lichess.org
Donate

How to Choose your Openings

"For Black" * Black is more important than white. As white you can even play one of your black defenses in reverse with an extra tempo.
"1...e5 vs 1.e4 – Classical and balanced. Prepares you for a wide range of openings and themes (Italian, Scotch, Ruy Lopez, Gambits...)." * Excellent
"Petroff Defense – Extremely solid and principled. Great for players who like control and stability." * Good.
"O’Kelly Sicilian - Flexible and relatively unknown. Good option for surprising your opponents early on (especially for intermediate level players)" * Good, a poor man's Najdorf. Likewise 2...Nf6, 2...b6, 2...g6 (a poor man's Dragon).
"Caro-Kann – Solid and forgiving. Excellent for players with good endgame and strategic skills." * Good, but French 1...e6, Pirc 1...d6, Alekhine's Defense 1...Nf6, Scandinavian 1...d5, Nimzovich 1...Nc6 are good too.

"Slav Defense – Sound and safe. Avoids early weaknesses and offers long-term strategic play." * Good
"Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD) – Flexible and classic. Leads to rich pawn structures and instructive games." * Good
"Nimzo-Indian Defense – A great option for ambitious players looking to play strategically rich positions with strong positional imbalances. Very instructive." * Hard to play correctly, as white often gets a broad center and the bishop's pair. Should be complemented with the Queen's Indian Defense in case of 3 Nf3 instead of 3 Nc3
"Budapest Gambit – Dynamic and aggressive. Demands accuracy and it's not the most reliable option objectively, but club players often mishandle it." * Not really sound, not really principled: gives up a central pawn. The same for its cousins Alapin Countergambit 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 and Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5.

"For White" * Less important than the black defenses. You can play black defenses in reverse as white. That saves effort, gives you more experience with the structures.
"Italian – Versatile and principled. Can be played positionally or tactically." * Excellent
"Scotch – Direct and easy to understand. Very effective under 1400 but it can still be a great choice at higher levels." * Good
"Four Knights (Scotch Variation) – Simple, solid, and perfect for learning fundamentals." * Four Knights Spanish Variation 4 Bb5 is good too. An added bonus is that it can be played against 2...Nc6 just like against 2...Nf6.
"Scotch Gambit – Tactical, but relatively safe. Excellent for developing attacking skills." * Dubious. Back can also decline with ...Nf6 and transpose to a Two Knights Defense.
"Ruy Lopez or Spanish – Rich, flexible, and instructive. A long-term investment that requires more study." * Excellent

"Smith-Morra Gambit – Sound and aggressive. Great for building initiative and calculation." * Dubious. Black can also decline with 3...Nf6 or 3...d5 and thus transpose to the Alapin 2 c3. So from a practical point of view the Alapin 2 c3 is to be preferred. It is also more sound and more principled.
"Grand Prix Attack – Straightforward and effective vs Sicilian. Make sure you don’t use overly rigid plans." * Dubious. Black will play ...d5 and get good play. The two versions with Bc4 and with Bb5 both give black good play. The Closed Sicilian with g3 and Bg2 may be better.

"Queen’s Gambit – Reliable and flexible. Excellent for players with strong strategic understanding." * Excellent
"Jobava-London – Active and intuitive. A modern twist on the classic London System." * Good, but the classic London or the Colle are just as good.

