Transpositional Openings

I have been doing some thinking on a repertoire that deals with a lot of transposing causing study to a minimal study around 1. e4.

Against 1. ... e5: The vienna game

Against 1. ... c5: The alapin (c3) variation (which can tranpose to french advance variation and a line of the caro-kann panov-botvinnik variation)

Against 1. ... e6: Advance variation

Against 1. ... c6: Panov-Botvinnik variation

Against 1. ... d6 and 1. ... g6: Austrian Attack (transpose to each other)

Against 1. ... Nc6: 2. Nc3 variation (transpose to vienna game possible)

Against 1. ... Nf6: 2. Nc3 variation (transpose to vienna game possible)

Against the rest of the openings you can use the traditional openings

While this might have some value as a minimalist opening repertoire, I think you'd probably be better off exposing yourself to as many different types of positions as possible and learning to play all of them rather than trying to limit the types of positions you get and not knowing what to do in different structures.

My suggestion also helps later on when you want to change an opening - you might be familiar with the ideas associated with a structure, as opposed to never having seen anything like it before and having to learn how to play an all new set of positions.

Also, the number of times that you'll transpose is minimal:

Sicilian:  2.c3 d5 and 2.c3 Nf6 are both FAR more popular than 2...e6, which still doesn't guarantee a French transposition.

1...d6 and 1...g6:  Uhm, they very rarely transpose to one another. 

I play 1...d6, but NOT the Pirc!  I play Pribyl/Philidor/Wade/No Name Defenses, namely 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 and now 4.f4 Qa5, 4.Nf3 Bg4, or Philidor setups against most other lines.  This is NOTHING like the Pirc Austrian Attack.

I also play 1...g6, and the Modern, where the Knight sits back on g8, and often gets developed to e7 or h6, is VERY DIFFERENT than the Pirc.

1...Nc6 and 1...Nf6:  You will just about never see a transposition here.  1...Nc6 will be answered with 2...d6 or 2...Nf6.  1...Nf6 will be answered with 2...d5.

Back to the drawing board for you!

First off @ ThrillerFan, I don't think you fully read what I hace written. I said the words can and possible which means I didnt say it is always going to happen. And I said it deals with alot of transposing meaning if it goes a certain way then you will already be able to know it. 

Sicilian: I know those are very popular but if you play against some Taminov players, possibly Shevennigan players, Classical, Richter-Rauzer, Paulsen variation, and Kan players play e6, and some are very popular so it  will still show up and if it doesn't transpose to the french it will most likely go to other lines of the Alapin variation.

And actually 1. ... d6 and 1. ... g6 can transpose very easily if they play Nf6, I was just to lazy yesterday to put possible but is still very possible which means again can still work. Same with if you play d6, Nf6, and c6; some players use this method to still go into a Pirc. I use to play the 150 attack but if they went that way and I played the best f4 against that move order and my oppenent switched to pirc with g6 then you will have to know much more, so I wasnt wrong.

And I also said possible transposing with 1. ... Nc6 and 1 ... Nf6 into Vienna. With 1. ... Nc6 I have seen many play e5 when I play Nc3 and even if they play d6 or Nf6  I have found really easy to play against. And I know that after Nf6  they will mostly play d5 but there are some that will play e5. 

And another thing is I don't think you actually read the whole thing I wrote. I said minimal study will be needed with this because you won't need to know as much as with the openings that I use. Yeah, thats right this isn't my repertoire, never said that it was mine (just said it was an idea I had). This is a repertoire for those who want an easy study that wont have to learn tons of variations if they play certain moves. I have an  individual opening for each opening with e4, with only two having possible transpositions. We all know that it can be rather hard and daunting to remember all those variations for so many things. So this was just an idea for those who wanted a good repertoire that had the most possible number of transpositions. I think you just completely misread everything I wrote.

