Customizing the Openings/Endgames Training Databases in ChessBase’s Rybka Interface: Preliminary Results and Tips

I have just started tweaking the opening and endgame training databases that shipped with my ChessBase version of Rybka 3.  Here’s what I’ve determined so far:

Read more »

Customizing Opening and Endgame Training Databases For the ChessBase Interface?

I have Rybka 3 with the ChessBase interface (Fritz11 generation), but its main use for my has been analyzing games.  I haven’t used the training features much, and I do most of my work in ChessBase itself with the Rybka 3 engine running.  However, while digging through the help files I realized that the databases the Openings Trainer and Endgame Trainer use are customizable.

That means, for example, that if I cleaned up my personal openings book in ChessBase I should be able to play against my own repertoire.  Or, I can take the endgames from a book such as 100 Endgames You Must Know and play the positions against the computer (something I’ve done in the past, but manually, endgame by endgame). 

I’m considering playing around with this feature and sharing my results.  If any of my readers have tried this, share your experiences.

Chess Position Trainer 4.0 On The Horizon?

{Edit: funny thing about horizons--as you approach them, they recede. Keep watching for CPT4, but don't hold your breath.}

I’ve never fully utilized Chess Position Trainer 3.3, but I’m excited to hear that the Chess Position Trainer 4.0 beta may be released in the next few days. 
Apparently they had already released a buggy preview version in early January.
I’ve been making do with ChessBase for openings, but CB is designed around being a game/position database, not an opening variations database.  Yes, you can manage a repertoire in it, but it’s clunky, especially when it comes to transpositions.  The main reason I never used CPT much was that I found it easier to focus on one database program than two. 
I’ve been a very good boy the last 3 months or so, barely looking at opening theory.  I’m feeling the itch, though, so if/when CPT 4 is released I may give it a test run while working on my Sicilian as White repertoire.

23 lines

I was thinking about how little opening theory can be applied to my games, so I conducted a little exercise with Chessbase and a database of about 7000 of my games (most from ICC). I constructed an opening tree consisting only of positions that I would expect to face as White in 1% or more of my games.

The result is shockingly small: 23 variations, with none longer than 6 moves.

Because I'm in the middle of an online tournament, I don't want to reveal too much of my repertoire, but just breaking down the percentages after 1.e4:

1...e5 44.6% (My mainest of main lines continues past move 5 just under 1% of the time!)
1...c5 16.0%
1...e6 9.0%
1...d5 5.9%
1...c6 4.6%
1...d6 3.3%
1...g6 1.7%
1...Nf6 1.6%
1...b6 1.4%
1...Nc6 1.1%

The data is somewhat skewed. My database of 7000 or so games goes back 12 years or so, and I only counted positions that I would face in my current repertoire. I've been quite faithful to my repertoire over those years, but there are notable exceptions (I used to play the exchange Spanish, and I avoided the open Sicilian with c3 or Bg5 systems for much of that period). In my current repertoire, no Sicilian line has been seen past move 5 more than 1% of the time! I need to see if I can do some sophisticated filtering to separate out the games that agree with my current repertoire.

The data also shows that at lower levels of play, "minor" variations actually become major. For example, in the Ruy Lopez the Steinitz, Cozio and Bird variations are now "major" lines to contend with.

My repertoire database has been getting a bit weedy, so I may start a leaner, meaner repertoire database using just these 23 lines, and making sure that I map each main line out several moves further. I can repeat the exercise for my Black games, although there I expect an even stubbier tree of variations because White gets to vary with the first move. The goal is to declare a chunk of theoretical turf where I know anything outside its boundaries is encountered less than 1% of the time.

A Thought on GM Openings

I just renewed my lapsed subscription to New In Chess, and I've been going over some of the recent tournaments. My repertoire database in Chessbase is starting to get to a decent size, so for kicks I tested it out by generating a repertoire using the games from the Corus tournament (Section A). For those not familiar with this feature: Chessbase can search a collection of games and compare it to a database of lines you consider to be part of your repertoire. It then spits out all games that match your repertoire. This search actually did produce some significant games (Carlsen-Polgar and Radjabov-Anand, for example).

In the course of reviewing some of these games, I was struck once again by how many of these GM lines seem to teeter on the brink of disaster. Some lines are just positionally awkward, and can only be justified tactically.

I would compare these cutting-edge openings to cutting-edge aircraft. Planes are now being designed with "negative stability". These aircraft are inherently unstable and require a "fly-by-wire", computer-controlled system in order to stay aloft. If a system were to fail, the plane would be uncontrollable. In contrast, a plane designed with "positive stability" will tend to maintain its attitude without external control. The pilot can't just doze off, but the plane has a natural tendency to stay aloft.

My preference is middle of the road...major lines that you see high-rated players play, yet fairly well grounded in general chess principles. No Colle or King's Indian Attack for me (though those would fit the bill as openings with "positive stability"), but no Smith-Morra Gambit or Botvinnik Semi-Slav/Anti-Moscow either.

To each his own. There's an argument for playing highly tactical openings, in that they force you to hone your ability to calculate. For some of these GM lines, though, I think the average club player would just fall into the trap of spending time memorizing lines rather than understand why certain crazy moves are essential.

Name That Gambit

Here is a quest for my dear readers: does the following gambit have a name? Is there any theory associated with this, or a clear refutation?

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e4:



There were very few examples of this in my large database. I couldn't find a clear path forwards for Black. Surprisingly, Fritz evaluated 3...Nxe4, which I think is the most testing response, to be nearly equal. Even after following plausible moves for both sides down to move 12 or so, Fritz didn't seem to notice that Black was up a pawn! For example, I played this series of moves that felt natural to me and that looked fine to Fritz at first glance: 3... Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 Nd6 7. Bf4 O-O 8. Nbd2 b6 9. Qe2 c5 10. c3 Nc6 11. Ne5 Bb7:



Fritz evaluates this as dead even, despite the pawn minus. I've only done some preliminary, superficial analysis, and I don't suggest the above variation is some sort of main line. My point is that there seems to be more going on here than meets the eye. It would be interesting to grab another chess engine and see its evaluations, or to play engines against each other and see the results.

Other moves such as 3...c5 and 3...d5 may transpose into other openings such as the Sicilian or the French, but that can't be the most serious test (otherwise this opening would be seen more often).

My conclusion right now is that Black takes the pawn and converts the material advantage with good technique. However, I would say that any unusual pawn gambit that Fritz can't easily refute is probably worthy of home analysis and potential use as a secret weapon.

Important Addition to Marin's A Spanish Repertoire for Black

I think that Marin's two-volume opening repertoire based on 1.e4 e5 (Beating the Open Games and A Spanish Repertoire for Black) is amazing, and packed full of chess knowledge. However, the two books are targeted towards either more-advanced players (particularly the latter), or the ambitious student. They're also directed towards main-line players rather than offbeat-variation players. This means that the reader has to plug a lot of holes themselves, as they find that the opponents they encounter at their level frequently play a line not covered.

