Building a 1.d4 Repertoire

I purchased the fritztrainer opening DVD “Build A 1.d4 Repertoire” by GM Nigel Davies. Nigel thinks it best to delay playing 1.d4 2.c4 until after playing one of the more simple queen pawn opening systems for 6 - 12 months, i.e., London, Colle or Torre. The reason being that there is more opening theory associated with 1.d4 2.c4.

Having committed to 1.d4, I finished viewing both “Build A 1.d4 Repertoire” and “The Colle System”, and ordered the “The London System”, since Nigel believes that the London presents the fewest problems to the player new to 1.d4 and doesn’t require the same level of urgency as do the Colle and the Torre to play 1.d4 2.c4.

Considered dull and boring, these three 1.d4 systems are not nearly as sharp as the Queen’s Gambit,  but for the beginning chess player attempting to play Live Chess,  I would rather arrive at the middle game with winning chances than being down a pawn or two with a bad position.  

The Queen’s Gambit works fine for Turn-Based chess.  I have chess books and more time to think. :)

What do you think about the idea of building a simple queen pawn repertoire before upgrading to 1.d4 2.c4?

A sample game using the London System with a comment from GM Nigel Davies after the last move.

                London System Variations with comments from GM Nigel Davies

I don't believe in it at all...

Just go headlong into the Queens Gambit and 2.c4 imo.

You say "I would rather arrive at the middle game with winning chances than being down a pawn or two with a bad position."

However, you should remember that you are more than likely losing material due to tactics you need to familiarize yourself with. Don't play the London System.  More broadly: Don't avoid your weaknesses.

Get familiar with QG and Indian Defence positions and explore common themes. As white, you should always strive for an advantage.

I like the idea of getting my dark square bishop outside of the pawn chain and actually attacking, which the London System permits.

With 1.d4 2.c4, this bishop either takes a nap, gets exchanged early or plays defense. Not much glory in that.

Examples -

There are plenty of lines in the Aleppo Gambit (fancy name for QG) :P and 1.d4 2.c4 in general where the QB is outside the pawn chain.

4. Bd2 in the Nimzo is an inferior move. Play 4. Qc2 (4.e3 is also a main move but you seem to not want the bishop blocked in)

In the QGD Exchange, white clearly gets the bishop out of the pawn chain with 5. Bg5. Same goes for other QGD lines where white plays Bf4 or Bg5...

In the Semi-Slav, 5.Bg5 gets the bishop out of the pawn chain. If 5...h6 you can go for the Anti-Moscow gambit with 6.Bh4 rather than the Moscow 6.Bxf6.

In the KID Classical, white clearly doesn't have the bishop blocked in.

I don't see how the bishop gets blocked, exchanged early, or plays defense in these lines. If anything, white's light squared bishop is the one playing defense in the KID Classical..

And in the BID with 4...BB4+, 5.Bd2 Bxd2 (again, not the main move 5...Qe7 is and the bishop is exchanged later on) it doesn't matter if the bishop got exchanged. If anything, Black just exchanged away his good dark squared bishop. (Not bad for either side and white should retain an opening advantage just like normal...)

In the Stonewall Dutch, white often wants to exchange the dark squared bishops...

The London System will give Black early equality. I think if you work on tactics and actively play 1.d4 2.c4 then you will love it.

What do you think about the idea of building a simple queen pawn repertoire before upgrading to 1.d4 2.c4?

I think it's quite okay if you're comfortable with it. Besides, I trust Nigel Davies' judgment most of the times 

I don't think he is trying to avoid theory, because as he mentioned, the idea is to play the london and/or colle for 6-12 months, and not forever, just so that he can comfortable playing d4, and make it safely into the middlegame as he mentioned.

Musik has posted a lot things where he seems to be taking his studies pretty seriously, so if he follows the advice of the Nigel which is playing the london system for awhile, and then steps into the d4-c4 world I don't think that seems like such a bad idea.

do whatever works for you.

there are multiple routes to every destination.

