What opening made you 2000?

I got up to 2070 about a year ago. I play the Sicilian Najdorf and QGD as black, and e4 as white; the opening you play doesn't really make a difference though, as long as it's not a dubious sideline. I found the best way to improve was not courses or videos, but rather playing 15/10 games and going through them with the computer afterwards. At the 1500-2000 level, opening theory doesn't really matter, since your opponents will not be responding correctly, but above that it starts to make a difference as the games become more accurate. I hope this helps!

The opening does not matter.
'All main openings are sound' - Kasparov
Just pick a defense for black against 1 e4 and 1 d4 and an opening for white and stick to it.
Each time you change openings you lose more, not less.
Fischer e.g. played the Sicilian Najdorf, the King's Indian Defense, and the Ruy Lopez all the time.

Me?

Sicilian Najdorf.

... but as tygxc says, the opening is a relatively minor factor... certainly in games between weak players.

I have to disagree about sticking to one opening, though.

Sticking to one opening will improve your short-term results, by giving you the "home field" advantage. But it will hurt your long-term growth as a chess player, by limiting the types of middle-game positions that you are exposed to, by limiting the variety of plans that you are learning, and the different types of end-games that you are being required to play.

To learn chess properly, you must WORK hard; and sticking to one opening reduces your work-load... to your ultimate disadvantage.

I originally crossed 2000 chess rating by mostly using 1. e4 e5 and 1. d4 d5 for both colors.

I also dabbled into the French Defense with the black pieces for a few months when I was around 1500 rating, but went back to 1...e5.

Now I mostly begin with 1. d4 as white (Queen's Gambit if given the chance) and the Caro-Kann as black.

This just seems to fit my playstyle best after some experimentation, but everyone is different and different openings will work better for different people based on their playstyle, chess strengths/weaknesses and so on. I don't think openings are the most important factor in reaching 2000+ chess rating; as long as the opening chosen is fairly solid, then you are probably fine with opening.

Openings are overrated; they are important to some extent, but most people probably give too much credit for the role openings play in their chess games. The middlegames and especially the endgames decide way more game results than the opening stage does.

the way i bursted to about 1900 was playing the mainlines

• Bg5 agianst najdorf and classical sicilian
• c4 binds agianst any sicilian that does not force you to play Nc3
• ruy lopez
• queens gambit
• petrosian kings indian
• catalan (nimzo move order)
• Nc3 french
• Nc3 caro kann

and as black i played the najdorf and grunfeld.

maybe if i didnt take a 4 month break i may have reached 2000, but who knows...

Opening doesn't make you 2000. Improving other aspects of the game is much more important.

The White side of the Stafford gave me 65% wins. :-)

I've been over 2000 before in the FICS 45+45 league. i agree with others who said it isn't the openings that get you there.....at least for the most part. In my case it was studying tactics. This league consists of 6 week seasons. After one disappointing season I started studying with multiple coaches. I don't remember what my record was in that disappointing season but I do remember losing games in positions that were great for me......losing because I didn't see the tactics that would have won for me. Anyway one of my coaches introduced me to the woodpecker method and I started training in the woodpecker method and the following season I finished 5.5/6 and in that draw I gave up I was actually winning but I didn't realize it. I did make one opening change though. I had been playing the Qe2 Ruy Lopez and after one of my trainers showed me that it is unsound, I started playing the NC3 Italian which she suggested. It has a quiet reputation but I won a game in it in under 20 moves. Anyway after my good result, my rating went from about 1800 to 2001. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to maintain that rating. The following season I played board one and only managed half a point out of 6 games. My impression of those games is the opening matters more once you get over 2000. I lost some games straight out of the opening. In more recent seasons my rating has been in the upper 1800s/low 1900s. I think I can get back to 2000 but it isn't something that is super important to me. Playing interesting chess is more important to me, so lately when the opportunity arises I play openings that I never played before in a serious game. In the last game I tried this I won. It wasn't because of the opening I won. I actually was probably lost but I found ways of complicating the position and my opponent wasn't able to solve the problems I presented him.

Of course... one can select a suitable opening to play.

The Najdorf is highly tactical, and if you choose it as your main weapon against 1. e4 then you are guaranteed to received several painful lessons in tactics, each one underlined by a heavy defeat.

If learning and improving is more important to you than gaining immediate points on the rating, then the Najdorf might be a sound choice.

It worked for me.

I agree with those who say that the opening isn't really what will get you to 2000.

So what do you need to reach 2000? I'd say: a good grasp of positional fundamentals (king safety, central pawn occupation or control, maximizing piece mobility, recognizing pawn-structure strengths and weaknesses, controlling or contesting open files, occupying or relinquishing outposts ... all the stuff that you can learn from Nimzo's My System, or similar resources).

Combine that with some decent tactical vision, and 2000 should (ideally) come eventually ... regardless of what opening you play.

One resource I think most people don't know about is the Online chessbase database. It's completely free and there's all kinds of master games. This is the one resource which I use a lot to learn my openings when I feel like I am doing something wrong. I highly suggest others to look at master games through this resource. Far better than lichess in my opinion since it's easier to use.

From my personal experiences, openings isn't what makes you 2000...However, having studied one or two openings deeply is gonna makes your game much less complicated. What got me from 1500 to 2000 in the span of just 4 months are King's Indian system for both black and white and Pirc Defense against 1.e4, which are some offbeat openings. I think that got me an advantage for knowing the middle game plan in every game from all sidelines, and some cheap tricks in it. Though to me what really make someone better is through positional and tactical play. I used the same opening for 3 years and hard stuck at 1500, it only changed after I trained my tactical skills, learned about outpost, king/queen side expansions, and endgames. So if you trying to figure out which opening to boost your rating, don't. But rather just pick one that fit your play and focus more on tactics, plans on middlegame and endgames play.

ruy lopez and sicilian najdorf (im a55 at najdorf i just learn by game review and i might switch to kings indian or caro which is better caro or kings indian?)

In my own experience, you don't really need any openings, you can just chomp on hanging pieces and you should be well on your way to 2000. I think you could easily get there by playing dubious gambits and tricking your opponents though, so I would suggest searching up things like "Easy Checkmate in 8 Moves Trap" on YouTube shorts