess my main point didn't come across. I'll edit my answer to not spam this comment section too much.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-20T08:25:15.840Z
Answers.Text: No problem. Maybe you were not aggressive, i just felt so. Anyway, thanks for advising!
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-19T10:00:27.120Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-20T08:14:57.027Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-04-20T08:14:57.027Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Body: <p>Which defenses against 1. e4 and 1. d4 should a 2250-2300 FIDE player use to become an International Master, if he is: </p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Aggressive-minded</li>
  <li>Tactically proficient</li>
  <li>Keen on dynamics</li>
  <li>Original/imaginative/offbeat but still positionally prudent</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>I mean, there are so many allegedly "playable"  openings but many of them have minus positional sides (Benoni, Benko, Budapest, Tarrasch etc).  What does Kasparov mean when he says that all reasonable (sound?) openings are playable? </p>
  
  <p>What does his "reasonable" really mean? All over the internet, you find advice for all players except for players above 2200 FIDE ELO. It is assumed these players all know what they should do, but this is not the case I think.</p>
  
  <p>There are books on opening selection (Giddins, Yermolinsky, Hans Bo Larsen, Dvoretsky, for instance), but they are too general.</p>
  
  <p>So, to summarize, which openings are sound with black against 1.e4 and 1.d4, taking into account my stylistic preferences? </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-18T17:39:52.370Z
Comments.Text: The Giddins book is too general for a reason. The purpose of the book isn't to give you an opening repertoire; the purpose is to get you thinking about the right questions so that you can make your own informed decision about your repertoire.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Larry Coleman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-18T19:44:34.213Z
Comments.Text: Of course you are right. Anyway such a book could be written if it makes sense. There is probably no such thing as a clearly categorizable style.
Comments.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-20T11:44:21.417Z
Comments.Text: Bad Bishop, what do you mean with saying my question is too broad? Are you serious? I just asked which openings to play against d4 and against e4, taking into account the details I give. At a given level, mine here, there are not so many options, if we take style into account (from there the details provided). My question is not too broad but well-argumented. By playable I quite obviously do not mean "not being immediately punished by mate or losing material".
Comments.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Tags: <opening>
Title: Which openings are playable at (pre-)FM level - IM level?
ThreadText: # Which openings are playable at (pre-)FM level - IM level?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-18)
  
  Which defenses against 1. e4 and 1. d4 should a 2250-2300 FIDE player use to become an International Master, if he is:
  
  * Aggressive-minded
  * Tactically proficient
  * Keen on dynamics
  * Original/imaginative/offbeat but still positionally prudent
  
  I mean, there are so many allegedly "playable" openings but many of them have minus positional sides (Benoni, Benko, Budapest, Tarrasch etc). What does Kasparov mean when he says that all reasonable (sound?) openings are playable?
  
  What does his "reasonable" really mean? All over the internet, you find advice for all players except for players above 2200 FIDE ELO. It is assumed these players all know what they should do, but this is not the case I think.
  
  There are books on opening selection (Giddins, Yermolinsky, Hans Bo Larsen, Dvoretsky, for instance), but they are too general.
  
  So, to summarize, which openings are sound with black against 1.e4 and 1.d4, taking into account my stylistic preferences?
  
  **Tags:** opening
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The Giddins book is too general for a reason. The purpose of the book isn't to give you an opening repertoire; the purpose is to get you thinking about the right questions so that you can make your own informed decision about your repertoire.  
  > **username_0**: Of course you are right. Anyway such a book could be written if it makes sense. There is probably no such thing as a clearly categorizable style.  
  > **username_0**: Bad Bishop, what do you mean with saying my question is too broad? Are you serious? I just asked which openings to play against d4 and against e4, taking into account the details I give. At a given level, mine here, there are not so many options, if we take style into account (from there the details provided). My question is not too broad but well-argumented. By playable I quite obviously do not mean "not being immediately punished by mate or losing material".  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-04-18. Score: 3
  
  Opening advantages are fine things. Maybe you can even find an opening that lends itself to your 'style' of play. But what value does any of this have? Really?
  