Personally, I would not put in 6-12 months of work on an opening system I was planning to abandon for the "real" system at that point.  If you want to play Queen's Gambit, start playing the Queen's Gambit.  Best way to learn is to jump in and start playing it.  There may be some painful lessons along the way as you learn the systems.  Don't take the attitude that you have to know a ton of lines to great depth to start.  Learn the very basics, and then build it up over time, based on your real  game experiences.  That way when you are done your knowledge of the opening will be tied to real game experience and the resulting middle game positions, and not just a bunch of abstract memorized moves from a book.

Yes. The London System is not agressive, but neither is it weak. Sam Shankland covers the London System in a chess.com video and talks about how annoying it was to play against the London when he was 13, knowing he was the better player, but finding it difficult to break down this passive but solid system. When IM Sam Shankland talks, I sit up and listen. :)

GM Nigel Davies and you are in 100% agreement.

The idea behind the London System is this: a flexible, solid system which provides a good entry point into the world of 1.d4, affording the fewest number of complications in the opening for the beginning chess player. From there, step by step, a beginning player can build a more complex/sharper 1.d4 repertoire. Nigel is extremely systematic in this 5 hour DVD, and is awesome at presenting material in such a way that I, the beginning chess player, can understand.

The point is not to avoid opening theory, but to build one's opening theory from the ground up. GM Nigel Davies is of the opinion that starting right away with 1.d4 2.c4 runs into too many complications when first beginning to play 1.d4.

I have experienced this first hand, new to 1.d4, with the move order 1.d4 2.c4, taken completely out of book in just the first few moves.

Do I know the first few moves and ideas by memory of the QGD, QGA, Nimzo? Yes. But there is also the Benoni, Benko Gambit, Slav, Semi-Slav...the list is very long.

Last, Nigel does emphasize the need for the 1.d4 player to work in the move order 1.d4 2.c4 at the appropriate time,  but get this, he also believes that the three basic 1.d4 systems alone, with no 2.c4 (Colle/Zukertort, Torre and London) can be played all the way up to a playing strength of 2000 OTB. That is impressive.

At age 51 and only a full year into chess, I don't see myself, in my lifetime, ever being at a real OTB rating past 2000, or Expert level, which is only one step away from being a Chess Master.

Your post is most encouraging. Thanks for the kind words. :)

Well.

You have to understand that people your level will also not know all the theory needed to play AGAINST 1.d4/2.c4 so therefore you can play it without knowing everything.

For example, you can practically play 5.Bg5 in the Semi-Slav (which is known to be highly theoretical) and skip the theoretical Botvinnik/ANti-Moscow gambit variations b/c your opponents will likely simply transpose into a QGD with 5...Be7 or Cambridge Springs QGD 5...Nbd7. You can also pretty much skip the Grunfeld.

You will need to know mainly QGD, KID, NID, gambits Black can throw, and some Benoni.

Don't forget one major thing: By playing the London you are missing out on some of the most fun positions in chess.

Excellent point.

I'm only in the 1500's in Turn-Based, and at that rating, I don't mind playing the QG at all, since I have access to a huge database and many excellent chess books.

It would take a very, very long time for someone in Turn Based chess to take me both out of book, chess books and the ChessBase database. In ChessBase, you can also find games where chess amateurs get absolutely crushed by master chess players when attempting a non-book move.

Live Chess is completely different for me and that is why I am viewing the instructional DVD's of GM Nigel Davies.

Nigel, in the context of tournament/live play, is basically telling me not to play 1.d4 2.c4 until I am good and ready, which he says will take a good 6-12 months if I have the time to study a lot chess.

He states very clearly that for the guy with a family and a job, which is me, don't play 1.d4 2.c4 until those responsibilities are over, as in retired from work and the kids are all grown up. The study time is simply not there yet for playing 1.d4 2.c4. He's dead serious about this, and he is a Grandmaster. Compared to him, I know absolutely nothing about chess, so, I am going to allow him to coach me. 

I just got another one of his DVD's in the mail today. So far, I've listened to 15 hours of Nigel Davies in my spare time, and I have 5 more hours of instruction on order.

The 5 hours I received today covers a system I can use with the Black pieces against the big three, 1.e4, 1.d4 and 1.c4. It's amazing, and he shows examples of how to use this system from his own games and that of other GM's.

