Never ending search: what to play as White...

Hi, my first post here (but I have played club chess for a decade so I am not a new beginner).

Those of you who are in this siutation: you have made serious attempts to work out a respetable repertoire as white, but in the end found it to require too much work. Now you look for a simpler off-beat system that allows you to play chess without needing to prepare lines against booked-up opponents.

I played 1.e4 but found it quite difficult to meet the Sicillian. I played 1.d4 and 1.c4 but certain systems seemed to need rather much opening work, to get reasonable positions. And, most black players study systems as black against these first moves. 

So, I have now tried Torre attack (c3+d4+Nf3+Bg5), London (as Torre, but Bf4), Bird (f4, b3 or g3), and now I am trying the Nimzo-Larsen attack.

What do you think: 1.Nf3 + 2.b3, with possibilities to transpose into certain mainlines at desire. E.g., against the Dutch I can go 2.c4 + 3.g3, and there can be an English sometimes. Dear friends, I would really like to hear from you your free thoughts on all this. Do you struggle in a similar fashion, seeking the "heaven" (some system that suddenly will transform your play :)

good

Thanks. Yes I know, that is a frequently heard argument, and I am sure it is essentially true. But, on the other hand, if we want to use our study time on other areas such as tactics, endgames and general strategy, then it is not that easy to play Roy Lopez, or getting a Gruenfeld when playing 1.d4. 

So, my question is, what is a good pragamtic approach here? It seems to me that the fluid pawn structures resulting from 1.Nf3, 2.b3, then perhaps e3 + c4, seem to be strategically rich and similar to the English. But no prepared auto-responses from Black ... 

Thansk anyway

If you want a line against the gruenfeld that has less theory, play you can play this slightly offbeat variation:

It will take less time to learn this line and you will probably know more theory than the gruenfeld player who has to learn all of the mainlines. Also the idea is rather interesting: to play e4 without Nxc3!

Thanks again. I just wanted to mention a variation that is traditionally very theoretical (Gruendfeld). The variation you give, isn't it going to be roughly as off-beat as 1Nf3 + b3? 

If I need off-beat weapons in Benoni, Benko, Nimzo, QID, etc ... 

I am not in any way saying that it is wrong to play main-lines, but I believe there can be certain advantages in less known systems. 

Anyone with experience from the Nimzo-Larsen?

Yes, I was suprised too see how little there is out there on this opening- I couldn't fimd much at all. 

I will give it a try. I guess g3 doesn't go well together with e3 (which seems logical, reversed Nimzo + white might want to go for a c2-c4 in the near future). 

i really think that your first move by white is basically your opinion.People say e4,d5,c4,Nf3,e3,d3,b3,g3 and so on.The reality is that if you play any first move black will come out with some opening.

I really think it depends on your opening knowledge.Let just say that you know very well the sicillian from both sides very well and you really can not remember the London System then playing a move like d5 c6 e6 followed with the Bd6.Well then play the sicillian.(sorry if my spelling is off)You always need a back up plan.If your opponent plays d4. c5 is not a pleasant response losing a pawn.So, d4 d5.Then play the game.

See the main lines are basically just suggestions to me.They basically show the most obvious move for openings.Right,I play the book moves allt he time without een knowing.Sorry if this is a critic to the main lines but that is my opinion.

c5 isn't a bad response to d4 actually. I think it's called the old benoni, or something like that.

Could we go back to the topic please? Anyone playing NL?

My knowledge is not bad, I have 100+ books and have played chess for 25 years. But, I don't want to study 25 theoretical moves in the Dragon

Exactly the kind of experience I hoped for; thanks. "Retire" is well put. That is exactly what I want, in some sense.

Here is a sample line that I find somewhat non-trivial, though: 

1. Nf3 d5 2. b3 c5 3. Bb2 Nc6 4. e3 Nf6 

White is of course not forced to play like this, but I like the idea of hitting d5 with c4 at some time. However, here, black gets good play with d5-d4. I guess white should consider a truly reversed Nimzo, with Bb5 ... (Nimzowitsch - Spielmann, 1927)

The DVD by Nigel Davies? Anyone? Seems very promising, according to this http://www.chesscafe.com/cbcafe/cbcafe.htm 

thanks for this page

I personally like the Parham Attack.

I understand that you're looking for a system that will allow you less study. But for what ultimate purpose? More wins? Because any system you try will eventually land you where you are now - it doesn't always work. Because you get outplayed. Decent players will adapt to anything you throw at 'em. Respectfully, I suggest that if you want more wins, improve your general chess skills instead of looking for a 'winning' (powerful, devious, little known, etc.) opening. Not to negate the discussion, of course. The discussion is interesting. Just saying.

I am surprised; I thought I was very explicit in earlier posts. I want to play a sound opening that is less theoretical than the most popular and sharp mainlines such as 1.e4.

In order to have time for studying endgames and tactics. 

(Please don't claim that 1.e4 doesn't require preparation)

Well, this is exactly what I want to avoid. I am interested in Rubinsteins rook endgames, and in Fischers way of winning minor piece endgames. So I want an opening that gives my an "interesting middlegame" after, say, 5 minutes opening study. In that way, I can develope my playing strenght by studying general chess knowledge rather than opening-specific variations

Interesting that most people seem to think that nothing else than 1.e4 is ok.

Did you guys read Watson's 4 volumes on chess openings? He claimes that all openings are playable, ans essentially equally useful.

Please read my earlier posts again.

No problem with 1.e4, in my opinion. It's prob'ly the simplest to learn at your level. Against the Sicilian, just go with the 3. Bb5 lines and you will do fine.

Well, judge for yourself; here is a game I played 5 min ago, against someone with 1700+ i rating.

Note what my point is: I am not trying to demonstrate that I am of any importance; I am only showing a game where I got quite a playable position without playing a major mainline.