Answers.Body: <p>That opening repertoire looks good to me. However, I must warn you about over-focusing on opening theory at your rating level.</p>
  
  <p>Right now I am going through a phase where I am focusing on other areas besides opening theory.  Some of the old masters, such as Lasker, didn't even bother with it.  Although I'm not sure if he would get away with that today.  I do think that a lot of lower-rated players focus too much on opening theory.  In most of your games, opponents aren't going to be playing the books moves, so it may actually be a waste of time to learn a bunch of opening theory. Instead it may be more beneficial to REALLY learn a solid set of chess principles, and even more importantly <strong>patterns</strong>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-18T18:07:29.743Z
Answers.Text: Your answer says that lower-rated players focus too much on opening theory, but then the next sentence says they don't play book moves. This seems like a paradox to me. Can you explain further?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Larry Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-18T18:18:24.757Z
Answers.Text: Hmmm... that's a good point.  I should've said that lower-rated players who are seriously seeking improvement tend to focus on opening theory too much.  I guess you could counter by saying, "aren't all players seeking improvement?"  To which I would answer, most players seek a better rating, but that doesn't imply they are seeking to improve their game.  Players can run into the trap of learning book moves without knowing the reasoning behind each move, which (to me at least) defeats the purpose of studying the opening.
Answers.UserDisplayName: UltraSonja
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-18T18:54:24.250Z
Answers.Text: I'm one of the lower-rated players. I don't know more than the first 3 or 4 moves of my openings by heart, and from the looks of things, my opponents don't either. But you do raise a good point about learning the moves without knowing the reasoning. Someone who did that could easily end up in a position he has no idea how to play.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Larry Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-09T12:47:09.230Z
Answers.Text: @LarryColeman There's no paradox. Lower-rated players often spend a lot of time studying the opening, but they don't remember the moves very well and different beginners study different positions. So, even in a game between two beginners who've studied the opening the same amount, it's pretty likely that one player or the other will play a "non-book" move by move six or seven or so.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-18T16:53:01.513Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-18T16:53:01.513Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: UltraSonja
Answers.Body: <p>I would also recommend taking a look at the Queens Gambit Declined: Tarrasch defense, Because you are playing the Alapin against the Sicilian, and the Tarrasch against the French you have a pretty good chance of playing with or against an Isolated Queen Pawn (IQP) which can teach you a lot about active piece play.  In IQP positions knowing the plans and the typical tactics of the positions are way more important than knowing opening moves.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-09T06:09:53.767Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-09T10:14:51.630Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-05-09T10:14:51.630Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alejandro Canales
Answers.Body: <p>This looks like a pretty complicated repertoire, so I would focus on my openings as Black first (with White, it's harder to get smashed in the opening) You don't really need that much opening thoery, so I'd rather "learn by doing" (play a bunch of games and analyse them)</p>
  
  <p>The Danish gambit is not a problem at all, just accept it and after 5.Bxb2 d5! 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4 the game is at least equal. Other attempts can be answered by a quick ...d5, like 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 or 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5. You can also be fine against the King's gambit with your move, so I'd focus on Italian, Spanish and Scotch</p>
  
  <p>But maybe we are doing this the wrong way, after all, there are still three main openings to study, and White will always have the ability to choose the one they prefer. That's why I would suggest you to play the either 2...d6 (Philidor Defence) or 1...e6 (the French Defence)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-09T06:32:27.300Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-09T06:32:27.300Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.Body: <p>Yassir Seirawan's Winning Chess series (starting with Play Winning Chess) is ridiculously good. I first read the series when I was 12. Every time I re-read it (aged 15, 17, 20, 22, and so on), I got noticeably better. To this day, I don't know much opening theory (beyond Alekhine's) and I can hold my own against 1600+ even after going without playing for a couple years. It's all about knowing the patterns.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-28T14:16:13.707Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-28T14:16:13.707Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rob Kinyon
Body: <p>I decided that I want to learn classical chess.  Although I'm rated in the 1400's, I want to really gain a strong understanding of basic ideas and principles in chess and improve my tactical ability.  Thus, I want to generally go for open games.  I also don't want anything theory-heavy or complex.  Just nice, simple, classical/traditional openings and/or openings that involve playing with the innitiative or defending against the innitiative that will are good for learning and also viable at the top level.  So the opening repertoire I'm going with now is:</p>
  
  <p>As white:</p>
  
  <p>1.e4 </p>
  
  <p>Versus Sicilian Defence: Alapin Variation</p>
  
  <p>Versus 1...e5, Four Knights Game (regardless of 2...Nc6 or Petroff)</p>
  
  <p>Versus French Defence: Tarrasch Variation which will either lead to the Rubinstein Variation or 3...Nf6, after which I'll try to get into the Nunn-Korchnoi Gambit</p>
  
  <p>Versus Pirc/Scandinavian/Caro-Kann/Alekhine/Modern: I'll just play relatively main lines and/or develop by opening principles.  </p>
  
  <p>As Black:</p>
  
  <p>1...e5</p>
  
  <p>Versus King's Gambit: Decline with 2...Bc5
  Versus Danish Gambit: Accept and defend the best I can (after I get destroyed, I'll probably look up how to do it)
  Versus Italian Game: Giuoco Piano
  Versus Scotch Game: Main Line with 2...Bc5
  Versus Spanish Game/Ruy Lopez: Classical/Cordel Variation with 3...Bc5 
  Versus Ponziani: Dish out that relatively brief line I learned yesterday from the FCO so I don't get destroyed again 
  Versus Four Knights Game: Play symmetrically and/or develop with opening principles</p>
  
  <p>Versus 1.d4, TRADITIONAL QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED - not the Lasker Variation, but the one where you fianchetto the light-square bishop.  </p>
  