I just checked qualitychessbooks.com, and found that a 25-page addendum to ASRFB is available for download in .pdf format. It covers, among other gaps, my biggest problem with that book: no discussion of the departure from the Chigorin mainline with 12.d5 (instead of 12.Nbd2). I see the former more than the latter in my online games, and it's the #2 line by statistics (74 out of 1051 Grandmaster games, according to my home-made opening book; 478 out of 6050 games total).

In other news, it appears that the first volume (BTOG) is about to be reissued as a second edition. When I bought it, it contained a 4-page insert covering two omitted lines. It sounds like a combination of popular demand and reader critique has prompted an upgrade. According to the publisher, it should be out very soon (Spring 2008).

It's annoying when you just buy a book and a new edition comes out shortly after. When the second edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual came out, I decided that I didn't need to worry about the second edition until I completed the first (which is still a loooooong way off). Also, I've heard the quality of print for the second edition of Dvoretsky wasn't as good. However, Marin's BTOG has become indispensable for me, so I'm looking forward to seeing what's been added in the second edition.

Real chess players will roll their eyes because I've held Dvoretsky on the back burner while salivating over an upgrade to an opening book. Well, like the banner says: Do as I Say, Not as I Do.

Using ChessBase's "Repertoire Database" Feature, Part 2

Link to Part 1

Here, I'm going to describe how I created a repertoire database and how I maintain it. It's based on the following premises:

1. The database should be relevant to your own games, not necessarily grandmaster praxis. If your opponents are more likely to play the Steinitz or Cozio variations of the Spanish rather than the main-line Closed Spanish, then your repertoire database should reflect this.

2. Studying the opening should be largely driven by the analysis of your own games.

3. A main reason for maintaining a repertoire is to record what you have chosen to play in a given circumstance, and to record what you've encountered in the past.

The method I'm advocating is to start a "lean" database similar to that described in my previous post, and then to add to this skeletal database as you play games. I've constructed a "lean" database of some key Spanish opening variations, plus a couple Philidor positions (for reasons I'll explain later). Again, click on any graphic to see the larger version.



These are positions I would encounter as White. I've also decided to include a couple main lines: the Worrall for White and the Closed Spanish, Chigorin Defense as Black. If you've read my series on preparing an opening, you'll see that I advocate determining a "main line" that you would play against your opponent's "best" moves, and then build from there. As you determine these main lines, you can record them in your repertore.

The naming system is similar to that in Lopez's articles. The general opening description is in the "White player" field, and the moves are entered into the "Black player" field. If you run out of room there, you can continue into the "Tournament" field. The more descriptive the entry in the White Player field, the more you can truncate. For example, if I'm familiar with the main-line of the Worrall I could perhaps just have "Spanish: Worrall mainline to 10.Re1" and save the Black and Tournament fields for more detailed continuations. Also, if some responses are forced or very common I could consider skipping over them (e.g. for Bird's defense I could just put 5.0-0 in the Black field). What's important is that you can look at the game header and know exactly what position it deals with.

If you are familiar with the Medals feature of ChessBase, you can use them to deliver additional information at a glance. I have the following reminder saved as a text entry in my personal repertoire:

For this database, I am going to interpret the medals as follows:

In White repertoire: Defense (light grey)
In Black repertoire: Tactical Blunder (black)
Novelty: Novelty (blue)
Surprise weapon (rare or tricky line): Tactics (deep red)
Require Research: User (cyan) (easy to mark in a game list with + key)
Gambit: Sacrifice (bright red)

So, for example, in a mish-mash of French Defense lines I can tag which ones I may encounter as White by tagging the key opening move with the "Defense" medal. If I've decided I need to think about a certain line, I can just highlight the game in the database window and hit "+" on the numerical keypad, and it automatically assigns the "User" medal to the entire game. I can use these medals to also mark which lines are my own "home cooking" as opposed to standard book lines.

(Aside: deciding on the main lines you want to play can involve some reflection and study. I have recently taken to creating a database that I call "Laboratory" and save ponder-worthy lines to it, and then later determine what my main line will be. When I've worked it out, I transfer the result to my repertoire database).

In these lines, the critical opening positions so far are marked at a position I would reach, with my opponent to play. This means that if I do a repertoire search, I will get games returned that show where I've stayed "in book". You can also mark positions that your opponent would reach and where you are to play. A repertoire search then could return games where your opponent was "in book" and where you may have deviated. When considering whether to have a line for a certain critical position in the database, ask yourself if you would be interested in a search result for that position. This may not be clear until you've actually done a few practice searches, so don't sweat it for now.

So, what's wrong with the repertoire database lineup shown above? Well, let's do a test search using an issue of The Week in Chess. The results:

1. Philidor (3.d4): 12 games
2. Spanish: Steinitz (4.d4): 2 games
3. Spanish: 92 games

As I mentioned in my previous post, the order that the games appear in the database is of critical importance. Here, the only subvariation of the Spanish that appeared above the "catch-all" Spanish position (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) was the Steinitz. All non-Steinitz games got caught in that filter.

I sort my repertoire database manually, approximately by the ECO code, but tweak the sort orders to avoid search problems. For example, I manually moved the games around to the following order, and fixed them in this position by selecting "Tools-->Fix Sort Order". It re-saves the database with the new game order. It now looks like:



Which now returns a more useful search result:

12 Philidors
2 Steinitz
1 Berlin
3 Worralls
1 Chigorin
77 Spanish

The last entry shows all the Spanish variations that didn't match one of our specific variations. Further additions to the repertoire database will tweeze them apart.

However, you still have to be careful about transpositions, and there isn't much you can do about that. For example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nc6, I play by transposing to the Spanish Steinitz with 3.Bb5. Yet any games that I played in this line would be filed under the Philidor if I used the repertoire database shown here. In some cases you can bump the less-likely move order further down the list, but that can get messy, especially when dealing with big ECO differences such as here. Alternatively, you can make a new Philidor entry for the moves up to 3...Nc6, and annotate it so as to point out the transposition there. This is one area where programs like Bookup and Chess Position Trainer have an advantage...they catch all transpositions for you.

I do not recommend that you attempt to enter your entire repertoire into the database...it's not worth your time. Put in a few of the lines you commonly see, and try a few "generate repertoire" scans on your databases to make sure you're doing it right. Then, as you play games and analyze them, you can add the results. Here's a couple of examples on how you may go about adding to the repertoire database shown above. This will also highlight how I think one should approach studying the opening.

On a game-by-game basis, you can load your game into ChessBase for analysis. As part of your analysis, you can find out where the game left the main lines, and where it left all previous knowledge, by right-clicking on the board and selecting "Editorial Annotation(RR)":


In this case, I had a Philidor with 3...Bg4, which currently is not in my repertoire database. In the course of my analysis, I tried to determine a main line and where I could have played better.

I'm using a custom opening book that I made from grandmaster games as ChessBase's default opening book, plus the ChessBase megabase as the reference database. The Editorial Annotations tend to show where you deviated from the best book lines, and from the entire megabase (marking the first new move with an "N" for novelty). This is no substitute for an independent assessment...you should determine for yourself what you'd like to play. But it's a quick and dirty way of seeing where you went off the beaten path.

