The Lifetime Repertoire - Reliable & Ambitious

 Hello everyone!  First of all, I wish you all healthy days... I'm not a professional chess player. But there are many professional players and coaches around me, including above 2600+ ELO. I'm a computer engineer, also a chess lover. I say these because when I argue some people try to say that my level is low. I only enter here for the forum, my blitz and bullet ratings were around 2300 on another site that I use with the same nickname. Anyway, we had the opportunity to improve chess during the pandemic. Of course, we must first improve the tactics, strategy and endgame skills. Nowadays, openings have also had a very important place. I thought a lot about this subject and talked with experienced masters. As a result of my research, there are some things I want to share here. Could you please share your ideas?
  Najdorf and Grünfeld used to sound nice, but when I started working I realized how difficult the theory was. They are so sharp, I don't want to play in 'Do or Die!' mode. Definitely good openings, but with a lot of theoretical loads. I think it appeals to 2400+ players. After all, I'm not a professional and I have other things to do. I need an effective and reliable repertoire that can be played for lifetime. Let's talk about 1.e4 first... Sicilian Sveshnikov intrigues me, but my opponents are running away from the main line. Especially, Rossolimo is very annoying to Sveshnikov players. 1...e5 seems to be the most loyal pet I've played in a long time. Petroff is very solid. Sakaev's book about Petroff is a great resource. However, the positions formed are close to the draw, and not ambitious enough. As a player adopting the Kramposian style, I like Berlin variation very much. (John Cox's book is excellent. The book written by Igor Lysyj and Roman Ovetchkin is also very good.) I've played the Archangel (Arkhangelsk) variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5!? modernized line, doesn't rush to play black ...Bb7. After playing ...d6 he got the idea to play ...Bg4. I suggest you to review.) a lot before, it's an option with active counter chances. Marshall Attack grabs my attention, but it's too forced variation. Zaitsev is not bad, but I don't like the Breyer and Chigorin variations. Please share your thoughts on Ruy Lopez.
 As for 1.d4, Nimzo-Indian is a nice option. However, I saw Black struggling hard in the endgame because he gave up the bishop pair. Also, there are many different positions to work. When White prefers to play 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3, I play 3...d5. Maybe I should prefer 1...d5 directly, but I like the flexibility that 1...Nf6 brings. It offers better options against the London System. (The variation played ...e6 and ...b6, I think undermines all of White's ideas.) I prefer the variation that Wojtaszek often applied against Catalan. (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.Rd1 b6 10.Bf4 Ba6 11.b3 Rc8) Against the Queen's Gambit, Dubov's Tarrasch, which has become popular recently, attracts my attention. (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 cxd4!? 8.Nxd5 Bc5) I'm trying to play similar structure against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 but it's not exactly the same. (1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 or 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5) I prefer g6 formation to King's-Indian Attack. What is your recommendation against the Queen's Gambit? Please don't say Tartakower, because nobody is playing Bg5 and entering the main line anymore.
 When I play with the white pieces, 1.e4 feels familiar and reliable, like an old friend. Unfortunately there are too many theories, everyone is preparing for 1.e4 and a basic understanding is enough. I have a friend, he is FM and he is an English Opening fan. Maybe it has been playing the same opening for 15 years, he knows Marin's books by heart. He beat many GMs with the English Opening in blitz games. He even won against Gata Kamsky during his Twitch live stream! They are not prepared enough against 1.c4 and this caught my attention quite a lot. They try to play like they're playing against 1.d4, but there is a lot of difference. For example, Botvinnik System is played against King's-Indian formation. I also examined Avrukh's repertoire, Catalan and g3 systems are very solid. But I thought they are not ambitious enough. I wonder your suggestions, best regards...

Thanks for the post! Maybe homework needs to be done in the anti-Sicilians? with the sideline of the Sveshnikov

I like Nikolaos Ntirlis's "Playing 1 d4 d5" book for some ideas towards playing QGD as Black. You could posssibly tailor the Grunfeld Defence to be more user friendly.

Wow! It's a very detailed and devoted article. I agree with what you wrote, and I am curious about comments. What variations do you prefer when playing 1.e4 with white?

 Uh, I'm glad you're interested. Opening works presented by Chessable recently are also very useful. I have examined Ntirlis' book, Karolyi and Kornev's books on "d4 d5" are also good. I'm interested in Kramnik's recently revised variation. (Semi-Tarrasch with ...b6 and ...Nd7 followed by Black's idea ...Nf6 to put pressure on the e4 pawn.) However, this seems a little passive to me. I studied on the Slav Defense for a long time, but there are too many complications and I didn't like the resulting positions.

