Unfortunately, the original post had all the data in tables, which formatted very poorly when I copy-pasted it to blogger. I've used screenshots instead, which isn't ideal but better than nothing. Let me know if it is readable, and if not, I'll try to find a better way.)
Picking an Opening as Black: Smithy’s Calculus
At a certain point, almost every player has asked, “Which opening should I play?” Now, I’m on record stating that too many players spend far too much time on the opening, but you have to put SOME work here. Getting an opening repertoire isn’t a bad thing, as long as you don’t make it your only thing.
So, how do we chose? What should we look for?
I fell into my first openings by default; they were what everyone else I knew played. I then tried different openings at random, with some successes here and there but mostly poor results. ‘Random’ isn’t the best approach, but what is?
Well, I think I’ve found, if not the answer, then at least the right way to attempt to answer this question. The following is kind of like online dating, but with openings. You figure out what your priorities are, and then you find which one is your best match.
I’ve settled on a number of factors that can influence openings, which are explained below, and then ranked every major opening. The end result is a fairly reasonable guide to choosing openings, I think, and I found it eye-opening.
The Factors
Sound: The opening must not lose by force. Sorry, Englund Gambit, but you aren’t in consideration. In the chart below, only sound openings appear.
Popularity: The more popular an opening, the more common opponents will be with the main ideas. Less popular openings have more surprise value, and can induce errors more often. This may or may not be a factor in your consideration.
Asymmetry: If you want to play for a win with Black, you tend to want high asymmetry (an imbalance in pieces, pawn structure or material); if you want to play for a draw, you want low symmetry (identical pawn structures, generally)
Theory Level: How much theory you need to know to play at a decent level. Some openings have lots of theory, but you can get away without knowing much (like the Benko or Nimzo-Indian). Some openings if you don’t know the theory you lose. The higher this ranking, the more work you need to do.
Early Sidelines: In short, how often are you actually going to get to play your opening? If you want to play the Sicilian Najdorf, you also need to know a buttload of anti-Sicilian lines. The higher this ranking, the more work you need to do.
Ease of Play: In short, how difficult are the middlegame and endgame positions? Easy positions tend to be thematic, with common ideas and maneuvers occurring again and again; complex positions require great accuracy and calculation, which increases the chance for errors for both sides.
Those are the factors. Now let’s see how the openings stack up.
Here are the major 1.e4 openings (let me know if the chart is readable):
What does this tell us? Well, consider the different personality profiles below:
- Want to Win at All Costs, Willing to Put in Work: The Sicilian is the obvious winner, bar none.
- Want to Win, But Put in Less Work: Nf6 Scandi and Pirc/Modern are good candidates
- No Studying Required: The Owens is simple, and if you don’t mind ad libbing against gambits, 1…e5 and following opening principles works
- Want Calmer Games, Less Risk: Caro-Kann and Qxd5 Scandinavian fit the bill
- Surprise Opening for Must-Win Scenarios: Nf6 Scandi and the Alekhine
- Just Want Interesting Positions: Pirc/Modern, though perhaps more the Modern in practice
- Easy to Play, Less Theory, Decent Winning Chances (aka, the Smithy): The Alekhine, which surprised me when I first worked this out; also, the French, which is a terrible opening and we’ll pretend that doesn’t exist
We’ll now do the exact same thing with the 1.d4 openings.
Note that I haven’t played 1.d4 in years, so my take on the popularity may be off, but it’s pretty close (and arguably the least important factor). Let’s look at those same personality profiles:
- Want to Win at All Costs, Willing to Put in Work: The King’s Indian, the Grunfeld and the Semi-Slav are all options.
- Want to Win, But Put in Less Work: Benko, Nimzo/QID and the Dutch are the clear options.
- No Studying Required: The Slav is the closest, though nothing stops you from playing 1…b6 against everything I suppose; with a minimum of work in the 3.e4 lines, the QG Accepted can work
- Want Calmer Games, Less Risk: The various Queen’s Gambits, though Nimzo and QID are also strong contenders
- Surprise Opening for Must-Win Scenarios: Benoni is probably best; Budapest is also an option
- Just Want Interesting Positions: It’s not as clear cut, but the Benoni and KID (perhaps a combination of the two, so KID with early c5 instead of e5) are perhaps best
- Easy to Play, Less Theory, Decent Winning Chances (aka, the Smithy): The Benko, though my recent attempts have been poor; also the Dutch, which surprised me, but maybe it shouldn’t, as I had great success with it when I was younger.
My Results
When we normally think about choosing an opening, we are told to “pick based on our style,” whatever that means. I believe the above is a much more useful way of going about it. First determine what you want, and then find an opening that best matches it.
In my case, I’ve stated in the past that I prefer “calm asymmetry”. I’m not looking for the most complex position in the world; I just want a few imbalances to play around with. Give me clear plans, a minimum of required theory and I’m pretty happy. It wasn’t until I did this analysis that I realized two openings perfectly fit the bill.
First, against 1.e4, the Alekhine. Amazingly, outside of one thematic tournament, I have only played the Alekhine once as Black, back in 2003 (I’ll include it at the bottom). However, it appears to tick all the boxes, and I’m intrigued to learn more about it (especially as Chessable has a new course on it).
The second example, the Dutch, seems less my style, but I have played it many times in the past with success, and you don’t have to go all-out hack-attack. The best part is that the Dutch is excellent against the London, which is honestly my number one requirement for an opening against 1.d4 (and one of the big reasons I tried to learn the KID, even though, as the analysis above shows, it is as far away from the opening I want as I can get).
If I didn’t do this analysis, I wouldn’t have considered these openings, and I would be stuck back at “which opening fits my style?” and getting nowhere fast. Now I’m curious to try these out and see if this works.
Final Thoughts
I’ve been thinking about this type of analysis for quite awhile, and this is what I came up with. Curious to see if you agree on my criteria or if there is anything I left off.
Of course, in some ways this is superficial: there is a world of difference between the French Rubinstein and French Winawer, for example, and the same for almost all sub-variations of these main openings. The overall idea itself, though, I feel is sound, and I may expand it to include these common variations as well. Someday. Maybe.
Below is my one and only Alekhine game outside of thematic tournaments. Annotated briefly. [2023 Update: the annotated game did not get saved with my notes, sorry!]
No comments:
Post a Comment