Here, my moves seemed reasonable. My 7th move was passable, and one GM played 7.c3 here. However, the reference database shows 7.Qb3! to be the most common move here, and Fritz shows that it's winning.

How you choose to save these results to your database is up to you, but here is how I would approach it:

1. The move 3...Bg4 deserves its own entry. With some experience in these lines, I can tell you it's a common move at my level so it's good to be able to play consistently here. 4.dxe5 will usually prompt Black to play 4...Bxf3, because of the threat of 4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Nxe5. After 4...Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5, Black has given up the bishop pair. So I would enter this game into the repertoire database:



I've included my moves up to 6.Bc4, because it constitutes my chosen "main line" response. For this minor variation I don't feel compelled to analyze out to the end of the opening...this position is already comfortable for White. However, I missed a critical response to my opponent's subsequent play. Depending on its importance, I could choose not to record it (tactical oversight), incorporate it as a game footnote, or give it its own entry. I think that since it was missed by a Grandmaster, and because Black's erroneous move feels natural, it deserves its own entry.

One option is to go back to the actual game, and right-click on the board and select "Add to Repertoire". If you select "Merge with Philidor Defense: 3...Bg4" it will appear as a variation in that entry. I think it's more important than that, so I create a new entry for the line up to 6.Bc4. I then go back to the actual game, and select "add to repertoire" to add my own inferior game to the repertoire. The result:



I like to include the games where I didn't play the best move in my repertoire databases, for a few reasons. One is that it helps to cement the variation in your mind. Another is that you may find that you repeatedly make the same mistake, indicating you need to think about the line a bit more. Finally, if you perform a "find position in " function, it will determine if you've had the position before even if it's not part of the repertoire main lines.

If you're tardy (like I've been) or just starting out, you can also generate a repertoire of a batch of your games, and look to see where the filter is getting badly clogged. This either indicates a gap in your repertoire database that can be filled using your own games, or indicates a possible problem with the sort order that needs to be tweaked. I go through, analyze the games, and add new entries to my repertoire as needed. When working on a batch, I flag each completed game with the User medal to indicate that I've already taken care of it.

This is taken from an actual repertoire search of my backlog of ICC games:



I see that I played 3 Pozianis. I can click on each game individually, or load all three. The latter produces a window like this:


I preview the games here, then open individual game windows for them if they need to be annotated/added to repertoire/saved separately. Don't try to annotate in this 3-game view... the save/replace buttons are greyed out and you'll lose all your work.

When I'm done reviewing, analyzing, and saving the results wherever they belong (personal game collection, repertoire database, tactics, blunders, endgames, whatever) I click on the game in the game list and hit "+" on the number keypad to flag the game with the cyan user medal, so I know that I've taken care of it. If I resume reviewing my games at a later date I can tell at a glance if I've taken care of a game or not.

Currently GrandpatzerBase is at 390 entries and growing. Many of these openings have multiple variations, indicating I've experienced them more than once or found them ponder-worthy. One advantage of such a database is that it indicates if you keep making the same mistake. Each time you enter your faulty play into the database, and you see your previous foibles, it reinforces that you need to understand the position better.

If you've never saved and analyzed your games before (even blitz), you have no idea how much knowledge gained from experience you're letting slip through your fingers...and not just opening theory, but tactics, strategy and endgames too. I haven't been as zealous with the last three (my tactics, blunders and endgame databases are much smaller), but one advantage of starting a repertoire database is that it encourages you to sit down and start looking at your games. Once you've checked out the opening, keep on going through the game....spot tactical errors with Fritz, ponder the positional factors, analyze the endgame.

To summarize: the purpose of the GrandpatzerBase-style repertoire is not to book up on theory. Its purposes are:

• To keep track of what main lines you've decided to play as your repertoire
• To record the opening lines you've experienced in the past, and your thoughts and analysis on them.
• To focus your opening study on the lines you encounter in your own games
• To allow you to search databases for games that pertain to your repertoire
• To encourage you to analyze your own games routinely and thoroughly

There's a time investment to get your repertoire database set up and to figure out how to use the software, but once it's up and running it's easy to maintain if you're diligent about analyzing your games.

Using ChessBase's "Repertoire Database" Feature, Part 1

The Repertoire features of ChessBase are potentially very useful, yet frustratingly difficult to implement. I'm going to explain what you can do with such a database, and how you may wish to construct one. Some of this has been determined "by guess and by golly", but I think I've gotten most of the kinks worked out.

In this part, I'm going to briefly explain what a repertoire database is and how it can be used. I will also construct a "low-resolution, low-maintenance" sample database to show one approach to using this feature.

In a future post, I'll show the format that I use that is based on articles by Lopez and Mig Greengard describing a "GarryBase" approach similar to what Kasparov used. This is more work, and more maintenance, but eventually yields a more useful database. Basically, I'll be forcing ChessBase to fill the same role as an "tree of variations" opening database such as Bookup or Chess Position Trainer.

Before jumping in, you may want to read Lopez's articles here and here and here. The structure of our repertoire database will be similar, but how we use it will be different.

I got the size of some of these screenshots wrong, but you can enlarge them by clicking on them if needed.

The first step is to create a repertoire database. Create an empty database, then right click on it from the main chessbase window:


and select it as your repertoire database:



For the "lean" database, we're only storing key positions of interest. These could be the classic "tabiyas" for the openings you play. However, at the lower levels you're less likely to see, say, the classic Najdorf poisoned pawn tabiya or the Spanish Chigorin, Rubinstein System tabiya than some earlier deviation, such as the Accelerated Dragon or the Spanish Exchange.

As a test database, I took the starting positions from each chapter of Nunn's Beating the Sicilian 3. In this case, all I had to do was create a new board, enter the moves up to the key position that starts the chapter, and then right click on the board and choose "Add to Repertoire":


What this does is automatically save the line to your designated Repertoire Database. It also automatically selects a move as defining a "Critical Opening Position", and also automatically gives a title in the White and Black player fields:


In this case, it happened to choose the final move of each line as the critical opening position, which is what I wanted. However, you can't trust the program to do this. If you were looking at a game with variations, and select "add to repertoire", the first move before the first branch will be marked automatically as the critical opening position. In long unbranched lines, it may choose an earlier move as the critical move, for reasons unfathomable to me. If you use the "add to repertoire" feature in this manner, I recommend checking each new entry to the repertoire database, and if necessary delete the old critical position and add a new one. You can do this by right clicking on the move in question:


Alternatively, you can enter, the position in a new game board, mark the critical opening position manually, and then save it directly to the repertoire database like you would to any other database. This way you know exactly what's appearing in the repertoire DB.

For searching purposes, you want only one critical opening position in each repertoire database entry. If another position earlier in the line interests you, make a new entry for it. However, this opens up a huge can of worms, which I'll tackle in the next post. As foreshadowing, I'll briefly explain why.