@ Expertise87: I understand what you mean but you have to also remember that a player will have better winning chances if he understand the positions of the openings  he plays almost inside out rather than having a vague understanding of each one. thats a reason why most masters will usually play an opening for a long time until they decide they are board of it or just want to try something new. And wouldn't you have a better chance of knowing the type of positions you can get if you use the same openings over again thereby having an understanding of it? And that repertoire teaches pawn cahins and bad bishops, open files and isolated pawn games, knowing how to attack the center, as well as others with what was chosen.

If there was some easy way of avoiding appreciable amounts of opening study/preparation by constantly tranposing into similar systems all the time, someone else would have found it by now. Since no one has...well, that tells you something.
Case in point: ThrillerFan is largely correct about his comments regarding the Alapin Sicilian and how the Pirc/Modern Defenses sometimes don't transpose into one another.

I think you're just better off getting a repertoire book that features 1.e4 as white's first opening move. You won't necessarily like all the suggestions in it, but it can give you something to fall back on and besides, you're taking the word of a titled player (typically a GM) who understands the pros and cons of those positions far better than you ever will. Meaning less trial and error in terms of adopting decent lines.

ok. I never said you wont have to learn the openings. These probably give you the best for transposing. you will still need to know all the variations and theory of the vienna, alapin, advance, panov-botvinnik, and the others. I never said you wouldn't. All i said is possible transpositions. And a book by sam collins advocats the use of the alapin, advance, and pavnov-botvinnik to use as white in his book, which is why i agree with him. They all work together very well and can help  to not have to know certain lines or cut the amount that will have to be learned, and i havent taken this all from opening books, had to look at a few to get them together as they talked about them, but i just decided to put them together so the number of POSSIBLE transitions is highest. if you play Nc3 against Nf6 and he plays e5, if you dont know the vienna then you are going to have some hard tie playing it. And there is a reason that if a book gives the austrian vs the pirc they use it against the modern, because of transpostional purposes. I have never took anything for myself but just put together what books have said together to combine a repertoire that someone can use for their entire life which acutally does try to minimize the study and theory that must be remembered. If you can tell me where I said you dont have to study at all in my origianl post then i iwll say im wrong. all i said was minimal which i am still also technically correct. oh and the number of masters playing e4 has actually been declining to d4 so its much harder to actually see any gm with an e4 repertoire for every opening in response. And again, you need to understand that I said POSSIBLE, never said definite. same as i never said you wont need to study or know theory for the openings. you are reading it as saying that you wont have to know anything. I again, never said that so i dont know why people are saying that. I dont know if you are reading it a wrong or wierd way or just not understanding what the intention was

If you would like to I can give a list of 4 or 5 books on e4 that actually stated or showed exactly what i have said where they said it can also have a possibility to transpose if it will help to better understand where i am coming from

What good is "possible transpositional" if you're going to have to know a bunch of lines that don't tranpose anyway? There's nothing "minimal" about that.

And evidently you haven't heard of, for example, 'Chess Openings for White Explained' by GM Roman Dzindzichashvilli and Lev Alburt (though really most of the ideas in it seem to be Roman's).

Whatever...doubtful that responses by others will convince you that your ideas really aren't all that wonderful (frankly-speaking), given your reactions to the other two responders and myself thus far. Your lines can neither be shown to really cut down much on someone's studying of opening theory, nor (in a lot of cases) lead to promising lines for white. Though to be sure, theoretical advantages don't matter hardly at all at club level.

Yeah i heard of that book, and unfortanately, do own it and found it to be of negligable use, if that. Im not sure why you brought them into it because they didnt provide very traonspositional openings and they have also decided to not go over certain variations that are good for black, and misassessed variations. 

I do listen to what you guys are saying its just that you always have to think about "what if" when you choose what to play in your repertoire because there is always that chance that someone will okay that against you.

For example: lets say you play this repertoire, which is very usale,

Scotch

Alapin

Nc3 of the French

Caro-Kann advanced

Nc3 against Alekhine

Nf3 in the Nimzovich

150 attack against Pirc and Modern

Ok, now what happens if a player in the alekhine variation does play e5 against it (there is always the possible chance that it can happen). Since you play scotch you will have to learn extra variations against it now. 

