Classical repertoire

What do you think of adopting the most classical repertoire possible and go for easy plans and development?

What do you think of a classical repertoire as follows:

As white:

- 1e4 in simple lines with easy development and simple plans.

As black:

- Queen's gambit declined, against 1d4 1Nf3 and 1c4.

- e5 againts 1e4?

Probably is not very ambitious but also as they say "best by test".

Sounds great to me.  I'm not sure you'll be able to get easy development and simple plans with c5, and some other responses to e4.  You won't always be able to play QGD against Nf3 and c4 (you could get into true reti and english lines, or other transpositions).

I've switched my opening strategy several times lately.  I felt like I just wasn't getting good with d4, so I tried positional e4 for a while.  I decided that's not so interesting, and maybe really not good enough (although some GM's do it).  Now I want to get a strong foundation in 1.e4 e5, and slowly develop d4 openings.

I'm a little surprised an e4 player would choose QG against d4, instead of Dutch, Benoni, or KID.  But maybe that goes along with your classical approach.

I think it is good in any age to go back to basic openings. If you play well these classical lines you build a solid foundation to your game.

Decent choice. Now the only question that remains is if you are comfortable playing those kinds of positions. If you like the resulting positions then you have found a possible repertoire for your entire live.

That is high praise, indeed!  

I agree, this might be a repertoire for a long time. It will be hard work to play for a win in some lines of the Ruy Lopez or QGD, but they are very solid and that's my main concern at the moment.

I think this black classical repertoire gives good prospects in the long term choice. Yes, get to know the plans and ideas in a long term experience might mean more points. But some may argue that's a bit dry.

In relation to playing 1e4 in my white repertoire, from my experience it is much easier to follow simple plans and get your pieces out playing 1e4 than with 1d4 or 1Nf3 or 1c4, which are more slow and subtle.

This is what Lasker played along with other world champions.

 If I recall correctly from an older thread, and which was from a commenter who hasn't commented lately (Jengaias), the GM Ludek Pachman (sp?) recommended the Classical Repertoire for Beginning and Intermediate players.  I think the reasoning was that it corresponds to the historical development of chess (?)  Something like that.  And so, the beginning and intermediate player would be served well by playing and studying the Classical Repertoire.

yes, I think it is best for beginners and intermediate players, but it is also good to advanced players - because it is very sound. So I agree that one can just play these openings and have a repertoire for a life time.

None of these are a challenge to a classical repertoire. If someone gets beat by any of those then the problem is not with their choice of opening. There are remedies available, even on youtube, to suit anyone's taste. He also will not see the Budapest Gambit (unless *he* plays it) since he has chosen to open with 1.e4.

Besides, every opening choice has some lines that go against a player's preference. The good thing about playing toward a QGD or Spanish with Black is that you learn the fundamental building blocks of good opening play. It's been my choice since I have gotten back into chess recently and it has served me well so far -- I get my share of the center and do not get crushed by a space advantage like I used to years ago when I used Indian fianchetto defenses trying to emulate Fischer's KID repertoire.

I don't see the Evans Gambit because I play the Two Knights Defense. I see the Latvian once in 13 Blue Moons. It amazes me how many King's Gambiteers at my current level can't handle the Falkbeer Countergambit. They often snag the e-pawn and go down quickly. I just had an 8 move miniature yesterday in that line.

My advice to the OP is to stick with a classical repertoire until you know it like the back of your hand. You will have some good games. You will have some horrible games. You can learn more from the horrors than from the ecstasy. Whatever you choose stick with it ... but remember that you cannot go wrong with an opening choice where you stake your claim in the center early and fight whether you are White or Black. Fight for your first move advantage as White and fight to take the initiative from White when you play Black.

Here is that 8 move mini I talked about.... I could have even played a stronger 6th move (6...Bg4! rather than 6...Bh3 -- which was still good).

Here is a video from IM Sielecki on a good answer to the Latvian Gambit...

So far everybody agreed that this is a good repertoire. The only question is the lines to choose. But I suppose you have to experiment a little in the beginning to find where you feel more comfortable. Also, these opening have many viable options and you can always vary a little. For example, in the Queens's Gambit we can play b6 for a quick c5 or c6. In the Spanish we can choose a less common option like the fianchetto variation or go for the main lines. Opening with 1e4 you can just develop the pieces sensible and you get usual a playable game. That's one advantage of this repertoire.

3.Nc3 is much easier. White has an advantage but doesn't have to actually remember anything.

Any guesses on how many hours it would take you to develop a classical opening repertoire for use in your OTB rated games?  Starting from scratch that is?

SeniorPatzer

I think it can be a lifelong project. But you can in a few days build the foundation. In my case, I have difficult memorizing variations and lines, so I opt for playing training games online and become more familiar with the positions to be able to find good moves. You can buy a dvd on this repertoire (chessbase has a few very good ones) to start, and that requires about 25 hours (for 1e4 plus QGD and 1e4 e5).

Seems like a sensible plan. But, once you answered 1...e5, which line of the Spanish should you favor? Chigorin (cramped), Breyer (passive), Zaitsev (sharp), etc?

I like the g6 Spanish  (1e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6) . It's sound and not so well known, but even with a well-prepared opponent, it gives chances for counterplay.

Right choice! Classics don't frustration...