Basically, if you have multiple positions in a singe opening line that are of interest, it is critical to make sure the database is ordered so that the longer lines appear above the shorter lines). With this low-resolution database, each line is unique and we're sure that if we search a database for our "repertoire" positions that one game won't match more than one database entry. However, imagine if we also saved the line 1.e4 c5 as the first database entry, and marked c5 as the critical opening position. In that case, every single game beginning 1.e4 c5 would be caught in this "filter" and no lines would be found for a Najdorf, Dragon or other Sicilian line. However, if this same 1.e4 c5 position were at the end of the repertoire database, it would catch all other "oddball" Sicilians that fell through the cracks, which could be useful.

The "automatic" titles that ChessBase gives a repertoire database entry may or may not be useful. I use a naming system similar to that described in Lopez's article. I'll elaborate more on this in the next post. Ideally, you want the game title to describe exactly what position you're talking about. For example, at some later point you may come across a game that you'd like to add to your repertoire database. After choosing "Add to Repertoire", you will be given the option to create a new entry or to merge it with an existing entry:


If the game description in your repertoire book isn't detailed enough, you may not know whether a new entry is required or not.

OK, I have a database of 19 Sicilian positions that define the start of my fictional Sicilian repertoire. What can I do with it?

Well, one thing you can do is select a database of your games, and go to "File-->New-->Generate Repertoire":


I took a database containing a few months of ICC blitz games and searched it using this feature for positions in this mini-repertoire. I got two hits:


This shows that I don't use many of the book's recommendations, and that not many of my opponents play a proper Sicilian as well. A better test database for my own games would be to take the main, early positions from, say, Greet's "Play the Ruy Lopez" and see how many times I encountered a Steinitz, Classical, Norwegian, Cozio or some other early-Spanish branch.

Another good use of such a repertoire database is to search a database of master games and see who played your lines. For example, with the same Sicilian mini-reference database I searched a random issue of The Week in Chess (~2100 games) using the "Generate Repertoire" feature and it found examples of 15 of the 19 lines contained in my reference database:

A snapshot of the search result for the TWIC database

This would allow you to keep up-to-date on recent developments in your favorite opening variations.

You can also look at a position and search your reference database to see if it's found anywhere in there. For example, let's say I'm not sure if this position is covered:


If it occurs in any repertoire entry (all positions, not just the blue "critical opening" positions!) it will find each instance. This is very useful if you're looking over one of your games and asking, "Is this position in my repertoire somewhere?", especially when dealing with tricky transpositions.

You can start fiddling with repertoire database functions by constructing such a "lean" database that gives the bare backbone of your own repertoire, and see if you find it useful. If you're like me, and find this whole process oddly appealing, you'll find yourself adding more and more positions to it as you encounter them. Your database will start accumulating random game snippets from all over, and resemble some reference book with post-it notes sticking out of everywhere. Finally it will degenerate into a disorganized heap of haphazardly-arranged lines and redundant positions, and will return no useful data when generating a repertoire.

Unless you take precautions.

Which I will explain in the next post, where I demonstrate the other reference-database extreme: the GrandpatzerBase.

How to Prepare an Opening, Part Three: Filling In Sidelines

Choosing the main lines that form the core of your opening repertoire is the part that will require the most work. After that, I would stick with analyzing your own games, and only worrying about opening issues that arise there. In many cases it's as simple as one player blundered or played an obviously weak move. In other cases, more work is required.

Until fairly recently, I was following the strategy of "analyze your games, find out where the game left theory, decide what you'd play next, and move on." I have recently come to realize that if your opponent played a "proper" move, it's important to follow the "what you'd play next" for some length afterwards. If the deviation occurs before development is complete, follow the line you'd play in the future until the approximate beginning of the middlegame. If you actually made it into the middlegame, extend the "trunk" out a distance so that you know where you want to take the variation. You need a view of the road ahead to provide context for the move. I find that if I only try to understand and remember the move I should have played, I often have to make the mistake several times before it really sinks in.

I don't consider myself to have a very good memory, but by following this procedure of using a board and determining a main line I'm finding myself able to recall variations and ideas much better than before. Just the other day, I reproduced a main line from the Italian game out to move 12, when previously I would have made an error around move 7. I had made no attempt to memorize that line beyond thinking about Black's moves and reading through Marin's explanatory text. This is the line, plus what I was thinking as I played it:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ (Black's last two moves avoid losing a tempo. See the chapter "On Exchanging" in Nimzowitsch's My System) 8. Nbxd2 d5 (now I break up White's center!) 9. exd5 Nxd5 (and saddle him with an IQP! {isolated queen's pawn}) 10. Qb3 Na5 (forking queen and bishop) 11. Qa4+ Nc6 (threatens queen and offers a draw by repetition). My opponent finally played a move that avoided the repetition. After the game, I mapped out how I would respond against his move and left it at that.

This is a case where minimal opening study was involved. I checked out a minor branch from the trunk of my opening, which only took a few minutes.

Then there's the following case, where I faced a novelty in the Nimzo-Indian. It's not much of a novelty...I'm sure my opponent simply didn't understand what he was playing. However, by trying to answer "what would I play next" I found that I had my work cut out for me.

My opponent's "novelty" was: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3, an odd blending of the Samisch (4.a3) and Classical (4.Qc2) lines. A point of 4.Qc2 is that the queen can capture on c3 and avoid doubled c-pawns. Therefore, this appears to be a Samisch where white has "wasted" time by playing Qc2.

I am in the very early stages of working out a Nimzo repertoire for black. Since not many of my opponents allow it as White, it hasn't rated as highly on my "things to do" list. I have some repertoire books as guides but I'm still in the process of deciding what my main lines will be.

First, as a starting point, let's look at the Samisch variation. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4, White challenges the Black bishop with 4.a3 Bxc3 5.bxc3. Quoting John Watson from Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 2 (which I will be referring to for analysis):

The Samisch variation is in many ways the most instructive of all Nimzo-Indian lines. It seems odd to force Black into ...Bxc3+, a move he is likely to play anyway, and thus to accept the weak doubled c-pawns while losing time....Indeed, 4.a3 was one of the earliest methods of play versus the Nimzo-Indian and many of the best players of the time...were infatuated with possession of the bishop-pair....The Samisch Variation is the ideal starting point for discussing the Nimzo-Indian because it contains a majority of the fundamental themes that arise from the opening.

I have been using repertoire books by Dearing (Play the Nimzo-Indian, my favorite), Emms (Easy Guide to the Nimzo-Indian), and to a lesser extent Alburt et al (Chess Openings for Black, Explained) for guidance. I have also used the general guide Mastering the Nimzo-Indian (with the Read and Play Method) by Kosten, which is more concerned with pawn structures and typical middlegame plans than specific lines.

My tentative main line against the Samisch was that of Dearing and Emms. I will just give it without a move-by move explanation...the point here is that my repertoire did not feature an immediate ...d5: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Ne2 b6 9. e4 Ne8 10. O-O Ba6 11. f4 f5.