"For Black" * Black is more important than white. As white you can even play one of your black defenses in reverse with an extra tempo. "1...e5 vs 1.e4 – Classical and balanced. Prepares you for a wide range of openings and themes (Italian, Scotch, Ruy Lopez, Gambits...)." * Excellent "Petroff Defense – Extremely solid and principled. Great for players who like control and stability." * Good. "O’Kelly Sicilian - Flexible and relatively unknown. Good option for surprising your opponents early on (especially for intermediate level players)" * Good, a poor man's Najdorf. Likewise 2...Nf6, 2...b6, 2...g6 (a poor man's Dragon). "Caro-Kann – Solid and forgiving. Excellent for players with good endgame and strategic skills." * Good, but French 1...e6, Pirc 1...d6, Alekhine's Defense 1...Nf6, Scandinavian 1...d5, Nimzovich 1...Nc6 are good too. "Slav Defense – Sound and safe. Avoids early weaknesses and offers long-term strategic play." * Good "Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD) – Flexible and classic. Leads to rich pawn structures and instructive games." * Good "Nimzo-Indian Defense – A great option for ambitious players looking to play strategically rich positions with strong positional imbalances. Very instructive." * Hard to play correctly, as white often gets a broad center and the bishop's pair. Should be complemented with the Queen's Indian Defense in case of 3 Nf3 instead of 3 Nc3 "Budapest Gambit – Dynamic and aggressive. Demands accuracy and it's not the most reliable option objectively, but club players often mishandle it." * Not really sound, not really principled: gives up a central pawn. The same for its cousins Alapin Countergambit 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 and Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5. "For White" * Less important than the black defenses. You can play black defenses in reverse as white. That saves effort, gives you more experience with the structures. "Italian – Versatile and principled. Can be played positionally or tactically." * Excellent "Scotch – Direct and easy to understand. Very effective under 1400 but it can still be a great choice at higher levels." * Good "Four Knights (Scotch Variation) – Simple, solid, and perfect for learning fundamentals." * Four Knights Spanish Variation 4 Bb5 is good too. An added bonus is that it can be played against 2...Nc6 just like against 2...Nf6. "Scotch Gambit – Tactical, but relatively safe. Excellent for developing attacking skills." * Dubious. Back can also decline with ...Nf6 and transpose to a Two Knights Defense. "Ruy Lopez or Spanish – Rich, flexible, and instructive. A long-term investment that requires more study." * Excellent "Smith-Morra Gambit – Sound and aggressive. Great for building initiative and calculation." * Dubious. Black can also decline with 3...Nf6 or 3...d5 and thus transpose to the Alapin 2 c3. So from a practical point of view the Alapin 2 c3 is to be preferred. It is also more sound and more principled. "Grand Prix Attack – Straightforward and effective vs Sicilian. Make sure you don’t use overly rigid plans." * Dubious. Black will play ...d5 and get good play. The two versions with Bc4 and with Bb5 both give black good play. The Closed Sicilian with g3 and Bg2 may be better. "Queen’s Gambit – Reliable and flexible. Excellent for players with strong strategic understanding." * Excellent "Jobava-London – Active and intuitive. A modern twist on the classic London System." * Good, but the classic London or the Colle are just as good.

Very underatted! Keep up the good work bro, you have my respect!

Very underatted! Keep up the good work bro, you have my respect!

@fabian1999 sir..I play French as black. I’m planning to shift to Najdrof,,which course or book should I use? I want it for my nationals ( which are in the upcoming November, December)

@fabian1999 sir..I play French as black. I’m planning to shift to Najdrof,,which course or book should I use? I want it for my nationals ( which are in the upcoming November, December)

@tpr said in #2:

Thank you for your feedback. As I pointed out these are some options I would recommend for players in the rating range I mentioned, my intention was not to offer a review of every opening choice but rather to give a few options that I consider valid choices for certain players in this range, my specific recommendation for each player would be based on many other factors like their style, dedication, time available to study, experience, general knowledge, etc.

I'll just mention that I consider the Budapest gambit to be a reasonable choice, it scores very well below 1800 (in Lichess DB between 1000-1800 Black scores better than White after 3...e5!) and may be a good suit for aggressive players who want a fighting weapon against 1.d4. As I mentioned, it's not the most reliable objectively but at lower levels if you understand the ideas for Black, you can make it work. I believe it's not fully refuted. It's true that White can get a slight advantage in some lines (but I don't think this is a major problem below a certain level -maybe below 1800?).

"For Black" * Black is more important than white. As white you can even play one of your black defenses in reverse with an extra tempo.
"1...e5 vs 1.e4 – Classical and balanced. Prepares you for a wide range of openings and themes (Italian, Scotch, Ruy Lopez, Gambits...)." * Excellent
"Petroff Defense – Extremely solid and principled. Great for players who like control and stability." * Good.
"O’Kelly Sicilian - Flexible and relatively unknown. Good option for surprising your opponents early on (especially for intermediate level players)" * Good, a poor man's Najdorf. Likewise 2...Nf6, 2...b6, 2...g6 (a poor man's Dragon).
"Caro-Kann – Solid and forgiving. Excellent for players with good endgame and strategic skills." * Good, but French 1...e6, Pirc 1...d6, Alekhine's Defense 1...Nf6, Scandinavian 1...d5, Nimzovich 1...Nc6 are good too.

