Specializtion vs. Variety

Originally posted by cmsMaster
What do you guys think is more beneficial to the 1200-2000 rated player, opening specialization or opening variety? There are plenty of supporters for both sides, Fischer virtually played the same openings every time - KID, Najdorf, and 1.e4 with the Ruy/Open Sicilian and mainlines of the Caro-Kann/French. On the other hand many modern top players play a ...[text shortened]... en expand on it - while still using it. Do you guys agree or disagree with this sentiment?

IMO
computers have changed the number of openings GMs play...
as more players can find their upcoming opponent on a database, find their openings of choice, and just use Fritz to tell them everything they need to know about that opening, a black player could literally walk into a game room, sit down, and have an entire previous evening of study on a specific opening geared up for the other guy...
with a larger variety of openings under modern GMs belts, it is more difficult to pin a player down to just a few lines and have him figured out...
bear with me, i just read over the above paragraph and it looks kind of jumbled, sorry, i'm trying...
this means that if a player A looks up another player B on his database and finds that player B to favor, let's say, the Caro-Kann after 1. e4, then player A would naturally spend time booking up on the mainline Caro-Kanns
well, with a variety of openings for GMs today, player B could catch player A off guard playing a hypermodern system with 1. ... g6!
also, in the days of Fischer, he didn't have to have many openings... with such a smaller competition field, (computers have drastically changed the competition field today as well. with Fritz, modern chess is seeing an unprecedented number of GMs) i.e. Spassky was only really challenged by Spassky, Tal, and only a few others, fischer could play the same openings over and over again, because even if his opponent booked up on the lines he favored, fischer would still obliterate his opponent...

however, with computers, games at the super-GM level are very rarely actually won with the brilliant combinations that we used to see out of the old-timers (i.e. fischer, botvinnik, spassky) because GMs are so prone to resigning on move twelve or agreeing to a draw on move seven...
that's obviously an exxageration, so don't dwell on it...
point being:
chess is becoming boring because of computers...
yeah, i got sidetracked, but oh well...
it has almost gotten to the point where computers will have figured out the theoretically best mo0ves from move 1!
i heard somewhere that one computer found a 100+ forced checkmate following 1. d4
how fun is that?
any one feel the same way as me in that computers are hurting chess rather than helping it?
the player

I have been torn on this question for a long time, and it's one that I have gone back and forth on for a while, and I still have no idea as to my opinion. We are about the same age, but I think I have little bit of wisdom to past down, given that I am probably slightly stronger and slightly more experienced. It's good to play alot of different openings from both sides to see what you really like, and to gain experience in understanding all the typical ideas, pawn structures, plans, endings, etc...Everything that makes that particular opening that opening. But it will definitely hurt your results for a while, because you will have no idea what you are doing. Then again, it's also great to have one defense against 1. e4 and 1. d4, and have a consistent White repetoire also. You will gain alot of experience in the positions that are typical in that opening, you will learn alot of theory, and generally just play much better in those positions. I think ultimately that that is the way to go, but it really helps to dabble in everything to help your chess overall and to pick a set of openings that you feel comfortable playing for a long time.

I personally think it is always a good thing to expose yourself to different situations.

But I feel sometimes like I look at openings way much more than is beneficial.. And, going too narrow just kills creativity which is probably not a good thing.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
What do you guys think is more beneficial to the 1200-2000 rated player, opening specialization or opening variety? There are plenty of supporters for both sides, Fischer virtually played the same openings every time - KID, Najdorf, and 1.e4 with the Ruy/Open Sicilian and mainlines of the Caro-Kann/French. On the other hand many modern top players play a en expand on it - while still using it. Do you guys agree or disagree with this sentiment?

I prefer variety of openings. The main reason why I`m playing in RHP is to improve my skilla of playing opening lines (for OTB) in which I have lack of experience.