Opening dilemma

Hi. Let’s talk about openings.

On the White side I have tried pretty much everything. I started with a system common to beginners, the King’s Indian Attack. It’s nice being able to play pretty much the same moves regardless of Black’s responses (within reason), but of course that tends to squander whatever advantage having the first move gives. Thinking I’d be more comfortable in a slow positional game rather than in the tactical minefield prone to the “open” games (1. e4 e5), I started building a repertoire around 1. d4. Once again I began with a system – the Stonewall Attack – and eventually moved to a more mainline repertoire (thanks in large part to Starting Out: 1.d4! by IM John Cox).

At this point I should mention that I do not have a great memory. Except when it comes to song lyrics; maybe they should come out with a Chessbase DVD where Nigel Davies sings the variations to you. In any case, playing mainline positions entails knowing a lot of theory, and I just didn’t have it in me. Certain defenses – the Nimzo-Indian specifically – frustrated me, and I ended up going off the reservation by trying weird sidelines. My White opening became a tangled web that left me dazed and confused.

So a couple years ago I decided to reboot and go with 1. e4. I felt more comfortable with tactics, and I cannot recommend too highly Imagination in Chess, by Paata Gaprindashvili. I think if you were to stick a 1000 rated person on a deserted island with that book and a chess set, after a year they would be 2000 strength. While I do not have an Expert rating, I also don’t live on an island.

Again I felt frustrated with the amount of theory and ventured into the flank openings. After trying on the English for a couple months I switched to 1. Nf3 2. b3 – the Nimzo-Larsen attack. And I made it a point to not try to get bogged down in variations – I would go through the one book on that opening and just play it by ear. This is the attitude I took with me to the 2010 US Amateur Team East, and I did quite well with it – drawing a Master.

So what should I do? It doesn’t feel right to have such a lackadaisical approach to the opening; while I can’t deny that the Nimzo-Larsen seemed to work in legitimate tournament conditions against strong opponents, even if I only had a vague idea of what to do, the sample size is small and I also don’t want to end up in drawish positions against lower rated players. It isn’t a testing opening. In fact when I had White against a lower rated player in the USATE, I decided to play 1. e4 and go for a more open game. I ended up winning, but only after my opponent avoided a draw by repetition and then lost on time.

It’s probably a fool’s quest to find a White opening where development flows cleanly all the time and the resulting positions play themselves. It’s too bad I just can’t begin a game from a random equal position at move 14.

As I’ve been writing this I have been staring at the bookshelves that contain all the chess opening books I own. I honestly don’t know what to do, but I am tired of waffling. Whatever I decide I want it to be the opening (or openings) I stick with for awhile – and as an adult player that probably means for the rest of my tournament chess career. I don’t think I’ve ever tried the Bird….