Now for the alapin, since you dont play the advance you have to learn the Be3 or exd5 lines against black playing 3. ... d5. Allso since you don't play the play the Panov-Botvinnik attack you have to most likely play 1. e4 c5 2. c3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. cxd4 d5 5. e5, so thats a line that you have to learn.

I give that the scotch and nimzovich do transpose if e5.  But if you like play Nc3 against Alekhine then again more stuf to learn.

With the 150 attack against Pirc and Modern does allow for traonsposition from Modern to Pirc with an early Nf6, mostly everythig does if black plays it, but what if the line 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. f4 (mentioned by most, and even ones that use the modern, as best) and now instead of 4. ... Qa5 they choose 4. .... g6 (which is very possible) then you have to learn austrian anyway and many dont mention that. 

Now lets change this repertoire to what i said is useable:

Since you know you like play Nc3 against Alekhine if you learn the Vienna you cut one less opening, scotch, to have to learn from the original repertoire.

Now if you learn the french advance you dont have to learn the Be3 or exd5 against what i said earlier. Same goes with the caro-kann. if you played the panov-botvinnik against it you dont have to learn the other line i stated before, instead play 5. exd5 which transpose to a line of the caro-kann, cutting one line of theory. 

If you played the austrian attack against both Pirc and Modern then you dont have to worry the extra lines that you would have to know that I mentioned with the 150 attack. Which cuts another line you would have to study.

Since we switched to Vienna opening the Nf3 against Nimzovich won't work well now, no harmony. So Nc3 is just as playable and can also transpose to vienna if e5 is played. Also I have found that Nc3 needs less study in comparison to the Nf3 variation that I use now. Don't have to learn some other openings that you may not know if you play Nf3 like the tarrasch if black replies e6 against Nf3.

So thats all im trying to say. Some lines of theory are cut and so in providing less to study since they are more harmonious. And some are just less to study period if used. And these what ifs for transpositions are valid because it can happen very easily if black chooses to. And in some cases you may have to know it anyway. The one I make the case for is especially the one line you said in the line 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. c6 Nc3 most books say f4 must be played because it is best. thats fine but none that i have ever read has never said anything about g6 being posssible, and some may use it as a way to get people out of what they play against it. If you are a 150 player or classical play and now have to play the Austrian variation you are going to be in some trouble and since pirc players have to play against the austrian anyway it can in the end help them out either way. 

So you will have to learn theory, no way around that ever. But as you see with some switches some lines can be shortened or just cut out. And as chess players you have to always watch out for those transpositions, especially the ones that may take you into soemthing you may not know. Another fault that Chess opening for white explained does not do a good job of. I do stil believe that you all have valid opinions. It may not happen but its still good to have because there is always a chance for it to happen no matter what you play, even not using this repertoire. You are still going to know positions but a lot of books are built around teaching you the specific position to the variation and opening you play already.

That's putting it mildly!

This whole "transpositional" opening repertoire business is your idea, not mine. Apparently you haven't figured out that my whole point is that you basically can't construct such a repertoire...not to any satisfactory degree at least. Yes, some repertoire combinations will require learning more lines than others, but any complete repertoire is still going to require remembering hundreds of lines anyway. What good is saving a line here or there when you're already talking about hundreds to begin with?

And if you're so into repertoire redundancy, why not cut out 1.e4 entirely? Why not play 1.g3 as white and go for a King's Indian Attack, then play the King's Indian Defense as black against 1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3, and the Modern Defense against 1.e4? That's probably about as transpositional as you can get. Unfortunately, the King's Indian Defense itself is tons of theory, plus the Modern can be completely different from a KID, plus there's no guarantee that your KIA setups are going to at all be strategically similar to your KID ones, plus this doesn't include repertoire responses against oddball opening moves by white (1.b4/1.b3/1.f4/etc.). Unless you plan to do a King's Indian setup against those, too. Which will still leave you with extra opening lines you'll just have to flat out remember because they won't conveniently transpose into other, more familiar lines.