However, my opponent played the Classical move order with 4.Qc2. In that case, my main line is tentatively that of Dearing. Here also, I'll just give the main line without commentary, and point out that here an immediate ...d5 is played: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5 6. Nf3 Qf5 7. Qxf5 exf5 8.
a3 Be7 9. Bf4 c6 10. e3 Be6 11. Bd3 Nbd7 .

Now, back to the Samisch. In my game, it was as if my opponent had played the Samisch 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 d5 6.Qc2. However, none of my repertoires play 5...d5 against the Samisch! After the game, I tried to determine how one should play against this supposed inaccuracy by White. Referring to Watson and Kosten, I looked into Samisch lines that featured the ...d5 move lacking in my repertoire.

First, here is an example taken from Watson of inaccurate play on White's part by Botvinnik (!). In Botvinnik-Kotov, Groningen 1946, after 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Bg5?!



7... c5! Watson says, "The problem is that after the natural
8. e3, 8...Qa5 forces some awkward defence like 9. Qc2 Ne4 10. Bf4 cxd4 11. exd4
Nc6."

Now, let's try the same thing against my opponent's move order. After 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3, Black is a tempo up if they can show that 4.Qc2 was a waste of time. So, let's make use of that free time by doing something useful, such as castling. However, after 6... O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Bg5, we reach a position nearly identical to the previous one:



However, this may actually be respectable. We have transposed into a known position, according to my Chessbase. For example, if we continue as in Botvinnik-Kotov with 8...c5 9. e3, the queen already protects c3, and 9...Qa5 doesn't have the same punch as in Botvinnik-Kotov. For example, in Petrosian-Korchnoi, Moscow 1971, Black instead played 9... Nbd7.

What this shows is that, if both sides play stereotypically against the "waste of time" move Qc2, we find that it's not necessarily a waste of time at all! The refutation of this move order (if any) must lie elsewhere.

At this point, spending hours trying to prepare a line against a "goofy" novelty wouldn't be productive. However, in the course of trying to figure out what was going on in this position, I learned quite a bit... I've only included some of this work here. What becomes obvious is that the general ideas that you find in Watson and Kosten (or Kmoch, for that matter) are of more use than repertoire books such as Dearing and Emms. For example, in these Samisch-like lines featuring ...d5 (which Watson calls the "Botvinnik approach"), we often arise at a pawn structure that Kosten calls the "light-squared blockade", as shown in the following "skeleton" position:



If Black can keep White's pawns on dark squares and exchange the light-squared bishops, White will lose the bishop pair and be stuck with a bad bishop. White is going to try and push e4.

Studying main lines not only ensures that you're playing sensible moves against your opponent's sensible moves...it also gives you experience in playing the typical structures and plans that arise in the opening. When your opponent plays something odd, you're going to have to rely on tactical awareness (yes, tactics are important!) plus your experience with and understanding of the position. In this particular case, I'm still not sure what the "proper" response to my opponent would have been, but I'm sure that the more I study and play these positions the better I'll be able to handle them.

In particular, the game made me question what I want to play against the Samisch. I'm attracted to this "light-squared blockade" pawn structure. If I like the move ...d5 against other variations, why not here? The short answer is: none of my repertoire books cover it! Therefore, I am going to say "heck with the books" and try to figure out my own ...d5 lines against the Samisch. If I had an established repertoire, I would not tear it all down and start again just because of one odd game. However, since I'm just starting out I can take the approach of "play the move you like the best" and build the repertoire around that. Remember, books are only there to guide you.

To summarize, when you analyze your games afterwards:

• If your opponent played a reasonable (book) response that you're unfamiliar with, work out what you would play in the future as a "main line" and then get on with life.

• If your opponent played an odd novelty, try to refute it. If a chess engine doesn't find an obvious tactical or gross positional problem with it, try to use your understanding of the opening and general principles to find a good response. In the process of finding the answer, you may learn quite a bit.

An Aside on Opening Preparation

Just thought I would clarify my stance on opening preparation, prior to the next installment of my series.

I think it's important to analyze your games--even online blitz. Part of that analysis should include how the opening was treated. Of course, you'll also be looking for errors in tactics, endgames, and strategy as well, but I don't think the opening should just be ignored, regardless of your chess strength.

If you do not want to maintain an openings repertoire, and just fly by the seat of your pants, then you could keep your opening study down to spotting gross errors. However, if you've ever bought an opening book with the intent of playing certain lines routinely, I strongly feel you need to understand the suggested moves, and have followed the main line through the opening so that you understand what each side is aiming for. If you're plopping money down on opening books, but just "looking up the answer" to what you should have played, or just trying to memorize lines, you're wasting time and money. You owe it to yourself to try and understand the lines you want to play, and I believe that studying openings in this limited but focused way can improve your chess as a whole.


For example, perhaps you learn that Black plays ...d5 at some point to prevent e4. If you understand that, and your opponent omits the "book move" of ...d5, that serves as an alert: Perhaps it would be good for you to push e4 in response. Or perhaps Black normally avoids exchanging a bishop for a knight, and your opponent doesn't. That suggests that winning the bishop pair may be a good idea.

The main lines of your opening are models of good opening play. Understanding them helps you to find good opening moves for yourself, and directs you towards reasonable middlegame strategies.

When you're not analyzing your own games, go ahead. Study tactics. Study endgames. Play through master games. Practice martial arts so you can strike the button on the clock with the reflexes of a cobra. Whatever you think helps your game more, or whatever tickles your fancy. Knock yourself out.

However, when it comes to analyzing your own games, I think you need to consider the game in its entirety, including the opening. Don't just focus on the knight you dropped in the midgame, but also the tactic you missed that would have regained it; the endgame you could have drawn a piece down; and the opening error that led to the difficult position you blundered in.

How to Prepare an Opening, Part Two

Here we're going to hack our way through the jungle and eventually arrive at the main line of the Closed Spanish. I've tried to come up with phrases that describes what we're about to do:

• spelunking
• going on an Opening Safari
• dumpster diving
• mining for gold
• antiquing (when using old games and analysis to guide your thoughts)
  

The bottom line is we're going to be trying to understand the reason behind the main move order, question it, and see if we can find other sequences we like better.

Even if you're using a repertoire book for guidance, follow this thought process so that, at the very least, you've justified their move choice. If you think about the move for a bit, you're helping to transfer this move from short-term to long-term memory. I strongly recommend using an actual chess board, because I think it assists with this transfer.