 Thx dude!  If you are going to play 1.e4, you should do play really aggressively. Let's start with Sicilian, the fearful dream of 1.e4 players. If you want to get initiative, you have to play 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 and enter the open main line. (I tried the short castle positional variation, which is Karpov's evaluation against Dragon. It doesn't work well. You have to play Yugoslav Attack. 6.Bg5 main line against Najdorf is no longer working, Poisoned Pawn variation offers a very active game to black. 6.Bc4 Fischer-Sozin is also out of circulation. I recommend 6.Be2 or 6.Be3 English Attack. 6.h3 Adams Attack is also an option worth checking out.) In my opinion, no Anti-Sicilian is good except Rossolimo. Maybe 3.Bb5+ Moscow variation offers an acceptable, schematic game, but not ambitious enough.
 The most effective choice against 1...e5 is Ruy Lopez. (I prefer an aggressive variant against Petroff. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 then aims to make a long castle and kingside attack.) After Scotch popularized by Kasparov, Italian can now be preferred to escape theory. But none of them can replace Ruy Lopez. 
 As for Caro-Kann, it's really hard to break this down. I tried the Advance Variation after Dreev's book, but it's hard to play in practice. Panov-Botvinnik Attack is not bad, but the 3.Nc3 main line is the best choice in my opinion. Caro-Kann is not passive, it is massive!
 Finally, let's talk about the French! I would never recommend the Advance Variation. French players love it and they score very well. At the amateur level King's-Indian Attack is preferred, they also try to play against 2...e6 variations of the Sicilian. But after a certain level, that's not good. In my experience, don't choose anything other than 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2 Tarrasch. Tarrasch offers a safer and positional play, but Black's 3...c5 response provides equality. Khalifman's book and Harikrishna's course "French Toast" are excellent resources on the 3.Nc3 main line. If you want to take advantage, you have to be brave... Work hard play hard!
 There is no need to talk about other openings in detail, If you are curious about anything, you can send dm to me. Hooray!

What, no Reti Opening (1. Nf3 followed by 2. c4)?  I switched to it a couple of years ago, and I'm still kicking myself for not having looked at it sooner!  I used to play 1. e4, against which I'd see all manner of reply, but the main issue was that any decent player should know how to resist the pawn roller, which means the center locks down and there are few attacking lines.

I like sharp play and positional tension, and I'm more comfortable with both than most players seem to be.  Most importantly, I like open attacking lines, and that is exactly what the Reti delivers for me.  It's not just about the results (though these have improved, too), the opening gives me the type of game that I find most enjoyable, and forces me to face deep tactics in almost every game (which is the best way to improve your tactics once you master the basics).

 Thanks for your sincere comment. Of course you are right, there is no perfect opening. I wanted to inform people and exchange ideas. But as you said, no one is perfect. There is a word my Russian friends use often, you probably know. "Popriyatneye (Поприятнее)" 😄 This word fully sums up my point of view on openings. 

 I once reviewed the Reti. Players prefer this especially for the Anti-Grünfeld option. I don't know enough about this, but wouldn't the Advance Variation (1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4) cause problems for White? Against 3.e3 and 3.g3 moves 3...Nc6 is an effective response. Generally, 3.b4 is answered with 3...f6. I even see 3...g5 played recently. Positional pressure is of course very important for strategic initiative. But I don't know if Reti is necessary for this. Black also has solid options such as 2...c6 and 2...e6 with similar structures.

Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

Good Chess Openings Books For Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-openings-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

 I reviewed your blog post. It's a nice post, but it just doesn't look tidied enough. An advanced level book and a beginner book shouldn't be in the same category. I like that you talk about Herman Grooten's new series of structures. He continues to add new books to the series, his book for "Taimanov-Kan-Richter Rauzer" will soon be published. Also, Flores Rios' book is really good when it comes to structures. But you forgot to mention Sokolov's book "Winning Chess Middlegames". Alburt's idea partner is Dzindzichashvili. His books appeal to amateurs. But like many books on the list, they doesn't include the new theory as years have passed. These books can only be read to learn general ideas. You didn't add the 14-volume series that by Khalifman "Opening for White According to Anand" for 1.e4. These books are the most professional resources on this subject. Just like Avrukh's books... I can write many more things, but it's not necessary. Still, thanks for your effort. 

