Choosing an Opening for the Game - Chess.com
The stronger the player, the more important it is that they know the opening well. The number of lines also increases tremendously. While beginners may get away with knowing just the basics, elite players have to analyze and memorize huge amounts of information.
There are two main types of opening preparation: having a narrow repertoire and a wide repertoire. In the first case you have a single response to the main moves by White (i.e. one opening against 1.e4, one against 1.d4, etc.). The pros of such approach are that you know your lines well and have a vast experience playing them. The cons: it’s very easy to prepare for a game against you; it’s hard to tune your tournament strategy in accordance with your performance. E.g. you may be playing a solid opening for Black, which doesn’t help to win a decisive game at all.
A wide repertoire implies having a few lines up your sleeve (e.g. being able to play the KID, Gruenfeld and the Nimzoindian against 1.d4). Pros: flexible tournament strategy; opponents will have a hard time preparing. Cons: not enough experience; necessity to memorize enormous amounts of lines. The third approach is a hybrid of the first two: when you have one (or more) well-analyzed openings and can also choose something different in special cases. Pros: surprise effect. Cons: if you decide to improvise and play an opening from scratch, your knowledge of the system will likely be superficial, thus increasing the probability of making a mistake (or several!).
When choosing an opening for the game we should try to predict our opponent’s intentions, consider the tournament situation and find breaches in his preparation. If you know a line that more or less perfectly suits your goals, you can go ahead and play it. However, in the real world it often seems that something is wrong about your prep. Then you have to think of a different way. As a case study, let’s consider my recent game against ex-Russian chess champion GM Sergey Volkov.
I had Black against him in round 4 of the Polugaevsky Memorial-2011. At this point I had 2.5/3, so my options weren’t limited to playing for a win only. By reviewing my opponent’s games, I discovered that against my main opening vs 1.d4, the Nimzovitch defense, he virtually always opts for a complicated line with 4.f3. He has a lot of experience treating those positions, while I can’t boast the same. However, most of his opponents preferred 4…d5 to “my” move – 4…0-0. At first I was toying with the idea of employing my previous favorite – the Benko gambit. Then I thought that I don’t play it too often myself, and the opponent will probably prepare against it anyway, so it won’t be much of a surprise factor. So, I decided to settle for the Nimzovitch defense and spent quite a lot of time analyzing an interesting line I found (later named by French GM Vladislav Tkachiev “novelty of the week in the world”). The advantage of this approach was that my opponent had never faced this idea before. Also, I reviewed the main variations thoroughly while preparing. The drawbacks were that in some variations a dangerous position could occur, and I wasn’t sure I would be able to memorize all the prep well enough. Anyway, I knew that most experienced chess players try to avoid main lines when caught off guard, since they are scared of having to play against an opponent who has prepared the variation with a chess engine. Therefore, the risk was justified.
As a result, the game proceeded just like I expected. My opponent deviated from a critical line, so I got a comfortable position. In fact, the opening was the main factor for a relatively successful outcome of the whole game. At some point my position was better, and I could even win a piece (although giving White a good compensation for it). Nonetheless, White didn’t risk losing this game too muc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimzowitsch_Defence
Choosing an Opening for the Game
Submitted by WGM Natalia_Pogonina on Chess.com
The stronger the player, the more important it is that they know the opening well. The number of lines also increases tremendously. While beginners may get away with knowing just the basics, elite players have to analyze and memorize huge amounts of information.There are two main types of opening preparation: having a narrow repertoire and a wide repertoire. In the first case you have a single response to the main moves by White (i.e. one opening against 1.e4, one against 1.d4, etc.). The pros of such approach are that you know your lines well and have a vast experience playing them. The cons: it’s very easy to prepare for a game against you; it’s hard to tune your tournament strategy in accordance with your performance. E.g. you may be playing a solid opening for Black, which doesn’t help to win a decisive game at all.
A wide repertoire implies having a few lines up your sleeve (e.g. being able to play the KID, Gruenfeld and the Nimzoindian against 1.d4). Pros: flexible tournament strategy; opponents will have a hard time preparing. Cons: not enough experience; necessity to memorize enormous amounts of lines. The third approach is a hybrid of the first two: when you have one (or more) well-analyzed openings and can also choose something different in special cases. Pros: surprise effect. Cons: if you decide to improvise and play an opening from scratch, your knowledge of the system will likely be superficial, thus increasing the probability of making a mistake (or several!).
When choosing an opening for the game we should try to predict our opponent’s intentions, consider the tournament situation and find breaches in his preparation. If you know a line that more or less perfectly suits your goals, you can go ahead and play it. However, in the real world it often seems that something is wrong about your prep. Then you have to think of a different way. As a case study, let’s consider my recent game against ex-Russian chess champion GM Sergey Volkov.
