yet another opening repertoire question

Hello,

this is my first post! :)

Although I have been visiting the site for quite some time (and I like it), I hadn't posted before.

I have been playing chess for many years, taking breaks and trying many things without sticking to a specific opening for a long time. Thus my opening preparation is not that good. Recently I got back to chess after a year or more of complete inactivity.

I used to play French/Dutch with black, but since I got Davies' "1...e6: A Solid Repertoire against 1.d4 and 1.e4" I have been following his ideas. They are quite close to what I was playing, not too much crucial theory, I like them and they are not fundamentally bad moves. It's nice to have almost evrything in a single book/dvd. So, I think that I will stick to them for a very long time.

The problem appears on the white side. :s My main source of reference so far has been Emms' "Attacking with 1.e4" I got it mainly because it was based on the Bishop's Opening and the Closed Sicilian. The Bishop's is what I have settled down on my own and the Closed variation is one of those anti-sicilians that I have been playing. I got to prefer the Rossolimo type variations though and I m looking for a book on that. One drawback of the book is that it proposes different types of play and structures against various responses. It could be a helpful feature for other players but it is not for me.

So, my question is if I like the Bishop's opening and the Rossolimo what should I play against other defences and are there any books/CDs on those variations? My criteria to combine them all together would probably be to have the same feeling/type of play, the same structure/position and last not too theory heavy, but still sound - in that order.

On the same issue but from a different perspective, I have been considering the various non mainstream d4 systems. I have that impression that the London system is the most sound of them. I have experimented with it, but still I don't have a clear image of what to expect out of it. I have read good things about the "Winning with the London" and I will probably get it soon. Although, the very first moves seem to me unnatural, compared to the Bishop's and the Rossolimo, it might be a better option, if I wanted to play more games reaching a good opening position that does not vary a lot in every game without spending too much time on opening theory. Time that can be used to play even more games or study other parts of the game. I have been looking around but I havent found a satisfying answer as to what kind of play/positions should I expect from the London? Would I just postpone the inevitable (=losing) by playing a very solid but passive and defensive opening like I was playing with black pieces for a draw? Would I just postpone the tactics of other more aggresive open lines to later in the game?

I think that there are more questions above than those clearly asked. Any thought, idea or recommendation is very welcomed and I 'd be grateful. :)

Thank you

The play in the London depends on what black does. White has played passive and allowed black a wide choice and can't expect more then equality in many lines in the opening. If black castles early there might be kingside attacks possible for white. If not you can go for queenside expansion. Also it is quite good in many cases to be a good endgame player. Some positions just get traded down to endgames pretty fast. The book is pretty good and it's an easy system to learn and play. It doesn't suck that bad compared to other more dubious openings imo.

Well, the London is easy to play but like AtahanT said, black equalizes pretty easily. Normally, as white, you want to aim for a slight advantage out of the opening. If you don't get it, thats fine but at least your still equal and you tried to get one

With that being said, I know a lot of people might disagree, if you are going to play d4, play 2.c4-the theory isn't that bad and you can always focus on like one response to d4 a day starting with common ones like the KID,QGD,Slav and play the London in the meantime until you are comfortable with 2.c4?

Or you can continue playing 1.e4 :)....anything but non mainline d4 xD

EDIT: Another thing is that, the openings arising from 1.d4 2.c4 is that white gets a lot of space in the queenside in a lot of the lines black can throw at you. The structures may vary a bit but this is how you can imrprove since you learn to play in different postitions instead of having a "safety blanket" system opening like the London. And a very good book on 1.d4, 2.c4 is John Cox's Starting Out:1.d4.

Agree. A repetoire based on 1.d4 2.c4 is good and not nessesarily that theory heavy if you pick reasonable lines. You'll get more advantages out of them, but ofcourse it depends on how much work you want to put in. There are no short cuts. If you want a good repetoire giving you advantages in the opening you need to study some critical lines, if you don't want to study at all go with the london system or other system openings but don't count getting anything at all out of the opening or find a middle ground somewhere that suits you. A good d4 c4 opening book is Starting Out: 1d4 by John Cox for example.

It's hard to go wrong with d4 c4.

Interesting viewpoint. I was thinking the same, but I reached a different conclusion. I was thinking that since I ll lose the white advantage soon or later during a game why should I spend so much time studying about it. I guess that you are right and I was wrong. I hadn't considered it in that way before.

Even if I do not go for the London I think that I ll get the 'winning with the London' just because I got really curious about it. There are not many high quality games around and not a lot of people are experienced with it. That book looks like a good source of info.

