It's a really expressive picture.
I did well
I did well
I mean you did well
Sorry
The reasons mentioned are indeed bad reasons to deviate from your regular openings. However let's not forget there are also some good ones:
1. I know my opponent plays a weak line in a certain opening
2. To have a good match outcome I should play for a win/draw (e.g. if 0.5 point still loses you the match your main opening with black may make life too easy on your opponent)
But indeed, if there is a real problem in your normal repertoire, don't avoid it...fix it! (Or upgrade your repertoire as a whole if it is really bad)
1. I know my opponent plays a weak line in a certain opening
2. To have a good match outcome I should play for a win/draw (e.g. if 0.5 point still loses you the match your main opening with black may make life too easy on your opponent)
But indeed, if there is a real problem in your normal repertoire, don't avoid it...fix it! (Or upgrade your repertoire as a whole if it is really bad)
@Testrider said in #5:
> The reasons mentioned are indeed bad reasons to deviate from your regular openings. However let's not forget there are also some good ones:
>
> 1. I know my opponent plays a weak line in a certain opening
>
> 2. To have a good match outcome I should play for a win/draw (e.g. if 0.5 point still loses you the match your main opening with black may make life too easy on your opponent)
>
> But indeed, if there is a real problem in your normal repertoire, don't avoid it...fix it! (Or upgrade your repertoire as a whole if it is really bad)
The first reason is super interesting to analyze... because it poses the choice between the safe known or the potentially excellent but unknown. In the post I only adressed potentially bad known vs unknown. I'd have to read up a bit on the cognitive biases at play in potentially good unknown vs ok known.
For the second reason, if you deviate from your normal repertoire in hopes of something, how much are you increasing your losing chances to increase your winning chances? That's the key question. My guess is up to a pretty high level the opening you pick won't limit your winning/drawing chances significantly enough to compensate for the lack of expertise you'll have.
> The reasons mentioned are indeed bad reasons to deviate from your regular openings. However let's not forget there are also some good ones:
>
> 1. I know my opponent plays a weak line in a certain opening
>
> 2. To have a good match outcome I should play for a win/draw (e.g. if 0.5 point still loses you the match your main opening with black may make life too easy on your opponent)
>
> But indeed, if there is a real problem in your normal repertoire, don't avoid it...fix it! (Or upgrade your repertoire as a whole if it is really bad)
The first reason is super interesting to analyze... because it poses the choice between the safe known or the potentially excellent but unknown. In the post I only adressed potentially bad known vs unknown. I'd have to read up a bit on the cognitive biases at play in potentially good unknown vs ok known.
For the second reason, if you deviate from your normal repertoire in hopes of something, how much are you increasing your losing chances to increase your winning chances? That's the key question. My guess is up to a pretty high level the opening you pick won't limit your winning/drawing chances significantly enough to compensate for the lack of expertise you'll have.
Well, I know some people (2000+) that play openings with black where a well prepared white player can force a draw.
Normally not a real problem as a player tends to be either weaker (and unaware of this option) or equal/stronger (and a draw is then usually fine with black).
However if the match outcome is at stake you would need to deviate.
In a less extreme example: I know for sure that GMs tend to choose more or less aggressive lines depending on whether they are in a must win or must draw situation.
But to be fair, I personally don't have a repertoire where this is a real concern and I suspect most people don't.
Normally not a real problem as a player tends to be either weaker (and unaware of this option) or equal/stronger (and a draw is then usually fine with black).
However if the match outcome is at stake you would need to deviate.
In a less extreme example: I know for sure that GMs tend to choose more or less aggressive lines depending on whether they are in a must win or must draw situation.
But to be fair, I personally don't have a repertoire where this is a real concern and I suspect most people don't.
Lol the picture got my xD
Sometimes, changing openings might be useful for avoiding forced variations (especially going draws) and also over-prepared positions by opponents. I will give an example about these from one of my OTB games.
In 2024 May, I played Sicillian Najdorf System (like 80-90 % of my tournament games against 1.e4 with black and white chose the main variation) in a game at an OTB tournament. My opponent played 6.Bg5. Everything was normal so far. The game developed like below:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. Bd3 b5 11. Rhe1 Bb7 12. Qg3 b4 13. Nd5 exd5 14. exd5 Kd8 15. Nc6 Bxc6 16. dxc6 Qxc6 17. Bxf6 Nxf6 18. Qxg7 Re8 19. Qxf7
The game might be evaluated as equal or unclear. However theory was going on and i did not know the correct moves in advance. I knew only there were some Nd5 sacrifice ideas somewhere. I had to calculate so many sharp and unclear variations and found the correct moves on the board. We drew about 30. move in a very strange position. (I had a bishop against his two pawns and my king was not in a very safe position and drawn by a perpectual threat). My opponent was about 300 rating below than me and was prepared until 24-25. moves. (I should note that this was annoying). He drew the game by memorizing the theory of that forced variation. This forced me to seek for different systems with black against 1.e4.