I had Black against him in round 4 of the Polugaevsky Memorial-2011. At this point I had 2.5/3, so my options weren’t limited to playing for a win only. By reviewing my opponent’s games, I discovered that against my main opening vs 1.d4, the Nimzovitch defense, he virtually always opts for a complicated line with 4.f3. He has a lot of experience treating those positions, while I can’t boast the same. However, most of his opponents preferred 4…d5 to “my” move – 4…0-0. At first I was toying with the idea of employing my previous favorite – the Benko gambit. Then I thought that I don’t play it too often myself, and the opponent will probably prepare against it anyway, so it won’t be much of a surprise factor. So, I decided to settle for the Nimzovitch defense and spent quite a lot of time analyzing an interesting line I found (later named by French GM Vladislav Tkachiev “novelty of the week in the world”). The advantage of this approach was that my opponent had never faced this idea before. Also, I reviewed the main variations thoroughly while preparing. The drawbacks were that in some variations a dangerous position could occur, and I wasn’t sure I would be able to memorize all the prep well enough. Anyway, I knew that most experienced chess players try to avoid main lines when caught off guard, since they are scared of having to play against an opponent who has prepared the variation with a chess engine. Therefore, the risk was justified.
Volkov, Sergey1 (2607) vs. Pogonina, N. (2442)
Lev Polugaevsky Mem | Samara RUS | Round 4| 8 Jul 2011 | ECO: E24 | 1/2-1/2
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 O-O 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. e4 Nc6 8. Be3 ( 8. e5 ) 8... Qa5 9. Qd2 d5 10. e5 Nd7 11. cxd5 exd5 12. f4 ( 12. Bd3 Nb6 13. Ne2 Nc4 14. Bxc4 dxc4 15. f4 cxd4 16. Nxd4 ( 16. cxd4 Qxd2+ 17. Kxd2 Rd8 ) 16... Rd8 17. O-O Bf5 ) 12... Nb6 13. Nf3 ( 13. dxc5 Na4 14. Ne2 ( 14. Nf3 Nxc5 ) 14... f6!? 15. exf6 ( 15. Qxd5+ Kh8 16. exf6 Rxf6 ) 15... Rxf6 16. Rb1 Bg4 17. h3 Bxe2 18. Bxe2 Nxc3 19. O-O Re8 20. Rbe1 Nxe2+ 21. Qxe2 Qxa3 ) 13... Bf5 ( 13... Rd8!? 14. dxc5 Na4 15. Bd3 Nxc5 16. Bxc5 Qxc5 17. Nd4 Re8 ) 14. dxc5 Na4 ( 14... Nc4 15. Bxc4 dxc4 16. O-O ) 15. Nd4 Be4 16. Nb3 ( 16. Nxc6 bxc6 17. c4 Qxd2+ 18. Kxd2 Rfd8 19. Bd4 Rab8 20. cxd5 Rxd5 21. Ke3 Rbd8 22. Kxe4 Rxd4+ 23. Ke3 Nxc5 24. g3 ) 16... Qxc3 17. Qxc3 Nxc3 18. Kd2 Nb1+ 19. Kc1 d4 ( 19... Nc3 20. Kd2 Nb1+ 21. Kc1 ) 20. Nxd4?! ( 20. Bxd4 Nxd4 21. Nxd4 Rfd8 22. Nb5 Rac8 23. Nd6 Rxc5+ 24. Kb2 Nd2 25. Rc1 Rxc1 26. Kxc1 Nxf1 27. Nxe4 Rd4 ( 27... Ne3 28. g3 Nc4 29. a4 Rd4 30. Re1 ) 28. Rxf1 Rxe4 ) 20... Nxd4 21. Bxd4 Rfd8 22. Be3 Nc3 23. Bc4 Bxg2 ( 23... b5! 24. cxb6 Rac8 ( 24... Na4 25. Rd1 Rxd1+ 26. Kxd1 Nb2+ 27. Ke2 Nxc4 28. bxa7 Nxe3 29. Kxe3 f5 ( 29... Bxg2 30. Rd1 Kf8 31. Rd7 ) 30. exf6 Bf5 31. fxg7 Rxa7 32. a4 Ra5 ) 25. Ba6 Ne2+ 26. Kb2 Rc2+ 27. Kb3 Rc3+ 28. Kb4 Rxe3 29. bxa7 Nxf4 ) 24. Rg1 Bd5 ( 24... Be4 25. Kb2 Nd5 26. Bxd5 Rxd5 27. Rgd1 Rad8 28. Rxd5 Rxd5 ) 25. Kc2 Bxc4 26. Kxc3 Be6 ( 26... Rd3+ 27. Kxc4 Rxe3 28. Rgb1 b6 29. cxb6 axb6 30. Rxb6 Re4+ 31. Kb3 ) 27. a4 Rac8 28. Rad1 Rxd1 29. Rxd1 Kf8 30. Kb4 Ke8 31. Rd6 Bd7 32. Bf2 Rc6 33. Rd2?! Rh6 34. Bg3 Ra6?! ( 34... Rh3 ) 35. Ra2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimzowitsch_Defence