I'm simply blown away with how much I've learned about pawn structure, how to use pawns and how to defend pawns with pieces in just a few short hours viewing this system for Black.

I dont find that the black bishop necessarily gets exchanged or does nothing.

I think it depends what kind of player you are.  I've never read a chess-book, but play D4,C4 because it takes away the need for theory.  If you play solidly there are very few horrible lines one gets into.  

Musikamole, I've been thinking of buying a couple of Nigel Davies CD's, but there is a technical question that I don't understand - I'm not able to install applications on my laptop (don't have admin rights) - does the DVD run stand alone, like a movie, or does it need Fritz/Chessbase installed to work?

You need admin rights, as there is an application that must be installed to run the Fritz training DVD's. I hope you can get permission to install the necessary software to run the DVD's. It's the best video format out there for learning chess. You can flip the board, resize various screens, have chess engines running, add continuations of your own. It's highly interactive.

 Thanks for the reply and advice, good luck with your d4 repertoire!

If not theory yet, how about a system for good piece/pawn placement? That's the idea behind an opening system, as opposed to a specific opening.

I'm in full agreement that I have no need to memorize long lines of theory, for the simple reason being that opponents that I play against here at chess.com don't know them either. So, we are both playing out of book after a few moves, with the one who is stronger in both principles and tactics wins.

ICC is a different world.

I did try 1.d4 2.c4 again over at ICC in 15 minute games and got absolutely crushed. It is harder over there, as the range in rating of one's opponent is not someting I can select, at least not in a rated game.  I've played against guys as much as 500 points over my rating. So for chess.com Live Chess and especially ICC chess, I'm looking into 1.d4 systems.

I did fair better when using a system over at ICC, i.e., the Colle or London, as I tended to get in less trouble.

Playing 1.d4 2.c4 invited too much trouble when playing someone rated a few hundred points higher than myserlf. These guys know a ton of lines that I don't know. The reason why I say this is because I can recognize the Nimzo or the Benoni, but I don't know how to play against these defenses in 15 minute games. I can do it in Turn-Based with the help of Game Explorer or some other database, but not in live play.

1. I don't know enough about chess to say which is the best approach, starting with 1.d4 c4 or a 1.d4 system. GM Nigel Davies stongly suggests learning systems first, play many games with them while getting a feel for playing 1.d4,  even if one has the time to study opening theory.

2. Nigel says the same thing. He uses the word upgrade in his instructional videos. After a certain time has passed, the player will feel the need for playing stronger lines. Surprisingly, Nigel says that the 1.d4 systems can be played all the way up to 2000, or Expert, with good success. He also says that these systems work well for the club player.

3. "Indefinitely" is not my plan. As a public school music teacher, my plan is to get a feel for 1.d4, from now until the end of May, and when the long summer vacation starts, I'll revisit my chess books on the QG and other 1.d4 openings. The Catalan looks very interesting, as an example.

Without looking at any chess books right now, I can type this from memory:

Queen's Gambit Declined 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5

Nimzo-Indian Defense 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3

The Modern Benoni Defense 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5

I could type more, but this gives you an idea.

Last, I know a few opening lines, but I don't see them played by my Live Chess opponents at chess.com, so they are not practical right now. I'm getting more bang for my buck by investing time with Tactics Trainer and learning the 50 classic checkmating patterns from New Zealand GM Murray Chandler in his book, How To Beat Your Dad At Chess.

Interesting. Why are the 1000 rated players so much stronger over at ICC?  Here, I can do o.k. in Live Chess against a 1000 rated player. Over there I get crushed.

Is it because one must pay to play internet chess at ICC? Are they more serious about chess?  I just had to fork over another 3 month membership fee for playing privileges. My win/loss stats are beyond terrible over there.

Why do I pay for this membership? Mostly because I like to listen to Dan Heisman explain things to me in his Improve Your Chess video lectures. The most recent one is titled "Another Instructive Endgame". :)

So, these ICC players know the endgame? Yep. Even when there was very little material on the board in a few of my games, those players knew how to promote a pawn!