Changing openings for extremely long term improvement.

@griffindabeast said in #8:
> @Chambaru you e been playing games actively and are 1400s. I wouldn’t even worry to much about the opening. Just stick with the same thing as white and learn the middle/end game

i play on another account. this is the account that i used when i was a little kid and i only use it for bullet chess for fun.

@Chambaru said in #3:
> Of course one can learn any opening at any age, but it would be a different story in terms of proficiency and practice.
>
>
>
> Suggest you to check out the bio
?

I'd say that it's okay but it'll take about 100 - 300 rapid games for you to really get along with your new repertoire.

@Cyncko-3000 said in #13:
>
No way, it should take 40 games max. (10-15 games if we know the opening from opposite side)

@Ben10Tenyson said in #14:
>
I said to " REALLY" get along with it like to the point where you can premove it

White:: slowly add Catalan and English with g3 even starting 1.g3 on some occasions. Then add Nimzo-Larsen.

Black: start with Kalashnikov or Accelerated dragon then eventually learn Schevendorf lines where u can choose e6 or e5. By then you will have familiarity with e5 Sicilian positions.
Imo Kalashnikov is like an upgraded Berlin or Petrov.

D4 yes, I play Grunfeld, or you can also learn Accelerated Queen's Indian which sometimes can play Grunfeld type of lines. Plus you learn QID lines.

So in 3 years you have:

White:: QG, Catalan, English, Larsen, Hungarian? (g3) with Sicilian experience eventually u will know how to play White against it. Same with Italian and Spanish.

Black:: e5, Kalashnikov or Accelerated dragon, Schevendorf/Najdorf, eventually add Alekhine as surprise.

QGD, Grunfeld, Accelerated QID, QID.. maybe eventually add Nimzo or Benko or English Rat.

@alex_makarets said in #7:
> Hello!
> I would like to double on the question.
> I have one opening currently (e4/caro/classical slav) and wondering when is the right time to pick one more.
> Sure learning more openings is good for improving my game, but is it actually more beneficial than doing puzzles/studying theoretical endgames/reading books on middlegame or endgame strategy?
> What do you think?
> P.S. I play only online so nobody preps for me afaik :) .

i believe that the opening study is not something that is effective immediately, but only in the long run. the positions that Najdorf and Grunfeld bring are sharp and it is difficult to derive the best possible position, so it is better to train as early as possible so that it will be easier later on. even if you are 60 now, it is better than studying Najdorf when you are 70, isn't it?

btw i already gave up najdorf and gru. way too stressful for me _(「ε:)_

@Chambaru What is there to stress about? Surely you can't get to 2000 without being comfortable in complex/unfamiliar/horrible positions?

You're already bloody good at chess, at an age lots of us would like to be again! So enjoy the journey & don't compare yourself to others

@Chambaru said in #17:
> i believe that the opening study is not something that is effective immediately, but only in the long run. the positions that Najdorf and Grunfeld bring are sharp and it is difficult to derive the best possible position, so it is better to train as early as possible so that it will be easier later on. even if you are 60 now, it is better than studying Najdorf when you are 70, isn't it?

True, but the question is whether these are worth learning at all. In my opinion learning najdorf and grunfeld is a very inefficient time investment.
When I ponder learning something else I have in mind more narrow and schematic opening repertoires.
For now it seems the time for a second opening is yet to come for me.