At any rate, go ahead with your "transpositional" repertoire if you want. If it works out for you, great. I just tend to doubt that it's really going to save you much opening study effort is all. I'll at least give you credit for (seemingly) coming up with your own ideas.

The chances of an Alapin transposing to a Caro kann are almost 0 (unless you are playing me) .

Honestly, how many people actually play g6 against the alapin?

@OP Your idea is good to avoid too much opening study. And your repertoire cannot be said to be limited. Those who really avoids opening study stick to the Colle system. May I ask how you would play as black?

I believe this is the panov transposition he is referring to:

@ iamdeafzed: As a chess player is is good to know your repertoire and where the transpositions to occur, especially since most of us don't have the time or inclination to be able to study it all. If you find that you have to play so many different positions that you have to learn more than you need to if you made simple switches and tweaks to certain parts of what you play you avoid that and avoid learning more than you need, which helps to minimize study as much as it can. And again I never said any where in here that you wont have to learn the lines and the theory.That doesn't need to be stated since if you decide to pick up any line, whether it be the open sicilian, Bb5 sicilian, Alapin, or closed, you are still going to need to know theory. The amount of it is different depending on the opening. And most books taht i read about repertoires tell you to try to be as harmonious as you can so you don't have to learn extra useless infromation that can be better for tactics or positional study. And I never said this was my repertoire. All I said was i was doing some thinking about a repertoire that alot of transposition, not my openings. Mine are much different. I just gave it as an idea to think about. I think you are putting to much of what you play instead of just actually thinking about how the openings work together.  So I would never play anything else as a universal system, even though i know many that are there and have played some when i get bored of openings, because all I did was just bse it around e4, which again just take it as the idea by thinking through how it works. And "seemingly coming" up with my own ideas? How has any chess player below GM ever come up with their own ideas? Most, if not all, are taken from GM books, which is what I have done. I took what every book that I have read about openings and what they comment with and their reasoning and comments. So I just put it altogether from what GM books had said. Never claimed this to be my own. Even said before that I got 3 ideas from Sam Collins book.

@ shepi13: I am not sure how many do since there is no database that I have found that won't take the moves that you put into and not spit out game numbers that transpose to other lines (like playing the alapin like that and then the computing just switching it to the panov-botvinnik variarion) so its kind of hard to tell for me. But on the free online chess database of chessville.de going through the alapin move order white has played exd5 1,417 times after blacks d5 (out of 2,782 games so by that i guess over 50%) But i still find it hard to tell the truth of what is played because databases do switch openings after a couple of moves if it resembles another.

@mandy711: I know people play the colle as an easy quick study but I don't trust it as for win worthy because I find it rather boring and unambitious, as well as to easy to play against as black. But i do say that these do deal with a few different positions, more if the moves stay in the system they are in. And i agree with the first guy that commented that studying other positions are important, but the ones in the positions you play should come first and then after you understand them then go to other types of positions because they might come up. And what do you mean as black? As  what I really play or with the same idea that i had for the white side?

@shepi13: that is the exact position that I am talking about

Play a reversed opening system with the white pieces and save yourself many thousands of keystrokes in this mindless thread.  Lies, lies, lies?  Hardly. 

@zborg: what do you mean by reversed opening system? and lies? O.o

I thought the ...g6 Panov wasn't very good for black.

Im not sure if it is or not. As white its probably still good to known it because there may be people who play it because either they like the position themselves or just like fianchettoed bishops. I mean black always still has equal chances in an opening until he/she voluntarily messes up. I don't always like to say who has the advantage on one side or the next because that doesn't mean much if you can't capitalize onit or know how to use it. I think white usually is fine but black still always has chances to win. But you may be right. I havent played the panov-botvinnik since i used it a little in high school

English, KIA, Larsen's Attack, Reversed Schlecter Grunfeld, (and just about any mainline system employed by Black, but used from the white side).  To name just a few. 

"Lies, Lies, Lies," is a pop song, and a reference to your Avatar, undoubtedly.

That will cost you a nickel.