  Firstly, to become a master you must be able to play all sorts of positions well. Playing a limited set of openings directly contradicts the goal of practicing a wide variety of positions. Or does it? Really? You see, we're not masters yet, so our games are likely to be unpredictable and messy.
  
  What this means is that until your middlegame and endgame skill is at the master level your opening choices matter very little. Think of it the other way; if you're playing a master and you've somehow managed an opening advantage the master will just dig in and outplay you in the middlegame or endgame. To become a master, you will also need to acquire these skills - so you'd better find ways to get opening-*dis*advantages as much as possible!
  
  I guest the real point is that even heavily unbalanced positions often have excellent drawing chances for the disadvantaged player. A master will be able to make use of these to greatly reduce the chances of a loss. The difference in opening choices in this sense comes down to the master's goals for a particular game. Would they be happy with a draw? How much do they want to risk pushing for a win if complications might also favour their opponent? Perhaps they check a database and find that their opponent only wins 2% of games that feature a Queen-side attack when the dark-square Bishop is exchanged - interesting, maybe it's worth trying a Trompovsky as White and pushing c4 early?
  
  This line of reasoning is just beyond being useful for non-master players.
  
  So now we see what Kasparov means when he says that all openings are playable. In almost all cases openings are simply *irrelevant*. Masters might try to expose each other's weaknesses with them but even at the highest level, it is middlegame and endgame skills that decide games.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-04-19. Score: 2
  
  I have a very simple criterium to decide whether an opening is playable:
  
  Every opening that is currently regularly played by at least one grandmaster against other grandmasters, is playable.
  
  The idea is obviously that if there is a clear cut refutation GMs will find it and they will play it.
  
  Edit: This answer is written from my perspective (Elo 2150) and still applies for players up to FM. Once you are a GM yourself it makes sense to look at what very strong GMs are playing, Elo 2650+. The point is to look at what is still being played regularly by players *significantly stronger than you* against players *significantly stronger than you*. That way you should be on the safe side, while still having quite a lot of choices.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for answering! Your idea of observing grandmasters is obvious and correct, but, for instance, when Topalov plays a Benoni against Kramnik only occasionnally, it does not entail it is fully playable (and in any move order). A one-game surprise weapon cannot be repeated. At my modest level (+- 2250 Fide), i have been doing this time and time again, one shot openings (but not completely incorrect, just offbeat), with some success. My wish is now to deepen my knowledge by choosing a good opening against d4 and e4 and fathoming its middlegame and typical endings.  
  > **username_3**: That's why I wrote "regularly played".  
  > **username_0**: You are right. Apologies for my distraction. Interesting would be to define "regularly". I don't know if it is a good example, but Bauer used to play b6 and it is no longer the case (refutation or difficulty to obtain correct positions or too much analysed). So, he played b6 regularly against gms, and yet... I mean, if you play mainline openings less probabilities of being refuted exist. In the top, for instance, who is playing "regularly" the Benoni? What does Kasparov really mean? Did you read  Lars Bo Hansen's comments on opening choices? I'd like to know what you think about his books.  
  > **username_3**: I didn't read Hansen's books, though they have been on my radar. I intentionally said "GMs" not top players, the point is players that are significantly stronger than you, and my guess is you'll find GMs playing the Benoni regularly. "Playable" is not the same as "great" or "super solid".  
  > **username_0**: You should read gm Hansen who is significantly stronger than you and see what his opinion on benoni is. Read also Dreev and his book on benoni. By the way, no need to be aggressive. Top players are all gms also and they know better than other gms.  
  > **username_3**: Sorry, if I came across as aggressive, that wasn't my intention at all. I just tried to answer your questions as short and concise as possible, but I guess my main point didn't come across. I'll edit my answer to not spam this comment section too much.  
  > **username_0**: No problem. Maybe you were not aggressive, i just felt so. Anyway, thanks for advising!  
  
  ---
  
  