Copying GM's is not the way to go, GM's use HIGHLY THEORETICAL lines, trying to strike an advantage early on. Those lines will not help your level of play, most players don't have that vast of a theory knowledge, my advice for you is to play King Indian Attack and a queen pawn game for white, and avoid playing 1...e5 1....c5 with black.
Originally posted by Tactical Play.....and indeed my opponents start to assault my kingside very early........and if I fianchetto my bishop white esily get rid of it exchanging it as soon as possible,leaving me with a lot of weak squares (g7,g5,h6,f6)..........
Im not a huge fan of sicilian, but I do play it because it is very solid but one can run into king side trouble against the slav...
Originally posted by Serendipityas someone else wrote...copying GMs is not the way to go.
What would you say are the most used openings by contemporary grandmasters? i need to choose some openings for my repotoire 🙂
try to find solid opening choices with clear concepts...they should suit your style.
BUT, to answer your question...against e4 the GMs often play Sicilians a lot and some Ruy Lopez...against d4 you see a lot of Nimzo Indians or d5 leading to queen's gambit lines and some King's Indians.
If you are just beginning to develop a repertoire, I think you can gain a lot from attempting to copy the best players. But you are better off if you copy the best players of the nineteenth century--Steinitz, Staunton, Morphy etc.
Learn the classical opening and their principles, and play them for a year or more. Then, move on to the hypermoderns--Alekhine, Reti, Nimzowitsch.
After another year, study Tal and Petrosian (contrasting styles).
Many great chess books of the past argue that an individual player's style should progress through stages resembling the history of chess strategy itself. Although Kasparov does not state this point explicitly, this argument appears to be a fundamental presupposition of his My Great Predecessors series.
Originally posted by Tactical PlayWell you can run into all sorts of problems playing any opening. Personally I like the Sicilian mostly because I've become so used to playing it. The best openings to choose are the ones that give you positions you feel comfortable playing. Grandmasters choose their openings to fit their style and that's one bit of their practise that's relatively easy to copy.
Im not a huge fan of sicilian, but I do play it because it is very solid but one can run into king side trouble against the slav...
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat may be true, however, it is difficult to become proficient in an opening that doesn't fit your style. Look at how Kramnik is strugling to switch towards 1.e4 (from 1.Nf3 and 1.d4). Question remains: how do you know what fits your style, and what does it take to change it.
Well you can run into all sorts of problems playing any opening. Personally I like the Sicilian mostly because I've become so used to playing it. The best openings to choose are the ones that give you positions you feel comfortable playing. Grandmasters choose their openings to fit their style and that's one bit of their practise that's relatively easy to copy.
Originally posted by Mephisto2Well yes, that's why I said choose an opening that suits your style. As to what fits your style, the problem there is of the chicken and egg variety. Until you are experienced enough to know what kind of middle games you like and what openings get you there and why - you're a bit stuck. Try stuff out, in this it's not the winning and losing that counts, but how easy you find it to work out plausible plans.
That may be true, however, it is difficult to become proficient in an opening that doesn't fit your style. Look at how Kramnik is strugling to switch towards 1.e4 (from 1.Nf3 and 1.d4). Question remains: how do you know what fits your style, and what does it take to change it.
Changing your style, well I suspect that Kramnik's problems are a Grandmaster version of mine with the Dutch (tryed it out, got hammered) - it takes a lot of games to make that kind of switch and really get to grips with the kind of subtleties that someone who regularly plays against those openings is used to.
That's a terrible line you gave. As an example of the theme of moving the rook then Bh8, it's ok. But to play e6, then g6 and Bg7 leaves dark square weaknesses, bishop or not. Generally, I just let them take it. You don't see any GM's playing Re8 then Bh8. The reason is that most of the positions where white plays Qd2 and Bh6 are sharp, probably opposite side castling games. Why waste two tempi playing Re8 and Bh6, when you can use those to start your own offensive? The dark squared bishop isn't worth that much ladies and gents.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Yes, g6 is an idea that works much better in the sicilian when black hasn't played the Paulsen. It also makes more sense, because after d6, it's the king's bishop that's trapped in, and needs the finchetto. However, that line could have just as easily applied to a non-Paulsen sicilian.
That's a terrible line you gave. As an example of the theme of moving the rook then Bh8, it's ok. But to play e6, then g6 and Bg7 leaves dark square weaknesses, bishop or not. Generally, I just let them take it. You don't see any GM's playing Re8 then Bh8. The reason is that most of the positions where white plays Qd2 and Bh6 are sharp, probably opposit ...[text shortened]... e to start your own offensive? The dark squared bishop isn't worth that much ladies and gents.
Originally posted by SerendipityThe English is a respectable opening but it gives black the choice of immediately unbalancing the game with 1...e5, playing for a manouevering game with 1...c5, or playing 1....Nf6, maybe with a later transposition into a queenpawn opening. So all in all the English is really a system better suited to experienced players, not really suitable for a beginner looking for something simple to learn.
Thanks guys......... No of you mentioned the English though.... Is it not popular anymore?