"Slav Defense – Sound and safe. Avoids early weaknesses and offers long-term strategic play." * Good
"Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD) – Flexible and classic. Leads to rich pawn structures and instructive games." * Good
"Nimzo-Indian Defense – A great option for ambitious players looking to play strategically rich positions with strong positional imbalances. Very instructive." * Hard to play correctly, as white often gets a broad center and the bishop's pair. Should be complemented with the Queen's Indian Defense in case of 3 Nf3 instead of 3 Nc3
"Budapest Gambit – Dynamic and aggressive. Demands accuracy and it's not the most reliable option objectively, but club players often mishandle it." * Not really sound, not really principled: gives up a central pawn. The same for its cousins Alapin Countergambit 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 and Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5.

"For White" * Less important than the black defenses. You can play black defenses in reverse as white. That saves effort, gives you more experience with the structures.
"Italian – Versatile and principled. Can be played positionally or tactically." * Excellent
"Scotch – Direct and easy to understand. Very effective under 1400 but it can still be a great choice at higher levels." * Good
"Four Knights (Scotch Variation) – Simple, solid, and perfect for learning fundamentals." * Four Knights Spanish Variation 4 Bb5 is good too. An added bonus is that it can be played against 2...Nc6 just like against 2...Nf6.
"Scotch Gambit – Tactical, but relatively safe. Excellent for developing attacking skills." * Dubious. Back can also decline with ...Nf6 and transpose to a Two Knights Defense.
"Ruy Lopez or Spanish – Rich, flexible, and instructive. A long-term investment that requires more study." * Excellent

"Smith-Morra Gambit – Sound and aggressive. Great for building initiative and calculation." * Dubious. Black can also decline with 3...Nf6 or 3...d5 and thus transpose to the Alapin 2 c3. So from a practical point of view the Alapin 2 c3 is to be preferred. It is also more sound and more principled.
"Grand Prix Attack – Straightforward and effective vs Sicilian. Make sure you don’t use overly rigid plans." * Dubious. Black will play ...d5 and get good play. The two versions with Bc4 and with Bb5 both give black good play. The Closed Sicilian with g3 and Bg2 may be better.

"Queen’s Gambit – Reliable and flexible. Excellent for players with strong strategic understanding." * Excellent
"Jobava-London – Active and intuitive. A modern twist on the classic London System." * Good, but the classic London or the Colle are just as good.

@tpr said in #2: Thank you for your feedback. As I pointed out these are some options I would recommend for players in the rating range I mentioned, my intention was not to offer a review of every opening choice but rather to give a few options that I consider valid choices for certain players in this range, my specific recommendation for each player would be based on many other factors like their style, dedication, time available to study, experience, general knowledge, etc. I'll just mention that I consider the Budapest gambit to be a reasonable choice, it scores very well below 1800 (in Lichess DB between 1000-1800 Black scores better than White after 3...e5!) and may be a good suit for aggressive players who want a fighting weapon against 1.d4. As I mentioned, it's not the most reliable objectively but at lower levels if you understand the ideas for Black, you can make it work. I believe it's not fully refuted. It's true that White can get a slight advantage in some lines (but I don't think this is a major problem below a certain level -maybe below 1800?). > "For Black" * Black is more important than white. As white you can even play one of your black defenses in reverse with an extra tempo. > "1...e5 vs 1.e4 – Classical and balanced. Prepares you for a wide range of openings and themes (Italian, Scotch, Ruy Lopez, Gambits...)." * Excellent > "Petroff Defense – Extremely solid and principled. Great for players who like control and stability." * Good. > "O’Kelly Sicilian - Flexible and relatively unknown. Good option for surprising your opponents early on (especially for intermediate level players)" * Good, a poor man's Najdorf. Likewise 2...Nf6, 2...b6, 2...g6 (a poor man's Dragon). > "Caro-Kann – Solid and forgiving. Excellent for players with good endgame and strategic skills." * Good, but French 1...e6, Pirc 1...d6, Alekhine's Defense 1...Nf6, Scandinavian 1...d5, Nimzovich 1...Nc6 are good too. > > "Slav Defense – Sound and safe. Avoids early weaknesses and offers long-term strategic play." * Good > "Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD) – Flexible and classic. Leads to rich pawn structures and instructive games." * Good > "Nimzo-Indian Defense – A great option for ambitious players looking to play strategically rich positions with strong positional imbalances. Very instructive." * Hard to play correctly, as white often gets a broad center and the bishop's pair. Should be complemented with the Queen's Indian Defense in case of 3 Nf3 instead of 3 Nc3 > "Budapest Gambit – Dynamic and aggressive. Demands accuracy and it's not the most reliable option objectively, but club players often mishandle it." * Not really sound, not really principled: gives up a central pawn. The same for its cousins Alapin Countergambit 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 and Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5. > > "For White" * Less important than the black defenses. You can play black defenses in reverse as white. That saves effort, gives you more experience with the structures. > "Italian – Versatile and principled. Can be played positionally or tactically." * Excellent > "Scotch – Direct and easy to understand. Very effective under 1400 but it can still be a great choice at higher levels." * Good > "Four Knights (Scotch Variation) – Simple, solid, and perfect for learning fundamentals." * Four Knights Spanish Variation 4 Bb5 is good too. An added bonus is that it can be played against 2...Nc6 just like against 2...Nf6. > "Scotch Gambit – Tactical, but relatively safe. Excellent for developing attacking skills." * Dubious. Back can also decline with ...Nf6 and transpose to a Two Knights Defense. > "Ruy Lopez or Spanish – Rich, flexible, and instructive. A long-term investment that requires more study." * Excellent > > "Smith-Morra Gambit – Sound and aggressive. Great for building initiative and calculation." * Dubious. Black can also decline with 3...Nf6 or 3...d5 and thus transpose to the Alapin 2 c3. So from a practical point of view the Alapin 2 c3 is to be preferred. It is also more sound and more principled. > "Grand Prix Attack – Straightforward and effective vs Sicilian. Make sure you don’t use overly rigid plans." * Dubious. Black will play ...d5 and get good play. The two versions with Bc4 and with Bb5 both give black good play. The Closed Sicilian with g3 and Bg2 may be better. > > "Queen’s Gambit – Reliable and flexible. Excellent for players with strong strategic understanding." * Excellent > "Jobava-London – Active and intuitive. A modern twist on the classic London System." * Good, but the classic London or the Colle are just as good.