  <p>Is this a good learning repertoire?  </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-17T12:07:41.647Z
Comments.Text: Looks fine to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-10T11:17:50.783Z
Comments.Text: Why do opinion-based questions get put on hold? Every answer to any question is ultimately opinion-based
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <opening>
Title: Classical Chess Opening Repertoire
ThreadText: # Classical Chess Opening Repertoire
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-15)
  
  I decided that I want to learn classical chess. Although I'm rated in the 1400's, I want to really gain a strong understanding of basic ideas and principles in chess and improve my tactical ability. Thus, I want to generally go for open games. I also don't want anything theory-heavy or complex. Just nice, simple, classical/traditional openings and/or openings that involve playing with the innitiative or defending against the innitiative that will are good for learning and also viable at the top level. So the opening repertoire I'm going with now is:
  
  As white:
  
  1.e4
  
  Versus Sicilian Defence: Alapin Variation
  
  Versus 1...e5, Four Knights Game (regardless of 2...Nc6 or Petroff)
  
  Versus French Defence: Tarrasch Variation which will either lead to the Rubinstein Variation or 3...Nf6, after which I'll try to get into the Nunn-Korchnoi Gambit
  
  Versus Pirc/Scandinavian/Caro-Kann/Alekhine/Modern: I'll just play relatively main lines and/or develop by opening principles.
  
  As Black:
  
  1...e5
  
  Versus King's Gambit: Decline with 2...Bc5
  Versus Danish Gambit: Accept and defend the best I can (after I get destroyed, I'll probably look up how to do it)
  Versus Italian Game: Giuoco Piano
  Versus Scotch Game: Main Line with 2...Bc5
  Versus Spanish Game/Ruy Lopez: Classical/Cordel Variation with 3...Bc5
  Versus Ponziani: Dish out that relatively brief line I learned yesterday from the FCO so I don't get destroyed again
  Versus Four Knights Game: Play symmetrically and/or develop with opening principles
  
  Versus 1.d4, TRADITIONAL QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED - not the Lasker Variation, but the one where you fianchetto the light-square bishop.
  
  Is this a good learning repertoire?
  
  **Tags:** opening
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Looks fine to me.  
  > **username_2**: Why do opinion-based questions get put on hold? Every answer to any question is ultimately opinion-based  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2015-08-18. Score: 3
  
  That opening repertoire looks good to me. However, I must warn you about over-focusing on opening theory at your rating level.
  
  Right now I am going through a phase where I am focusing on other areas besides opening theory. Some of the old masters, such as Lasker, didn't even bother with it. Although I'm not sure if he would get away with that today. I do think that a lot of lower-rated players focus too much on opening theory. In most of your games, opponents aren't going to be playing the books moves, so it may actually be a waste of time to learn a bunch of opening theory. Instead it may be more beneficial to REALLY learn a solid set of chess principles, and even more importantly **patterns**.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Your answer says that lower-rated players focus too much on opening theory, but then the next sentence says they don't play book moves. This seems like a paradox to me. Can you explain further?  
  > **username_3**: Hmmm... that's a good point.  I should've said that lower-rated players who are seriously seeking improvement tend to focus on opening theory too much.  I guess you could counter by saying, "aren't all players seeking improvement?"  To which I would answer, most players seek a better rating, but that doesn't imply they are seeking to improve their game.  Players can run into the trap of learning book moves without knowing the reasoning behind each move, which (to me at least) defeats the purpose of studying the opening.  
  > **username_4**: I'm one of the lower-rated players. I don't know more than the first 3 or 4 moves of my openings by heart, and from the looks of things, my opponents don't either. But you do raise a good point about learning the moves without knowing the reasoning. Someone who did that could easily end up in a position he has no idea how to play.  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 There's no paradox. Lower-rated players often spend a lot of time studying the opening, but they don't remember the moves very well and different beginners study different positions. So, even in a game between two beginners who've studied the opening the same amount, it's pretty likely that one player or the other will play a "non-book" move by move six or seven or so.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2019-05-09. Score: 1
  
  I would also recommend taking a look at the Queens Gambit Declined: Tarrasch defense, Because you are playing the Alapin against the Sicilian, and the Tarrasch against the French you have a pretty good chance of playing with or against an Isolated Queen Pawn (IQP) which can teach you a lot about active piece play. In IQP positions knowing the plans and the typical tactics of the positions are way more important than knowing opening moves.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-05-09. Score: 1
  
  This looks like a pretty complicated repertoire, so I would focus on my openings as Black first (with White, it's harder to get smashed in the opening) You don't really need that much opening thoery, so I'd rather "learn by doing" (play a bunch of games and analyse them)
  
  The Danish gambit is not a problem at all, just accept it and after 5.Bxb2 d5! 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4 the game is at least equal. Other attempts can be answered by a quick ...d5, like 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 or 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5. You can also be fine against the King's gambit with your move, so I'd focus on Italian, Spanish and Scotch
  
  But maybe we are doing this the wrong way, after all, there are still three main openings to study, and White will always have the ability to choose the one they prefer. That's why I would suggest you to play the either 2...d6 (Philidor Defence) or 1...e6 (the French Defence)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2015-08-28. Score: 1
  
  Yassir Seirawan's Winning Chess series (starting with Play Winning Chess) is ridiculously good. I first read the series when I was 12. Every time I re-read it (aged 15, 17, 20, 22, and so on), I got noticeably better. To this day, I don't know much opening theory (beyond Alekhine's) and I can hold my own against 1600+ even after going without playing for a couple years. It's all about knowing the patterns.
  
  
  ---
  
  