How does one every develop an opening repertoire? Ok, so I decide I want to play the Dragon against 1. e4 as black. Easy enough, I just need to develop an understanding for whites reply (i.e. Yugoslav, Classical, Levenfish etc.) I also need to be ready for the c3 an Bb5 systems. This is no small task when approaching what to play in response to 1. e4. For 1. d4 I have yet to decide honestly, but there are limited variations white can take in response to what I do for 1. e4 (Sicilian Dragon) and 1. d4 (to be determined).

This all being said, my brain starts to melt when trying to derive a repertoire for white. So I know I want to play 1. e4 myself. Defending against the Sicilian Dragon will be easy enough whit my mastery of it from the black side. But I seem to run into the Najdorf as white much more often. I also have to prepare for the Sveshnikov and Scheveningen. Then I must consider the Caro Kahn, the French, the Ruy…on and on and on….and all their variations!

In developing openings to what degree can/does one prepare for these many replies from black?

The main thing is that it just takes time to develop a repertoire. Your repertoire will never be perfect - there will always be some opening your opponents can throw at you that you're not ready for. But if you start playing a particular openings, for instance e4, you'll see the same replies often enough to know you need to spend a little time on them.

You play e4, and you know you need a line against the French. So you spend half an hour looking over one response, and you play that for a while. After your games in it, you can compare your play to how the masters would play it, using MCO and/or a database of master games. And of course, there will always be lines you're not ready for even within the lines you chose. You learn as you go.

The key is not to get overly worried about the holes in your opening repertoire. Plug the biggest holes, and don't try to make it bullet proof. It never will be.

--Fromper

I wouldn't play the dragon! Black scores badly in the dragon, there are better sicilian lines around. I don't understand why people often are frixed on the dragon.

I wouldn't play the Dragon proper, no. But not because of statistics, rather because it requires a fine understanding of what to play and what to avoid. Something for masters, not for us.

The Accelerated Dragon is less of a hazard.


Just focus on the things you'll encounter most and don't worry too much about each and every sideline. Think in terms of themes and ideas, those at least are somewhat limited within each opening, on the other hand, there are millions of chess moves...

Part of your challange is that you have probobly made the choice off the hardest road there is (or close) If you play the open sicilian on both sides of the board, and very likely the Ruy as white (?) you are tackling the largest bodies of opening theory in chess. A great deal off fun if you can do it, but its not easy, but you can get there. And unless your playing in the world open don't worry as much about the 30 move ideal variations... you won't get there too much. Understand the principles first, and work on the theory bit by bit.

I'm gonna disagree here. I've been playing the Dragon (the true Dragon) with great success since I was a 1400. It does require a lot of understanding, but there's something to be said for playing an opening you enjoy, especially since it offers lots of tactics.

I play the KID for the same reasons, but it's got tons more theory to know than the Dragon, so you might be better off playing the Gruenfeld, QGD, QGA, or one of the Slavs.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, in regards to your repertoire, it does take time to build it, and it's NEVER going to be completely static. Your repertoire will always change as you find better lines or find flaws in your own lines. I'm still toying with what to play as white against the KID, considering changing lines against the Gruenfeld, and still thinking about shifting to main line stuff against the Slav instead of my side line I play.

THis is part of the reason why beginners are advised NOT to study openings: it's a gaping maw which sucks you in which is very hard to extract yourself from. You end up spending time researching how your opponents deviated rather than doing more useful stuff like studying endings and improving your tactics.

As for the dragon itself, the reason why the dragon is appealing is because it is, in many ways, the most logical way for black to develop in the dragon: it's very easy to get all your pieces working together, and you don't have, say, the Dark-square bishop stuck defending a weak pawn. You don't have obvious positional weaknesses. And the bishop on g7 works well with a Rc8 and Qa5, ganging up on c3.

the acc. dragon makes sense if you want to avoid the yugoslav (which, quite frankly, I think of as a lot of fun.). But you have to be willing to deal (especially online) with the fact that you'll run into a lot of players who are totally booked up, and you'll lose some games just to soebody's better theory.

Thanks everyone for the input. Let me just say that I am not what one would consider a beginner. My comment was really just out of frustration because of personality type. I know there is no way I will be able to prepare for every possible variation. I just don’t like knowing that there are things out there that may pop up that I am not prepared for.

Ronaldinho : Perhaps I am playing my online games in the wrong place (Chess Assistant, comes with Rybka) because I have played very few games where my opponents seemed to put much time in opening study. I may get 5-6 moves deep AT MOST into any particular opening before opponents start launching queen raids, etc.

I will say that I don’t spend a large amount of time on openings; probably not even as much as I should. After coming back to chess after not playing for a while I have yet to really even touch queen pawn defenses. It doesn’t help that I inherited from my father a library of some 100+ chess books. I can’t seem to keep a couple on the desk and ignore the others.

Personally I think the middle game is the most crucial, so most of my study time that is not spent playing is spent doing positional problems (i.e. Reassess Your Chess Workbook and Test Your Positional Play, which is about as old as I am!

With regard to facing the Najdorf [or Sicilians in general], I think you could cut your study time down there by focusing on the Bb5(+) lines. It is becoming increasingly clearer that those lines preserve a real advantage for White without being coaxed into your opponent's jungle.

The problem with the dragon is, you can't just play along happily by themes, every move counts as Black and stronger competition know the theorie and take you apart with the Yugoslav attack and you have only limited chances to be successful with it. So why playing something that is inferior in the first place.
Carlsen played it recently and was already losing after 19 moves against Anand right after the opening had finished, playing the dragon and running right into the Yugoslav attack.
I don't recommend the accelerated dragon either. I was playing it myself and if White knows it you can lose quite easily. It is clearly inferior!

With White you can play the Bb5 lines against the Sicilian to avoid unnecessary book studies.

As Black against 1.d4 I recommend the Nimzo Indian and the Bogo Indian or Gruenfeld Defense Setup against Colle Players, because the Bd3 in the Colle will bite on granite at the g6 pawn.