@NaNee2014 said in #3:

Very underatted! Keep up the good work bro, you have my respect!

Thank you @NaNee2014 ! I'm planning to post more articles like this one regularly

@NaNee2014 said in #3: > Very underatted! Keep up the good work bro, you have my respect! Thank you @NaNee2014 ! I'm planning to post more articles like this one regularly

@MutedTactics said in #4:

@fabian1999 sir..I play French as black. I’m planning to shift to Najdrof,,which course or book should I use? I want it for my nationals ( which are in the upcoming November, December)

@MutedTactics Playing the Najdorf requires a lot of time both to learn the different plans and ideas in each of the pawn structures and to learn / memorize specific variations where the game becomes quite concrete such as the 6.Bg5 or 6.Be3 variations). In my experience the effort and time it requires is probably not justified until you get to around 1900 FIDE, you would benefit much more from spending that time and effort working on your tactics, calculation, endgames or positional play.

The Najdorf is very flexible, which makes it great for experienced players that are able to appreciate the nuances of the positions and can dedicate a lot of time to study it (that's why is so common at high level).

I would suggest the Classical or the O'Kelly Sicilian that are sound but have much less theory and are relatively easier to learn.

If you still want to go for the Najdorf, you can check out this Chessable course https://www.chessable.com/the-najdorf-sicilian-supercharged/course/290316/ as a good starting point or the course by Giri (better for advanced players) https://www.chessable.com/lifetime-repertoires-giris-najdorf-sicilian/course/56567/

@MutedTactics said in #4: > @fabian1999 sir..I play French as black. I’m planning to shift to Najdrof,,which course or book should I use? I want it for my nationals ( which are in the upcoming November, December) @MutedTactics Playing the Najdorf requires a lot of time both to learn the different plans and ideas in each of the pawn structures and to learn / memorize specific variations where the game becomes quite concrete such as the 6.Bg5 or 6.Be3 variations). In my experience the effort and time it requires is probably not justified until you get to around 1900 FIDE, you would benefit much more from spending that time and effort working on your tactics, calculation, endgames or positional play. The Najdorf is very flexible, which makes it great for experienced players that are able to appreciate the nuances of the positions and can dedicate a lot of time to study it (that's why is so common at high level). I would suggest the Classical or the O'Kelly Sicilian that are sound but have much less theory and are relatively easier to learn. If you still want to go for the Najdorf, you can check out this Chessable course https://www.chessable.com/the-najdorf-sicilian-supercharged/course/290316/ as a good starting point or the course by Giri (better for advanced players) https://www.chessable.com/lifetime-repertoires-giris-najdorf-sicilian/course/56567/

