N.N wrote:

In your recent article on building an opening repertoire, you wrote that "every player should create and nurture their own repertoire based on their personal strengths and tastes." While this is reasonable, it seems necessary to examine how those strengths and tastes were derived.

In the April 1999 issue of his excellent "Hard Chess" articles (http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/hard/hard.htm), USCF Master Mark Morss takes a somewhat different view. He writes that, for players below 2300, he believes that "the question of what opening to play merges with that of how a player should strive to get better at chess."

When I was first learning how to play, I always played 1.e4. This seemed logical enough since it allowed easy development and also allowed me to aim for the four-move checkmate! Of course, eventually I began playing opponents who wouldn't allow that, so it was necessary to learn how to play "real chess." My "semi-"coach, Richard Peterson, gave me a videotape with some analysis on various openings (French/Caro-Kann exchange, Max Lange attack, Moeller attack, Sicilian Grand Prix). This was my first exposure to opening theory, and of course on the tape all the lines seemed like forced wins for my side. Thus, I began playing several of these lines. Though I eventually abandoned most of them (I could never figure out how to win against the sidelines in the Moeller attack, for example), the Sicilian Grand Prix remained in my repertoire (and I still use it on occasion).

I discovered that one of my stylistic tendencies was to play f4 (eventually) in every position. Though this is certainly standard enough in various structures, I feel that my desire to play this move came more from my experience with the Grand Prix than from any sort of positional understanding.

It is my personal view that people develop their style based on the openings that they "randomly" find themselves playing early on. Of course, if these lines are enjoyable, then there is nothing wrong with that. However, to reach a higher level, it seems necessary to be able to play all sorts of positions, and for this reason it might be a good idea to try out openings that go against a player's normal inclinations. After all, we can't always force our dream position on our opponents.

I think I'll try to learn some 1.d4 lines.

Silman replies:

Thirty-two years ago, in the depths of the Haight Ashbury, I ran into a high 2100 who was zeroing in on his master rating. He told me his secret: “Every year I completely change my whole repertoire. It doesn’t matter if I love the openings I’m playing or hate them, I throw them away after the year has passed.”

Scratching my waist length hair and taking another toke from my water pipe, I asked the obvious question: “Why in the hell would you do that?”

“Because it forces me to learn new positions, master new kinds of middlegames  and endgames, and improve as an all around player.”

He did indeed make master, but I ignored his advice until, several years later, I found myself at a rating ceiling – I had long before gotten my own master title, but wasn’t able to get to the next level. Recalling his words, I dropped my beloved 1.e4 and took up 1.d4, not having a clue how to play it but deciding to give it a go nonetheless. I went up 150 rating points in the next year and a half.

I saw a similar action with DeFirmian, who was a master of 1.e4 and had gotten his grandmaster title using it and nothing else. One day he began playing 1.d4 and confided in me that he “hated it with a passion.” However, he realized that, at the highest levels, his positional understanding was lacking and so decided to give a year to the strategic lessons that only 1.d4 could teach. After that time period expired, Nick rushed back to 1.e4 but came away from the experience a much stronger, well-rounded, player.

When advising amateur’s about the creation of an opening repertoire, different personal factors are crucial in what is or isn’t workable for them. The vast majority of players simply want a basic, easy to remember repertoire that they don’t have to agonize over – this allows them to always get reasonable positions in the beginnings of their games and just enjoy the experience of playing.

Those that have more time or have a realistic goal like expert (2000 - 2199) or master might wish to take on a more demanding, memory intensive repertoire. They might also wish to expand their opening study to the typical middlegames and endgames that occur from the systems that will form their individual repertoires.

There does come a time, usually in the 2100 to 2300 areas, where an opening overhaul is very desirable. A lifetime 1.e4 player rocks his world when he switches to 1.d4 – in my case, I never looked back. However, moving from 1.e4 to 1.d4 to 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 and finally back to 1.e4 will also enrich every aspect of your chess understanding. And, if you have always played some quiet 1.d4 openings, a switch to sharper 1.e4 lines will add some much needed dynamism to your style.

When trying to design your personal repertoire, ask questions like, “Am I good tactically?”

Let’s say your answer is, “No, I can’t see a combination to save my life, but I’m excellent when it comes to squeezing my opponents to death.” In that case you have two options:

* You can choose openings that are sharp and demand tactical acumen. By doing this you will improve tactically simply because you have no choice!

* You can choose openings that are calm, positional, and keep most crazed tactical demonstrations capped.

Both options depend on other answers to other personal questions: Do you have much (or any!) time for study? Are you trying to move up the rating ladder, or is shoring up your openings in accordance with your already existing chess strengths enough to keep you ahead of the friends you play?

Every person has their own needs, and figuring those needs out is surprisingly simple. And, if you do need help, there are many teachers worldwide (Don’t look at me, I’m booked!) who will be happy to lead you to the promised land (internet lesson are now all the rage).

To see other letters about a host of subjects, including opening repertoires, click HERE.