I was familiar with 1...e6 and 1...e5 systems (playing 1.e4 with white often was helpful) before and tried 1...e6 more than 1...c5 my last tournament games with black. I tried solid and more closed structures.My opponents could not find forced variations leading to draw endgames or perpectual checks. This helped me to avoid from forced and on the razor's edge Najdorf variations (look at poisoned pawn variation of 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 and you understand me better) and I got better scores. I avoided from the Poisoned pawn variation because its variations are hard to calculate correctly and most of them leads to equal positions after a severe battle. However, in that game i mentioned above, the play led those type structures.
Todays, I try to avoid from the systems including too much forcing variations, it is tiring on the board and you should spend too much time in the opening phase of the game.
Of course we should not change our openings massively and suddenly but we should apply different ideas and should have repertoire containing more than one system. I should remark that being familiar with 1.e4 e6 (and being experienced with it from the past with white and black) helped me to take good scores in my recent games. Choosing open and sharp structures in some games and choosing more closed and slow developing games in some others might be useful. Also it may prepare the player for different type of middlegame structures.
And as the last word of course, these are not and shall not be construed as investment advice, all they are my peronal opinions.
In 2024 May, I played Sicillian Najdorf System (like 80-90 % of my tournament games against 1.e4 with black and white chose the main variation) in a game at an OTB tournament. My opponent played 6.Bg5. Everything was normal so far. The game developed like below:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. Bd3 b5 11. Rhe1 Bb7 12. Qg3 b4 13. Nd5 exd5 14. exd5 Kd8 15. Nc6 Bxc6 16. dxc6 Qxc6 17. Bxf6 Nxf6 18. Qxg7 Re8 19. Qxf7
The game might be evaluated as equal or unclear. However theory was going on and i did not know the correct moves in advance. I knew only there were some Nd5 sacrifice ideas somewhere. I had to calculate so many sharp and unclear variations and found the correct moves on the board. We drew about 30. move in a very strange position. (I had a bishop against his two pawns and my king was not in a very safe position and drawn by a perpectual threat). My opponent was about 300 rating below than me and was prepared until 24-25. moves. (I should note that this was annoying). He drew the game by memorizing the theory of that forced variation. This forced me to seek for different systems with black against 1.e4.
I was familiar with 1...e6 and 1...e5 systems (playing 1.e4 with white often was helpful) before and tried 1...e6 more than 1...c5 my last tournament games with black. I tried solid and more closed structures.My opponents could not find forced variations leading to draw endgames or perpectual checks. This helped me to avoid from forced and on the razor's edge Najdorf variations (look at poisoned pawn variation of 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 and you understand me better) and I got better scores. I avoided from the Poisoned pawn variation because its variations are hard to calculate correctly and most of them leads to equal positions after a severe battle. However, in that game i mentioned above, the play led those type structures.
Todays, I try to avoid from the systems including too much forcing variations, it is tiring on the board and you should spend too much time in the opening phase of the game.
Of course we should not change our openings massively and suddenly but we should apply different ideas and should have repertoire containing more than one system. I should remark that being familiar with 1.e4 e6 (and being experienced with it from the past with white and black) helped me to take good scores in my recent games. Choosing open and sharp structures in some games and choosing more closed and slow developing games in some others might be useful. Also it may prepare the player for different type of middlegame structures.
And as the last word of course, these are not and shall not be construed as investment advice, all they are my peronal opinions.
@Testrider said in #5:
>
I really agree with the first one
I was(and still am) mainly a French Player, however sometimes in Preperation when I know my opponent will be much lower rates I like to avoid the exchange French(its not a really big problem, as the better player usually still gets winning chances with black, but sometimes it can be a big boring)
So U was once playing against a weaker opponent and really didnt want the exchange French so I started looking at other lines and saw he played sidelines against the Sveshnikov/Kalaschnikow (Nf3 instead of Nb5), so I prepared this lines and easily got a winning/much better position out of the Opening(and also found some cool moves by myself, so the game was very fun)(however I sadly misplayed a completely winning rook endgame in time trouble and only drew).
This not only was a very interesting game but also opened me to study the Kalaschnikow in more Detail and thus learn completely new types of positions which definitly improved me as a chess player
So I can definitly recommend to switch it up once in a while, to make it harder to prepare and to just have some fun
>
I really agree with the first one
I was(and still am) mainly a French Player, however sometimes in Preperation when I know my opponent will be much lower rates I like to avoid the exchange French(its not a really big problem, as the better player usually still gets winning chances with black, but sometimes it can be a big boring)
So U was once playing against a weaker opponent and really didnt want the exchange French so I started looking at other lines and saw he played sidelines against the Sveshnikov/Kalaschnikow (Nf3 instead of Nb5), so I prepared this lines and easily got a winning/much better position out of the Opening(and also found some cool moves by myself, so the game was very fun)(however I sadly misplayed a completely winning rook endgame in time trouble and only drew).
This not only was a very interesting game but also opened me to study the Kalaschnikow in more Detail and thus learn completely new types of positions which definitly improved me as a chess player
So I can definitly recommend to switch it up once in a while, to make it harder to prepare and to just have some fun