With that been said, I do not intend to switch over to 1d4(2c4). I was only considering the London. I ll keep playing e4. It's interesting how you rushed to reply against the London though. Maybe I wasn't clear. My main concern is to get some ideas in what lines I should look into against black replies apart from e5 and the sicilian. I think that I do prefer fast, attacking lines with pieces as opposed to slow pawn advances. Any ideas?

Well, it depends on how good you are but I have had many games where I have not lost the advantage as white and won the game after a long grind. I am only a class C player otb so I'd say opening understanding/knowlege is not a waste of time. I have also won games as black where I have gotten an advantage and kept it until the end.

Once you put your opponent in a slightly worse situation, unless he causes major mayhem on the board, you stand a good chance of carrying that advantage for a long time.

I have the book Win with the London System and find that it is a useful intro to an opening with straightforward ideas.  New in Chess are advertising a more recent book on the London opening as well.  I have had some good wins with the London, but one does need to know what to do against the various Black replies.  There are some pitfalls as well if one slavishly follows the same opening order of moves. I suppose it depends on what you are hoping for out of the opening.  Against a player unfamiliar with it the London can be deadly, and some of the 'obvious' counters such as ...Qb6 can also lead to a good game for White.  I have a great ability to fall into any traps/oversights/wrong move orders no matter what opening I play, but would like to think that I have discovered most of the dumb moves in the London.

Lines in the London might end up like

Thanks for the London lines.

I ll try to get us back to e4 lines though

What do you think of those?

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nh3

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. f4

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4

I 'm honestly grateful that you have been replying to me.

Lines like this are pretty damn annoying and you will meet these if the black player knows what he is doing.

I don't know very much about 1.e4 other than 1...c5 but since you said you like sharp, attacking chess, how about playing the Panov-Botvinnik variation of the Caro Kann, the Austrian Attack against the Pirc. Against the French, not really sure and Im sure you can find something b/c you have played it for a while-just don't play the Advance or Exchange variation. 

Now...for the Sicilian, I would suggest playing the Open Sicilians but I do understand how much theory the white player needs to know so if you want, go pick an anti-Sicilian and it seems you already have-the Closed Sicilian. As a Sicilian player myself, I REALLY REALLY hate Anti-Sicilians, but I do understand why people pick them. But let me tell you this :P, playing the white side of a Sicilian is really, really fun and I know this even though I don't even play 1.e4! Theres a clear goal: own Black's king in the middlegame (at least for the ...d6 Sicilians: Dragon, Najdorf, and Schevinagan or whatever)

Just like what I said about 1.d4/2.c4 earlier, you can stick with your Closed Sicilian for a while until you feel ready to learn the Open Sicilians. 

You will probably see 1...e5,1...c5,1...e6,1...Something else 40,30,20,10 % of the time I think.

First line I have no clue - never played the caro-kann
2nd line Black should be fine with either 6...Bxg5 7.hxg5 Qxg5
or 6...c5 as long as you know what to do (I would personally play 3...Bb4, the Winawer variation)
3rd line I know nothing
4th line 2...d5 doesn't seem so good(Neither does 2.Nc3) due to e5 maybe 2...e5 is better

Well, I guess that I just need a little encouragement. That's all.

I think I should keep playing what I have been playing so far, mainly following Emms' ideas. I 'm far from getting to the limits of that book. There are still lots of ideas that I haven't tried or noticed so far.

I have been looking at various aggresive lines against the French but they usually require some kind of cooperation from both sides. Moreover I do not like long term gambits.

The Austrian against the Pirc is more aggressive than the flexible 150 that I have been playing, but I think I ll stay with the 150 (I already have material on that) and maybe try the Austrian later or for fun.

Against the CK I play 2.c4  but usually avoiding Panov-Botvinnik main lines. Maybe that is one thing I should reconsider.

Try the aggressive advance lines if you're looking for something new and spicey agaisnt the ck.

If Black knows the theory he/she should be fine.

This is true but the reality of what you're saying is this: It takes much more opening knowlege for black "to be fine" in main lines then it takes against minor openings. Black can be fine with very little knowlege and that makes it an easier opening to face.

It takes knowledge to keep an advantage too.
Take the botvinnik variation; in the mainline I think Black is considered equal, but (s)he needs to know alot of lines.
But White also needs to to know a bit of theory to get to that line which is "the most promising" 

For playing against the Sicilian, try the Smith-Morra Gambit, which cancels all the variations of the Sicilian that Black has learned. Bobby Fischer and Nigel Short as well as other grandmasters have played it, so it is not a nonsense opening. This is an opening for White players who like sharp attacking play and who don't want to learn reams of opening theory.

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd 3.c3 dxc 4 Nxc3...

Nigel is known to play dubious openings. He plays anything or has. At higher level you will meet this line. Black equalizes after 9 moves and other branches only give black an advantage. But sure at club level, go for it.