@Farilya - Ah yes!  The Advance seems troublesome at first, but it's simply bad for black.  After 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4?! 3. e3! dxe3 (3. ..d3? 4. Qb3 loses a pawn without compensation) 4. fxe3 and black has simply fallen further behind in development.  The open f-file will be useful once white castles.

It doesn't feel that bad for black, but the main line reply to the Reti (1. ..d5) seems like it is no good at all.  Black really has to support the d-pawn with 2. ..c6 or 2. ..e6 (often both, and in neither case does he generate counterplay, as white has presented no central targets.  Nonetheless, it is clearly best for black to leave the central tension in place (this is what Emanuel Lasker did against Reti at New York 1924).

The main theme of the Reti is tension.  Both sides have to live with it, and the side the decides it doesn't want to will come off worse for trying to resolve it.  When I play against a Reti (a local Expert tells his students to start with it if they want to eventually become 1. e4 players, because it doesn't require deep book study), I usually reply with 1. ..Nf6 or (most often) 1. ..c5, which seems to work well.

I highly beg to differ the French part of this.

Just because Black's early moves are easy to figure out in the Advance Variation doesn't mean jack.  After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5!, sure, clearly any move other than 3...c5 is going to be clearly inferior.

However, if you take the advice from someone that actually knows the French Defense and has played the Black side of it for 25 years, and has played the White side many times as well, I can tell you that the Advance Variation creates major problems for Black.  Theoretically, it's not as strong as 3.Nc3, but the Tarrasch is a simple draw after 3...c5!

If you don't want to have to deal with the reams and reams of Winawer theory, the Advance is the way to go against the French!  Study the games of Nimzowitsch and Sveshnikov (where they are White with ECO Code C02) as they are key contributors to the opening.  Also, Sveshnikov's book on the Advance French from about 3 years ago should be bought (I have the older 2 editions from 2007).

Also, if you want true data from Amateur play, since GM Statistics mean nothing at the amateur level, I myself have played two games over the board thus far in 2021.  What is the significance of that?  Well, check for yourself!

January 5 - White - Advance French - 1-0

January 12 - Black - Advance French - 1-0

Not kidding!  2 games, 2 Advance Frenches, 2 wins for White, myself being on each side of it once!

I would highly suggest the Advance Variation against the French unless you are ready to delve into the theory of the Winawer, 3...Nf6 (either the Steinitz with 4.e5 or the Classical, Winawer, and Burn with 4.Bg5) along with the Rubinstein.  If you feel you are ready for that, I will not lie.  3.Nc3 is stronger than 3.e5, but it's the only move that's stronger than 3.e5, and from a practical perspective, the amount of work versus what you get in return, the Advance is the way to go at the Amateur level!

In response to the OP, some of your assessments are wrong.

1) The Petroff is only a draw at the GM level.  For a while, I played it as my backup to the French.  Used it often against players that I've played numerous times.  For example, in the 2017 North Carolina State Championship, I had Black in rounds 3 and 4.  Smashed my third round opponent silly in a French Tarrasch (like I said in the previous post, Tarrasch isn't good - with best play, Black gets easy equality, and with sub-par play, wins like this one occur - he was dead in 21 moves).  That said, even after a demolition, come round 4, I faced a player I played Black against multiple times within the previous year, and decided to throw the Petroff at him, and took him down.  He was rated about 2000, so we aren't talking low level scrubs here.

2) In terms of the Ruy Lopez, what's wrong with the Breyer?  If your issue is drawing, why play the Zaitsev?  White can take the immediate draw if he wants.  The one time I ever played the Zaitsev, my opponent took the immediate draw, but he was rated 200 points higher than me.  I did it, somewhat expecting it, because it was round 3 of a 5-round, 2-day tournament, 3 games Saturday and 2 Sunday, and so my opponent was playing his third game of a long time control of the day, and he was over 70!  Low and behold, Ng5 Rf8 Nf3 Re8 Ng5 etc.  But if your goal is to avoid draws, the Zaitsev ain't for you because avoiding the draw with lines like ...Qd7 are inferior at that point.

When I did occasionally play 1...e5, I mostly played the Petroff and Berlin, and won many games!

