Ranking openings by the amount of theory • page 1/1 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Hey guys. Which popular openings you consider to be the most and the least theoretically filled? For example:
Ruy Lopez > French Defense
King's Indian Defense > Queen's Indian
Etc etc. I'll be glad to see your opinion!

Hey guys. Which popular openings you consider to be the most and the least theoretically filled? For example: Ruy Lopez > French Defense King's Indian Defense > Queen's Indian Etc etc. I'll be glad to see your opinion!

LaserGuy

#2

Most theoretical are probably Ruy Lopez and some variations of Sicilian... probably Najdorf or Sveshnikov I would guess, but I've only dabbled in Sicilian so I can't say for sure. And then probably QGD. Basically all of the commonly-played top level openings. Some others like Italian are probably up there too just because they're so old, even though they aren't so popular anymore at top levels. Caro-Kann and French are pretty rich as well I think.

Of popular openings, least theoretical are probably systems or vaguely forcing lines. E.g. London system, can be played reasonably well against most openings without detailed theoretical knowledge. Scandinavian is forcing enough that there's only a handful of lines you really need to know to reach an okay position. Modern defense. That sort of thing. Most dubious openings are also, for obvious reasons, not very theoretical.

Most theoretical are probably Ruy Lopez and some variations of Sicilian... probably Najdorf or Sveshnikov I would guess, but I've only dabbled in Sicilian so I can't say for sure. And then probably QGD. Basically all of the commonly-played top level openings. Some others like Italian are probably up there too just because they're so old, even though they aren't so popular anymore at top levels. Caro-Kann and French are pretty rich as well I think. Of popular openings, least theoretical are probably systems or vaguely forcing lines. E.g. London system, can be played reasonably well against most openings without detailed theoretical knowledge. Scandinavian is forcing enough that there's only a handful of lines you really need to know to reach an okay position. Modern defense. That sort of thing. Most dubious openings are also, for obvious reasons, not very theoretical.

Blunderdrunk

#3

Yes, I often hear that London plays itself. Queen's Gambit is very rich because of its age and a handful of variations, which can be narrowed down to the own liking. King's Indian for a while was considered to be rather unfavorable for black because of the monstrous central pawns (I can totally get that idea), and then all the theory kicked in.
Najdorf is interesting because according to stats it is extremely solid for black, and studied heavily. If I were e4 dude playing for a win I'd be avoiding Najdorf tbh.

Yes, I often hear that London plays itself. Queen's Gambit is very rich because of its age and a handful of variations, which can be narrowed down to the own liking. King's Indian for a while was considered to be rather unfavorable for black because of the monstrous central pawns (I can totally get that idea), and then all the theory kicked in. Najdorf is interesting because according to stats it is extremely solid for black, and studied heavily. If I were e4 dude playing for a win I'd be avoiding Najdorf tbh.