We'll first go over the main line and see what each side is thinking. If these reasons for the moves aren't clear already, you can refer back to this sequence as we discuss alternatives. The ideas are superficial but they'll do. This is my own interpretation of the opening sequence. I may revise this if Marin's upcoming book on the Spanish turns more light bulbs on. Before I undertook this exercise, it wasn't clear to me why certain key moves for both sides (0-0, c3, and h3 for white; ...Be7, ...b5, ...0-0 and a possible ...Bg4 by Black) were played in a certain sequence. By going through this exercise, the picture is now a lot clearer. I recommend this technique of using an "internal Socratic dialogue (monologue?)" for any opening you work on....ask questions and try to answer them.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6:

5.0-0 ("I know my e4 pawn is attacked, but I've figured out how to deal with it")
5...Be7 ("I could take the e4 pawn, but I've figured out it can't really be kept, so I choose to develop.")
6.Re1 ("Ok, now I should protect e4. This also will clear f1 for a N manoeuvre I have planned.")
6...b5 ("I want to kick-start my queenside play before White can make an escape square at b2 for his bishop")
7.Bb3 d6 ("I want to play ...Na5 to chop the B off, but e5 is weak. This shores up my center and opens a diagonal for the queen's bishop.")
8.c3 ("I want to keep my bishop in case of ...Na5")
8...0-0 ("castling is good")
9.h3 ("I want to play d4, but if he pins me with Bg4 that's annoying.")
9...Bb7 ("develops the bishop on the long diagonal and hits e4"). Black has several options at this point. I've chosen this move because it completes Black's development (except for queen deployment), which is a good enough stopping point for this tutorial. If I were white, I would look at the main lines enough to get an idea for how my development will be completed (e.g. the standard Spanish N manoeuvre of Nb1-d2-f1-g3 or e3); as Black, I would choose my system starting at move 9 and extend the main line from there a short distance, in order to get a feel for the types of middlegames that ensue.

At lower levels of play, it's not that likely that your opponent makes it all the way through even the "mainest" of main lines without diverging at some point. In that case, studying the opening out further than the end of development won't pay direct dividends in your own games (although indirectly this may increase your understanding of typical play). You're better off, in my opinion, studying master games than worrying about exact move sequences here. When your opposition starts playing these lines through, then you can worry about extending your horizon.

I'm now going to cross-examine the main Spanish move sequence, see if I agree with it, and see if I can find alternatives for either side.

The first, obvious, question about 5.0-0 is: why doesn't White have to protect the e4 pawn? If you're castling here because it's the book move, but don't have an answer for this question, you're asking for trouble. 5...Nxe4 (the Open Spanish) is a reputable opening choice:


The standard move here is 6.d4. 6.Re1 is playable but should cost White the bishop pair. Now, the books say "it's too risky to play 6...exd4 in this position". This should trigger your intellectual curiosity. It turns out that this is called the Riga variation, and the main reason for that assessment is the endgame after 7.Re1 d5 8.Nxd4 Bd6! 9.Nxc6 Bxh2+!

















Here, 10.Kh2 allows perpetual check by 10...Qh4+ 22.Kg1 Qxf2+. So, if a draw is an acceptable result for you, this is fine. The main continuation for White is 10.Kh1! Qh4 11.Rxe4+! dxe4 12.Qd8+! Qxd8 13.Nxd8+ Kxd8 14.Kxh2+/= (see next position):


















Emms, for example, says that this endgame "has been known for many years to favour White" and leaves it at that. In my database, White scores 68%, which certainly backs this up. However:

1. This is a fairly forcing variation (although some homework on your part will be required). White has to find some good moves. If you're ok with a draw, this can be a good practical chance at club level.

2. If this were just a trappy, tactical line I probably wouldn't be attracted to it. However, ask yourself if the endgame (more like a queenless middlegame, in my opinion) is that bad for black.











Here's what I see:

• material is unbalanced but roughly equal. Two minor pieces + bishop pair = 3.25x2 + 0.5 = 7 pawns, balancing a rook plus two pawns. I'm using the Kaufman values for the pieces...see this Heisman article for an elaboration.
• black nominally has a lead in development, but at a glance I don't think Black will be able to keep it because he has to untangle a bit.
• Black has action for his rooks on the center files, and a 4:2 pawn majority on the king side. White's N has no outpost, but the open position is good for the two bishops.

This is some shallow analysis, and perhaps the best thing is to play the position from both sides against the computer to see how you really feel about Black's position. My suspicion is that Grandmaster technique makes this easier for white, but at club level familiarity with the position will triumph. I think that this would be an interesting line to try out in actual play.

Even if you don't go for the Riga Variation, the Open Spanish with 5...Nxe4 is a real option for Black's repertoire.

So, it turns out that White can get away with 5.0-0. It also turns out that White can play 5.d4 here. Remember a rule of thumb for White in these openings is "if you can get away with d2-d4, it's probably a good move." It turns out that 5.d4 (or 6.d4 after 5.0-0 Be7) is fully playable. Johnsen and Johannessen call this the "Central Attack Ruy Lopez (CARL)". The authors say that it's drawish but that Black has to walk a narrow path. If this is the GM assessment, that means that this would be perfectly acceptable for club players. Your opponents aren't likely to have figured out an antidote to this variation; I have never faced it myself. J&J give a fair bit of analysis in this line; Davies' repertoire book for Black only considers the 6.d4 move order. I played through much of J&J's analysis, and my gut feeling was that White was making a lot of pawn moves and falling behind in development, but had nicer pawns at the end.

{NEW: 9/22/07} When I initially prepared this I glossed over 5.d3. In Marin's A Spanish Repertoire for White, he devotes an entire chapter to this move (which can be played "anywhere between the 5th and 10th moves). I'll just point out that it logically protects the e4 pawn, and that it's respectable. It's a bit timid for my taste, but it would be a good compromise for those wanting to play a "grownup" opening yet also deviate early to throw off your opponent.

Black has a few other 5th-move options after 5.0-0. Both 5...Bc5 and 5...b5 with 6...Bc5 (the Moller variation) opt to place the king's bishop on its other viable posting (Bd6 blocks the d-pawn, Bb4 allows c2-c3 with tempo). 5...b5 with 6.Bb7, the Arkhangelsk, develops the queen's bishop to the long diagonal. I will leave it up to someone with more experience from the White side as to how common it is to see these in club play; I'll just say that the moves make sense and are respectable.

For the most part I'm glossing over variations where White captures on c6. I'll just point out that some black players are annoyed enough by the Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez Deferred (what a name!) with 6.Bxc6 that they play 5...b5 as above and only then 6....Be7.

Referring back to the main line now: after 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 the moves 6...b5 7.Bb3 are almost always seen. If Black delays, White plays c2-c3, and his bishop will reach c2 in one move instead of two.

Now, 7...0-0 is possible instead of 7...d6. The main difference here is that, if you castle on move 7 instead of move 8, your opponent may think you're going to play the Marshall Gambit (8.c3 d5!?). If you're perfectly happy with your opponent freaking out and avoiding a main-line Spanish by playing an "anti-Marshall" move like 8.a4, 8.h3, 8.d4 or 8.d3, go for it. If you were hoping to reach a main-line Spanish, then you're more likely to get it by playing 7...d6 here.

At this point, White normally plays 8.c3 here so that 8...Na5 doesn't lose the bishop. This move also helps prepare d2-d4, so it seems like the most natural choice. If you ask yourself, "Can I play d4 here?" the answer is "not really". The main point is that after 8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 exd4, White can't play 10.Qxe4? because of the "Noah's Ark Trap": 10...c5 11.Qe3 c4 -+. I won't go into moves such as 8.a4 and 8.d3 except to say they're playable and may transpose to other lines.