Really great post with good insights. I'd say that the post though seems to have a lukewarm/unenthusiastic opinion on gambits for beginning and intermediate players which I think are really great options. Coach RB Ramesh who I learn very much from has recommended that for players under 2000, one of the primary skills they should be learning to develop is how to use initiative, and both he and GM Naroditsky (who is a much better coach than he admits) recommend aggressive, uncommon openings that let students develop attacking skills and avoid mainlines. In my own experience I find that students who are able to (among other things) learn to use initiative well and generate attacks generally have little issue reaching 2000 and beyond.

Gambits I'd say are almost like training wheels for a bicycle or DIY kit, where rather than having to start from scratch and do everything yourself, gambits often give you a handful of attacking resources such as initiative, superior development, central and spatial control, and open files/diagonals and then it's on the player to convert it into an attack. Eventually as players become better they must become able to generate these advantages without sacrificing a pawn but below 2000 the pawn will almost never determine the outcome of the game and it's a great way for players to gain lots of attacking experience.

A few options I recommend to students (usually 1200+) are Ponziani/Scotch gambit or Evans gambit vs e5, Mengarini gambit or Smith-Morra vs Sicilian, Wing gambit (or even Nimzowitsch gambit against French), against Caro-Kann aggressive options like the Fantasy, Caveman Gambit, Blackmar-Diemer transposition, Alekhine Gambit (maybe) etc.

Really great post with good insights. I'd say that the post though seems to have a lukewarm/unenthusiastic opinion on gambits for beginning and intermediate players which I think are really great options. Coach RB Ramesh who I learn very much from has recommended that for players under 2000, one of the primary skills they should be learning to develop is how to use initiative, and both he and GM Naroditsky (who is a much better coach than he admits) recommend aggressive, uncommon openings that let students develop attacking skills and avoid mainlines. In my own experience I find that students who are able to (among other things) learn to use initiative well and generate attacks generally have little issue reaching 2000 and beyond. Gambits I'd say are almost like training wheels for a bicycle or DIY kit, where rather than having to start from scratch and do everything yourself, gambits often give you a handful of attacking resources such as initiative, superior development, central and spatial control, and open files/diagonals and then it's on the player to convert it into an attack. Eventually as players become better they must become able to generate these advantages without sacrificing a pawn but below 2000 the pawn will almost never determine the outcome of the game and it's a great way for players to gain lots of attacking experience. A few options I recommend to students (usually 1200+) are Ponziani/Scotch gambit or Evans gambit vs e5, Mengarini gambit or Smith-Morra vs Sicilian, Wing gambit (or even Nimzowitsch gambit against French), against Caro-Kann aggressive options like the Fantasy, Caveman Gambit, Blackmar-Diemer transposition, Alekhine Gambit (maybe) etc.

#5
"valid choices for certain players in this range" * Yes, but valid according to your 10 criteria.

"the Budapest gambit to be a reasonable choice" * It does not fit your 10 criteria.

"at lower levels if you understand the ideas for Black, you can make it work" * Budapest Gambit has been played at grandmaster level, e.g. by Speelman and by the young Kramnik, mostly as a surprise.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1500222
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1035576

"I believe it's not fully refuted." * Budapest Gambit is refuted on ICCF level.

#5 "valid choices for certain players in this range" * Yes, but valid according to your 10 criteria. "the Budapest gambit to be a reasonable choice" * It does not fit your 10 criteria. "at lower levels if you understand the ideas for Black, you can make it work" * Budapest Gambit has been played at grandmaster level, e.g. by Speelman and by the young Kramnik, mostly as a surprise. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1500222 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1035576 "I believe it's not fully refuted." * Budapest Gambit is refuted on ICCF level.

Hmmm...

How am I supposed to make my opponent find difficult moves without going into a sharp position? This seems like mixed messages to me.

I have a lot of other critiques, too, but I think it would be more profitable to write my own blog post about my opening opinions than talk about them here.

Hmmm... How am I supposed to make my opponent find difficult moves without going into a sharp position? This seems like mixed messages to me. I have a lot of other critiques, too, but I think it would be more profitable to write my own blog post about my opening opinions than talk about them here.