I can’t wrap my brain around something to do with openings. I have a few Everyman books on different openings. One thing I seem to read a lot of goes along the lines of this “players who choose this opening as white like to do this…that…blah….blah…” “And players on the black side like to try this and that….blah blah….” Or I will read…”Kasparov used this opening a lot as both colors….” etc.

The problem is, this is a reference to a particular defense. Rather it is the Sicilian, KID, etc. My confusion comes in this:

How can someone choose to play something from both sides of the board? Ok, sure, as black so and so may use the Sicilian against whites 1. e4. The black player has a choice of variations, Najdorf, Classical, Dragon, etc. For each of these then white can choose an attack. But the generalized quotes like the ones I give suggest that so and so player sits at the board as WHITE and says ok, I am going to play the Sicilian. Now maybe so and so player will wind up playing within a certain system from both sides of the board, but they don’t elect to play the Sicilian Najdorf as white, so why is this the implication? It seems to me white only has a say in what gets played as far as his first move, be it e4, d4, or something else, and then when it comes to dealing with a certain variation, like playing the Keres against the Scheveningen.

One book, in reference to the Nimzo-Indian says something along the lines of………both black and white players of this system tend to be positional players…..(paraphrase)…..

Ok, maybe because as white I played 1.d4 makes me a positional player, but it is black that chose the defense not me. The same could be said for the Caro-Kann by these standards it would seem, Ok, I played 1. e4 and because my opponent plays 1. … c6 I AM A POSITIONAL PLAYER?


Maybe I am just not meant to understand all this??

You're getting way too hung up on wording that really doesn't mean that much.

When it says that someone plays a particular line as both sides, it just means that they go into that line instead of varying. In the simplest possible example, I play double kings pawn openings from both sides. That means that as white, I usually start with 1. e4, and my opponents sometimes answer with e5. As black, when my opponents start with e4, I generally answer with e5.

As for both players being positional if they play a particular system, they probably just meant that there were ways for both players to vary the line of play towards more tactical positions, but they both chose not to do so.

--Fromper

Heh, well chess players are a bit schizophrenic by nature. We play something from one side of the board and inevitably (at least if you're playing something reputable) someone will play your exact opening/defense against you.

At any rate, as soon as white makes his fiirst move, the game is underway. Both players will choose their own moves and the choices they make decide which opening is shown on the board. It's true, black (if white plays 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 ... 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 decides which Sicilian comes out because white can't force it (unless he plays an anti-Sicilian but then often black just sets up his system anyway), not until later on, think of the Richter-Rauzer, the Sozin and such, but in the Sicilian many variations have sub-sub-sub variations with tonnes of theory attached to them!

Your choices decide what kind of player you are in a given game. If you play the Tarrasch variation (3. Nd2) in the French defense, you're more likely to be a bit of a conservative type who wants to get a safe bit of an edge, if you opt for 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 and a Classical arises and you play the Alekhine-Chatard attack (4. ... Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4) you're more likely to be an aggressive type going for all sorts of attacking chances.
In chess, the only limitations you have no real control over are your opponents moves.

In grandmaster play, both players most likely have four of five specific lines from different openings that they prepare for each other, and their "opening book" can go as deep as 10 moves!

This is obviously impossible for us mortals to do, as we have neither the time nor the knowledge of what our opponents will play.

Regarding the book text, when "Kasparov uses this opening.", that means that, if Black does not deviate and play something different, then Kasparov will play this certain line of the opening.

Basic example: When I open as White, I usually play d4. Against either 1. ...d5 or 1. ...Nf6, I will usually play 2. c4 and 3. Nc3. After that, what I play will depend on what Black decides to play.

If Black does not play either 1. ...d5 or 1. ...Nf6, then I am "out of book" (I don't have a specific opening for Black's move), and I will have to play what I deem is best.

Basic example #2: As Black, if my opponent play e4, then I respond with either 1. ...e6 (French Defense) or 1. ...c5. The specific line I want to play in the Sicilian is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 d5. This is my "book opening". If my opponent does not play either 2. Nf3 or 3. d4, then I am again "out of book", and will play what I think is the best move (obviously). I could, if I wanted to, prepare a separate line for any of White's other options if I wished.

This is not meant to confuseth thee, but thou art already confused somewhat, so....

Forget about all this bla-bla as this is not going to help you.
Just think about your own preferences. Pick an opening system you like and then choose some variations you like and study related games where this variation is used.
For example let's say as Black you like to play the Sicilian. As the Sicilian is very complex just choose a system within the Sicilian. For example the Scheveningen. Then study it and play it. If you encounter new moves in your actual games then study those lines. After some time you will feel that you have mental control over your openings.

If you are rated under 1800 you will probably be "out of book" in 3-4 moves so studying variations turns out to be a waste of time and effort.
What you need is to learn how to make good move. Not the best move as there may be no best move. Only three authors set about to teach specifically how to make good moves: Purdy, Silman, and Aagaard.
There are only about a dozen rules. I hve memorized them and review them at every move. It only takes a few seconds.

I do not care what opening my opponent plays. I just concentrate simply on making good moves.

I rarely get a poor opening position. When I lose - and it is often - it is always because I ignored one of the the simple rules or my opponet was simply a stronger player.

As noted by one responder, if you work out your openings there will always be at least ONE position that you have to play as both sides. For example I am a 1.d4 player and have to play against the Semi-Slav very frequently. I also like to play the Semi-Slav as Black, so that is an example. There is going to be at least one variation that I will have to play as both sides.

But besides that point, modern grandmasters take a much more eclectic approach to the opening. They normally play several lines, and tend to stay on the cutting edge of theory. For example, certain variations of the Semi-Slav are in vogue right now because they offer fighting chances for both sides. Eventually one side makes a switch deciding that there are not enough creative fruits up for grabs there.

This is generally the process of theory. Certain openings are in vogue and all the top grandmasters start playing them for both sides. Elite players do not often have a fixed repertoire for both sides. They may have certain favorite openings but they often vary it with fashionable in-vogue lines.

Of course as noted by others, this doesn't really concern you. This is like top swimmers trying to figure out advanced methods to reduce their lap time by half a second. For you and me we just need to learn to swim.

Your task is to get a reasonable position that you understand. The more solid it is the more you can work with it for a long period of time.

Hope this helps =)