White will probably play 9.h3 to avoid the ...Bg4 pin next move, so 8...Bg4 seems like a sensible alternative for Black here. I have not fully determined why it's not normally played. The "antidote" seems to be d2-d3, h2-h3, and Nb1-d2-f1-g3 for White, but that's not clearly bad for Black, and 8...Bg4 was actually played by Karpov against Short. This may be another opportunity for Black to do some homework and play an offbeat line.

If white omits h2-h3 and plays 9.d4 instead, 9...Bg4 is now supposed to be uncomfortable for White to play against. However, this is still a respectable option for White. Black is threatening to win the d4 pawn, so White has to be prepared to deal with this (e.g. 10.Be3 or 10.d5). 9.d3 here, or at many points in the Spanish, is playable but feels timid to me.

So, we can see that, compared to many openings, the Spanish has a very clear and logical main line. However, as I also showed here, even this classic opening sequence has lots of opportunity for both sides to deviate before Black's move 9. There's plenty of opportunity for a player to diverge and fight your opponent on your own turf. However, I would only diverge from the main line because you genuinely prefer your moves, rather than just diverging for the sake of "getting your opponent out of book".

To summarize the last two posts:

1. Become familiar with basic opening rules of thumb. Then, choose the opening moves that you want to play based on basic principles and guided by theory. When you don't have an overwhelming preference for one move, steer towards "respectable" openings that offer a variety of pawn structures and piece deployments.

2. Map out a "main line" where you decide what you would play against your opponent's "best" response. Chessbase's opening statistics makes it easy to determine what these "best" lines are, but use whatever resources you have (Nunn's Chess Openings, Modern Chess Openings, Fritz's opening book). If you're not sure which is "best", just choose one. Map this main line out until the approximate end of the opening phase (ideally, where all your pieces are developed and you've castled). This is generally about 9-12 moves.

I think the more clearly you understand the main line of your openings, the better equipped you are at dealing with your opponents' deviations. For example, White omitting c2-c3 when its called for may be a sign to seize the bishop pair with ...Na5.

The hardest, most time-consuming part is determining what your main lines will be. After that, your focus will be on analyzing your own games and determining how you'll deal with other lines as you encounter them. I think this is one area where internet blitz can be helpful...you can get a large number of examples of how players of your level treat the opening. You may find that "inferior" lines such as the Steinitz or Cozio variations of the Spanish are actually the "main lines" at your level.

So, what if your opponent plays something odd? The next post will will show an example of opening preparation triggered by my opponent's novelty. It will also show the limitations of opening repertoire books compared to general familiarity with the opening.

How to Prepare an Opening, Part One

I am going to demonstrate a thought process that would result in choosing the main line (closed) Spanish (a.k.a. Ruy Lopez) for both white and black. The Spanish is a good choice for this demonstration, because the main line for both sides up to move 9 or so is fairly clear. It also happens to coincide (mostly) with what I play myself, so I can pretend to speak with some authority. Finally, I suspect most amateurs have at least some familiarity with the opening. This is good, because I want people to focus on the thought process behind constructing the repertoire, rather than the opening itself.

Part One is just an introduction to the process. I imagine many people reading this won't find the first 5 moves of the Spanish too mysterious. The next post in the series will be more advanced, and show how you can, with a little research, come up with your own pet lines to surprise your opponents. After that, I hope to show a real-world example of opening preparation, where an opponent's odd treatment of the Nimzo-Indian demonstrates how opening books can lead you into a dead end. Even people that have played the Nimzo for years may learn something there. So, if this post strikes you as "baby talk", bear with me. I'm hoping by the end of the series that most readers have learned a thing or two.

Let's consider the first move for White. From general opening principles, you want to control the center and open lines for your pieces to come out. To me, the most natural moves are 1.d4 and 1.e4. Other moves such as 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 are perfectly acceptable, but they don't have the clear idea behind them that 1.d4 and 1.e4 do. From my own experience, and from the opinions of many chess trainers, I would say 1.e4 is the best choice for developing players. Just consider this advice (and other opinions that follow) as a "tie-breaker". If you did choose 1.d4, the only warning I'd have is not to play some system like the Colle or Stonewall that lead to stereotyped play. In the short term they may save you time by avoiding theory, but in the long term I feel they'll hold back your chess progression.

Similar logic applies to choosing 1...e5 as black. You may find that you like other moves better. Just be sure you understand the reason behind your favorite move. For example, the Scandinavian (1...d5) may be an acceptable opening but it's not intuitively a good opening move. It violates basic opening principles, because after 2.exd5 Qxd5 your queen will be chased around, and with 2...Nf6 you are down a pawn. I now know that the Caro-Kann (1...c6) and French (1...e6) tend to result in a limited number of pawn structures that trap your pieces behind light-squared pawns, so I would steer away from those (my cautionary tale can be found in this post). However, if you understand those moves and like them, go for it.

To me, 1...e5 feels the best. It's good for the same reasons 1.e4 was: it contests the center, and opens lines for the development of the king's bishop (which will get you closer to castling) and the queen. Finally, it discourages an immediate 2.d4 by White. In any opening, if White gets two pawns at d4 and e4 without some serious concession it suggests Black was too passive.

I suspect a lot of readers are already familiar with this principle. After 1.e4, White wants to achieve 1.d4 to dominate the center, and Black wants to prevent it; after 1.d4, White wants to get 1.e4 in. Black would also like to achieve this, but it's less likely. Yet if you go over your games, I'm sure you'll find examples where after weak opening play these basic ideas are forgotten. I'm going to assume an understanding of the importance of the center in this post.

(Aside: At the time I write this, I am about two thirds the way through Marin's Beating the Open Games, which is a repertoire for Black after 1.e4 e5 and handles White's systems that avoid the Spanish before 4...a6 Ba4. This is hands-down the most instructive repertoire book I've ever encountered. It's so well written, and so objective, you could go a long way towards choosing your white repertoire by looking at what Marin considers the more difficult lines. My attitude towards some of these White options has changed from "boring", or "inferior but annoying", to "I wouldn't mind giving that a shot!" I'm looking forward to his sequel, which will handle the main-line Spanish portion of the repertoire. )

After 1.e4 e5, 2.d4 would produce the classic d4/e4 center, but it would be immediately destroyed, e.g. 2...exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6, and so would be suspicious based on basic opening principles. So, what moves feel good here? At this point, you could see what the most popular moves at this point are to help guide you. For this demonstration I'll use Chessbase to see what the most popular moves are. References such as this, or your chess program's opening book, a one-volume book such as Nunn's Chess Openings (NCO), or whatever, are only being used as a guideline...they'll either confirm that your choice is playable, or serve as a warning that it might not be such a good idea. I made an opening book from the games of players rated 2400 or higher, to see what the "big boys" like to play. Here's the number of occurrences of the top 5 choices for White's second move:

Nf3 34110
Bc4 1054
Nc3 780
f4 565
d4 156

Again, realizing 2.Nf3 is the most popular continuation here is not earth-shattering in itself. Determining what's "popular" will be used for a couple reasons in my tutorial. Here, it's a tip-off as to what the "best" moves are and helping us to feel good about our choice. We're also going to use popularity to determine what the main lines are for our opponent so that we know which lines to learn first.

