Arthur asks:

I am 62 years old. In 2000 I earned an expert's rating by playing aggressive chess openings. Now my rating is in the 1900's and I thought, age-wise, I should play more solid openings. Unfortunately, when I lose with a solid opening I go back to an aggressive repertoire, and if I'm unsuccessful with my aggressive lines I rush back to a solid one. Vicious cycle! I also find myself blaming my defeats on the opening because I lost the game. Is there any solution to this dilemma?

Silman replies:

I think it's very important to play openings that suit your style, memory, and disposition. If your nerves can't handle wild attacks but your emotions say "yes," you might wish to be practical and embrace lines that your mind AND body can live with! If your openings require deep memorization but your brain turned to mush years earlier (as is the case with me), how can you expect anything other than disaster?

If you like to attack, create a repertoire that reflects that choice. If you wish to play a more placid game, there are plenty of choices here too. Once you choose your repertoire, STICK WITH IT! Leaping around leads to confusion and bad results.

The truth is, if you play well - if you understand the typical middlegame positions that generally arise from your openings - then your results will be good. And the ONLY way to master the ideas and concepts of an opening is to play it for a long, long time!

I suggest you choose one repertoire or another (based on personal style and individual strength's and weaknesses) and give it a chance. Yes, you will lose many games at first. But each time you play, look over the variation carefully and see where you went wrong. In time, your repertoire will serve you well and be one of the best friend's you've ever had. To achieve that, you must make a commitment to it and polish the poor thing over and over until it's everything you wish it to be.

Jim asks:

I recently broke through 2000 CFC (Canadian) - provisional rating - and I would say that my goals are two fold; first of all, to maintain my expert rating hopefully, and secondly, to maintain a universal approach, i.e., a balance in my chess studies between the different phases of the game and a balance between honing my positional and tactical skills. Also, although I have been playing for about 25 yrs, I now have less time to study (young family, job etc).

About a year ago, I had several lessons with a coach who is a local 2200+ rated player and identified some areas of improvement, particularly the need to increase (as he described) my positional "database" and also the endgame. I also know that I waste way too much time on the clock transitioning from the opening to the middle-game and get into time trouble a lot as a result. I like the initiative, and generally have a tactically strong game.

As Black against e4, I've been playing the Sicilian for the last 8 yrs (Dragon, your repertoire with the Acc Dragon, Scheveningen and in the last eight months, the Najdorf). I have had some success with the Najdorf by examining model games only, and nearly beat a 2310 rated player at a club simul recently. I sometimes enjoy playing 1...e5 in various blitz games, to try and just play "chess" in less sharp positions. Several times I have considered changing to 1...e5 in OTB games to be less inhibited and play less theory (is that really the case?), but my coach encouraged me to persist with the Najdorf. I play Kostens recommended Najdorf repertoire (.Nc6 against the Bg5 lines) and this helps to avoid "some" theory as well. I have more experience with the Sicilian in general, so that's my dilemma against 1.e4, to continue playing the Sicilian and playing the go-for-a-win Najdorf with it's sometimes straight and narrow path, or get more diversity with 1...e5. Or maybe there is another option (Kan possibly).

Now, if 1.e4 wasn't a problem, I am probably having bigger problems against 1.d4. I used to play the Benko and for the last 6 months have tried to learn the KID from Gallaghers "Starting Out" book. I really like the fact that I can play it against all other non-1.e4 openings and the thematic K-side attacks are nice to play, but some of the positions just seem to be very obscure, and dare I say "unsound" and sometimes one wrong move and your lost. I have pondered the Nimzo/Queens Indian complex, the Semi-Slav and the QGA, but more recently I was on the brink of taking up the Slav itself. Similar to the above, I decided to stick to my current course and try and understand the KID, but it takes a lot of time - maybe too much time - and the KID positions are, IMHO harder to understand positionally than the Najdorf!

I like the initiative, but don't want to spend forever-and-a-day memorizing narrow lines of theory to survive the opening. I want to try and free up my time to study the endgame and the more positional aspects of the game, but I don't want my rating to plummet in the short-term. As I also mentioned, my study time is also likely to remain tight in the foreseeable future.

Silman replies: My answer to the first question still holds good - you're leaping all over the place and depriving yourself of the opportunity of creating a tight, well thought out repertoire. 

You must pick an opening and STAY with it for a long period of time (years), otherwise you'll never learn its nuances. Thus, the question for you is, what opening fits your style and needs best? If you don't like or have the time for memory-intensive systems, then hyper-complex openings such as the Najdorf or the Dragon might be a problem. Instead, something mixing sharp ideas with general (easy to learn) themes (the Scheveningen is a good, sound choice) might well prove to be more appropriate.

I find the KID is another opening that allows for an expansive, general understanding of its basic plans and tactical themes. All the other lines you listed are also good, but just choose one and stick with it!

It's really that simple: decide which opening would suit you and then make a commitment to it - don't give up on it for any reason.