3) If you want a dynamic game, take a look at the French.  The Winawer Poisoned Pawn is as wild as it gets.  The McCutcheon is also anything but dull.  If you understand IQP positions, I have won many Tarrasch games via dynamic play and dealing with the IQP - do not be afraid of 3...c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 and then either 5...Nf6 or 5...Nc6 6.Bb5 Qe7+.  The Advance is tough to deal with, but if you know your theory, which I clearly do as it is the line I play from both sides (every repertoire must have at least 1 overlap as Black and White - Mine is the Advance French).  I score a good 70% or so as White, and as Black, I tend to score about 50 to 55%, but have suffered many losses against it over the board.  With the Exchange, play symmetrical lines of defense.  They are easy to draw.  When playing it over the board, for every 25 games or so that I play, I will win 12, draw 12, and maybe lose 1 game.  The trick?  KNOW YOUR KNIGHT ENDINGS!  If you study N+P endgames, you can master the Black side of the Exchange French!  You don't have a lot of "Anti-French" lines like you do "Anti-Sicilian" lines.  They exist, but there aren't many of them, and they are rarely played, like the Wing Gambit, or the King's Indian Attack (probably the most common of the Anti-French lines).

4) It would be harder for me to give advice against 1.d4.  I have hopped around, and don't get near the results that I get with or against 1.e4.  Within the last 5 years, I have played the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, QGD, Benko Gambit, and Dutch (...e6 lines - Classical and Stonewall, no Leningrad).  I do not play 1.d4 these days.  I will transpose to certain d4 openings (Queen's Gambit, King's Indian, Catalan, etc), but I avoid the Grunfeld like the plague, and will always throw an Anti-Grunfeld against Grunfeld players.  I also refuse to play the Grunfeld as Black.  While 1.e4 is my main opening as White, I do play 1.Nf3 or 1.c4, and occasionally 1.b4, as well.

Hope this helps.

 Welcome, dear @ThrillerFan,
 In this forum, you are someone whose experience I trust the most, that I have known and respected for years. Thanks for be interested. French is a really hardcore opening. Of course, it can work well at the amateur level. I played Milner-Barry Gambit a lot at the time, but for a serious result, gambits are not the right choice. My coach is an Azerbaijani GM, an experienced national team coach. It used to have 2640 ELO, he said: "Advance Variation is very difficult to play with White, theorists such as Evgeny Sveshnikov and Bareev preferred it because they knew the structures that were formed very well. So is Grischuk. As someone who has played 1.e4 lifetime, I don't recommend this line. Because, French players play this line passionately."
 Petroff is a safe and sound opening. But it doesn't have as rich ideas as Ruy Lopez. When I have to win with Black, it doesn't give enough counter chance. I think, it is a great choice for second opening! In my opinion, the Black side is under pressure in Breyer. Zaitsev is not like that. If you examine Svidler's games, you will notice the counter chance and dynamism. You are right, there is a variation with a forced draw. So, Berlin is my favorite choice. It acts as a barrier against stronger opponents. And it gives you the chance to crush opponents that are equal or weaker than yourself with technique and knowledge. I thought of playing French, why not if it gives enough counterplay... The information you provided about Exchange French is very useful. We can talk a lot about 1.e4, but when it comes to 1.d4, the keyboards break down. 😄 The Queen's Gambit Declined sounds tempting, but sadly not ambitious enough. In fact, playing 1.e4 with White and preferred to play e4-e5 and d4-d5 with Black is suitable for players of all levels. There is a quote I like very much, "Classics will never disappoint."

The thing with the Nizmo-Indian is that black gives up the bishop pair for the knight and and doubled pawns. Once black closes the position up, the bishop pair is not the most active, while black’s knight proves to be a better asset. Black can further reduce the advantage of the bishop pair by stopping kingside counter play, reducing the bishops to defense. Also, not everyone likes the Nizmo-Indian, so a Queen’s Indian is another opening to prep for.

@Farilya - The classics did disappoint me, which is why I gave them up.  Particularly against 1. d4, the symmetric reply gives up the center rather than fighting for it.  1. ..Nf6 and 1. ..e6 are much better replies, and give black the ability to target the d4 pawn.  The classical reply 1. ..d5 simply returns the favor by giving white a target, which due to his tempo advantage he can attack more effectively.

Until I gave up the classical reply, I was a good 400 Elo points weaker against 1. d4 than I was against 1. e4, and now I am, if anything, stronger against 1. d4.

I think your lack of hypermodern study is limiting your understanding of the opening (the Breyer Variation of the Ruy Lopez is also stronger than you give it credit for).  Lots of folks will say (incorrectly) that you don't need it, but even if you are intent on playing classical openings exclusively, you will need to be prepared for opponents who won't play along.