One notable exception from the above list is 2.c3. It's logical to think, "OK, I'm going to prepare d2-d4 by playing c2-c3 first". It makes sense. It can lead to a Ponziani-type opening, and was played by Morphy, but no GMs seem to play it. Let's say this was your favorite move at this point. You can either decide to make it your repertoire move, or you can try to understand why it's not popular. First, it moves another pawn instead of developing a piece, so on general principles that may not feel as good. Second, it now makes 2...d5 a decent move for Black, because after 3.exd5 Qxd5 the queen can't be harassed by 4.Nc3. In other words, c3 took away a natural developing square for the b1 N. So, you're letting Black get feisty in the center. If, after that explanation, you still like c3, then go for it...it was good enough for Morphy. If you progress to the point where your opponents are punishing you in the opening, you may decide that c3 isn't your favorite move after all.

Going through the other main moves: 2.f4 loses a pawn to 2...exd4. The King's Gambit is a real opening, but it's tactically complex and not a "common sense" opening. Odds are, if you were looking at the chessboard and knew nothing about openings, you'd consider 2.f4 a blunder (drops a pawn, exposes your king, and doesn't develop a piece). 2.Nc3 doesn't help you play d4, and doesn't get you any closer to kingside castling. Bc4 violates the guideline of developing knights before bishops. Of course, this isn't a guideline to be adhered to slavishly, but it's one that makes sense. Usually, it's clearer where you want to put your knights than your bishops, so it makes sense to delay it for a bit. Do I want to play the bishop to c4? b5? Let's see what Black does first. So, that brings us to 2.Nf3, the clear favorite. It develops a N, gets you closer to kingside castling, and supports d4.

Even if you're using a repertoire book for guidance, follow this thought process so that, at the very least, you've justified their move choice. If you think about the move for a bit, you're helping to transfer this move from short-term to long-term memory. I strongly recommend using an actual chess board, because I find it assists with this transfer.

This same technique of finding the move you like and checking it against the "book" moves is repeated until you've determined what your personal main line will be. For example, for Black we will see that by asking "if my opponent makes the most popular move, what do I want to respond with?" you can arrive at the Spanish main line of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Bb7. I haven't actually settled on move 9 yet for my own repertoire, but Bb7 completes development (apart from moving the queen off the back rank) and is a good stopping point for these tutorials. This variation, if chosen, would be your foundation, your bedrock, your home turf, the trunk of the tree of variations. This is where you waggle your sword and proclaim, "NONE SHALL PASS!"


Just remember that it's sometimes appropriate to accept a draw as Black:



Back to our exercise in opening preparation:

2...Nc6 protects the pawn and develops a piece at the same time.

Now, if I were creating my own repertoire from scratch again, 3.d4 makes sense here. On basic principles, if pushing d4 is allowed it should be good. If Black exchanges the pawn on d4, a common pawn structure that results is called the "little center" by King and Ponzetto in their book on the Spanish, and is an example of what Kmoch calls a "jump formation":



This good for White because of the space advantage...White is less cramped and has a bit of an easier time than Black. This e4 vs. d5 center is a common feature of 1.e4 e5 openings in general, and explains White's advantage in many of the variations.

It is almost amazing how much of the theory of the Open Games can be figured out by just thinking about the center and the moves e4, d4, ...e5 and ...d5. In this case, following the basic idea of "if I can get away with d2-d4, play it!" results in the perfectly respectable Scotch opening. If you like the logic of 3.d4, and you like the pawn structures that typically arise in the Scotch, then go for it!

Back to White to play for their third move. 3.c3 would be the Ponziani opening. Theory would warn you that it's not the best choice, but it's playable. Here's a case where the guiding hand of theory might lead you to something "stronger", but if you absolutely loved it you could play it.

3.Bc4 develops the bishop to a nice diagonal and prepares castling, but it's less obvious how it addresses the center. It's not helping d2-d4, but it does help thwart d7-d5 and it also targets the sensitive f7 square. I choose 3.Bb5 because it develops the bishop and also weakens Black's control of e5. The latent threat is Bxc6 and Nxe5. This isn't possible right now (for example, 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4!), but the motif is there.

Black has many, many choices right now. Probably the most intuitive is 3...Nf6, which develops a piece, gets Black closer to castling, and attacks the e4 pawn. 3...d6 protects the e5 pawn and lets the queen bishop out. 3...Bc5 develops the bishop to a good diagonal before it can be imprisoned with d7-d6, and so on. My choice of 3...a6 is not the most intuitive, but it's the most popular. Here, rather than automatically play the "main" move, I've thought about it and have chosen it for my repertoire...I haven't had it chosen for me.

Here, challenging the bishop with ...a6 doesn't cause Black to fall behind in development (you can work this out for yourself). If White captures on c6, Black has gained the two bishops, and if White backs up (e.g. 4.Ba4) Black has turbocharged his queenside advance (...b5 will come soon). In this regard it has some resemblance to the Sicilian Najdorf. Often, wasting time in an opening by pushing a rook's pawn for no good reason is a waste of time (i.e. costs a "tempo"). Here, there are good reasons for pushing the rook's pawn. I am consciously violating a rule of thumb because there are concrete reasons to do so.

As White, I used to play the Exchange with 4.Bxc6 here. You give up the bishop pair but cripple Black's queenside majority. As someone who enjoys endgames,this sounded like a great idea, in theory... limit Black's choices, avoid theory, play positionally. Over time I found that I didn't like how my pieces coordinated, I didn't get endgames as much as I hoped, and most importantly I was missing out on the experience of playing against a variety of pawn structures. I prefer 4.Ba4 now. In both cases, I've said "this is the move that I like to play in this position", not "I don't like that book anymore, so I'm going to play something from this other book because I liked the blurb the publisher put on the back".

At this point, the main move is 4...Nf6, developing a piece, hitting the e4 pawn, and preparing to castle. I like that, so I play it. By the way, if you asked here or on the last move "is ...d5 possible?" the answer would be "not really", but you'll have to figure that out for yourself. Piket actually won a game with 4...d5 here against an IM, so it's not completely wacky, but you've been warned.

After 4...Nf6, White's e-pawn seems like it's in danger of being captured. As white, I currently play 5.Qe2 here to protect it. This is not the main move in this position, but the move makes sense (protects e4, develops the queen, vacates d1 for the king's rook) , and it's the move used in my current repertoire book. Remember: if you splurge on a repertoire book, treat them as menus of suggestions, not orders to follow. I may choose a move that the author recommends, or I may play something I like better. For example, I've gotten a lot of use out of Kaufman's repertoire book (there are very few books that provide white and black repertoires all in one volume) but I've rejected a lot of it for my own repertoire.

The standard move here is 5.0-0, and we'll see that 5.d4 is also possible. At this point there are a lot of move-order issues and unusual sidelines. In Part 2 I'll talk about how to navigate the maze that follows, and possibly help you come up with your own pet weapons to surprise an opponent.