Hey y'all, here's a bit of context for you:
For the past 4-5 years of my chess career, I've been casually playing systems, but rarely have I delved into serious opening theory. I'm around 1800 on chesscom, and roughly 1900-2000 here on lichess (maybe a little less as of recently- hehe). I feel like there is still some work to be had for tactics and endgame understanding; but on top of that, I think my opening knowledge must greatly improve if I wish to get to that sweetsweet 2000 elo.
My first two years, I played the queens pawn as white; and the kings Indian/ Scandinavian as black.
Since then, I've played a great deal more king's pawn as white, however I've stayed consistent with my repertoire as black.
Here's the kicker though:
Stats show that my win rate with (white) D4 and the London system/reti is better than my current repertoire of E4 Italian/Spanish game. (~49%-52% win rate playing D4, vs. 44%-49% win rate playing E4)
My games as black have consistently betters results (~51%-53% win rate) but could definitely be built upon.
Keep in mind, these stats reflect my performance with openings that I have a baseline understanding of- I've never bought a course or done opening theory.
It's my understanding that e4 openings are sharper that d4 openings, and I might just be blundering too many times, but I enjoy both.
With regards to black, despite my success (and enjoyment) as black with the Scandi and Kings Indian, it's my understanding that those openings are fundamentally better at low level chess, than high level chess. Many players recommend more respectable openings like the Sicilian, or the queen's gambit declined.
MY QUESTION: Is it recommended that I:
-return to my earlier opening repertoire with a fresh understanding and dive into the theory,
-stay with my current opening- but actually study it and improve, OR
-is it better to find a completely new opening and start from scratch?
I feel like if I understood how my openings transposed from the opening to the middlegame, I'd have better odds of seeing tactics and strategies- at least better than I am right now- but I don't know the time risk I'd be taking if I went all in with one opening, and it ended up failing with it in the long run.
i dunno
Any advice would be helpful honestly. If you want examples of my style of play (*cough* me blundering *cough*), I'd be happy to link them.
TLDR: should I go all in on openings with current high yield, but long-term loss of reliability- or do I continue and explore a more respected set of opening that im currently struggling with, but should offer better play as I get better?
For the past 4-5 years of my chess career, I've been casually playing systems, but rarely have I delved into serious opening theory. I'm around 1800 on chesscom, and roughly 1900-2000 here on lichess (maybe a little less as of recently- hehe). I feel like there is still some work to be had for tactics and endgame understanding; but on top of that, I think my opening knowledge must greatly improve if I wish to get to that sweetsweet 2000 elo.
My first two years, I played the queens pawn as white; and the kings Indian/ Scandinavian as black.
Since then, I've played a great deal more king's pawn as white, however I've stayed consistent with my repertoire as black.
Here's the kicker though:
Stats show that my win rate with (white) D4 and the London system/reti is better than my current repertoire of E4 Italian/Spanish game. (~49%-52% win rate playing D4, vs. 44%-49% win rate playing E4)
My games as black have consistently betters results (~51%-53% win rate) but could definitely be built upon.
Keep in mind, these stats reflect my performance with openings that I have a baseline understanding of- I've never bought a course or done opening theory.
It's my understanding that e4 openings are sharper that d4 openings, and I might just be blundering too many times, but I enjoy both.
With regards to black, despite my success (and enjoyment) as black with the Scandi and Kings Indian, it's my understanding that those openings are fundamentally better at low level chess, than high level chess. Many players recommend more respectable openings like the Sicilian, or the queen's gambit declined.
MY QUESTION: Is it recommended that I:
-return to my earlier opening repertoire with a fresh understanding and dive into the theory,
-stay with my current opening- but actually study it and improve, OR
-is it better to find a completely new opening and start from scratch?
I feel like if I understood how my openings transposed from the opening to the middlegame, I'd have better odds of seeing tactics and strategies- at least better than I am right now- but I don't know the time risk I'd be taking if I went all in with one opening, and it ended up failing with it in the long run.
i dunno
Any advice would be helpful honestly. If you want examples of my style of play (*cough* me blundering *cough*), I'd be happy to link them.
TLDR: should I go all in on openings with current high yield, but long-term loss of reliability- or do I continue and explore a more respected set of opening that im currently struggling with, but should offer better play as I get better?