(Still) Need help finding an opening against e4
Yes, this is my 3rd post asking for help and I am sorry lol, but unfortunately my posts have been too short to express my exact predicament I find my self in regarding choosing an opening against e4. As for context, I am rated ~1600 in Lichess classical, my Chess.com rating is old and inaccurate, while my USCF rating is still provisional. I fully understand that openings aren't everything at my level, which is true, however I feel that as most of my losses are in the opening (by losses I mean getting into an objectively losing position), so I would argue improving my repertoire would benefit me.
Recently, I have been attempting to move my repertoire over from extremely positional to more positional/aggressive, as I found I enjoy dynamic chess and that improving my understanding of dynamic positions would benefit be as a chess player.
My current repertoire is:
WHITE:
Ruy Lopez, because it is 1. objectively the best 2. a universal opening that is great for improvement. I don't really face anything testing like the Marshall (Though I have studied some lines against it where I willingly enter it). So I mostly just get to play d4 and chill in my dominant position.
I play Nc3 against both the French and Caro-Kann, I bought Shanklands course on it and thoroughly enjoy it, as I find the lines are deep yet practical and simple to understand. The Paulsen/Classical/Nc3 against the French is the top move in the Lichess Masters database, so it is a pretty easy choice. The Paulsen/Classical/Nc3 against the Caro-Kann is a bit harder to justify, as the advance and 2 knights are really great too, but the advance just gives black an advanced french but w/o the bishop in the pawn chain and the 2 knights is just not my thing.
Against the Sicilian I obviously play the Open Sicilian. Everyone at my level just plays the Acc. Dragon, Kan, and Broken Najdorfs so I am overall fine for now.
BLACK:
Against d4 I am learning the Grunfeld, I looked into it more and I like it and I think it will help me improve. The KID is too... idk, I just HATE the positions. I was learning the Semi-Slav but decided against it as after some more Grunfeld study I realized I like the Grunfeld more. The QGD gives white an easy game, the QGA is messy, the Nimzo is dry (Unpopular opinion), the Benoni family is too unsound and the Benko Gambit is a gambit (So its benefits are conditional on white accepting the Gambit), and everything else is not testing enough for white.
Against e4 idk because otherwise I wouldn't be writing this post.
NOTE: I am trying to play the top lines in as many situations as possible, even if it puts me in a challenging position, as I feel that is what is best for improvement, even if it temporarily weakens me.
Against e4, I am considering e5 and c5, with e5 I am debating a response to the Ruy Lopez, whilst with c5 I am debating between the Najdorf, Sveshnikov, and Classical Sicilians.
CANDIDATES AGAINST RUY LOPEZ (E5):
- The Berlin is great. It is objectively the best response to the Ruy Lopez, it is extremely solid and tough for white to crack. I have already learned the basics of it and it looks pretty fun overall, however I do have some gripes with it. These gripes mostly involve whites ability to sidestep the Berlin endgame w/ Re1 or d3 instead of d4, which is very annoying, but besides that it is definitely an option, despite it being a bit too passive.
- The Archangel is easily one of my top candidates, in the positions where white plays d4 it looks extremely enjoyable. It is played at top level, although seldom, and has very high win rates at club level in such positions I just mentioned. However, white can play 8.d3, which I have yet to find a comfortable line against.
- The Marshall Attack is an interesting one. When white accepts the Marshall, you get a massive king side attack, but the attack seems drawish due to how pieces are rapidly exchanged off of the board. It also seems as if white must make a decisive blunder in order for you to checkmate them in the king side assault, and it seems you often end up in a pawn down endgame, which is ofc bad. It overall seems very forcing and drawish, and even though I am well aware that a lot of those complaints don't apply to me at the sub-2000 level, I don't want to put ridiculous amounts of study into an opening only for it to become forcing and drawish to the point I must switch. I also want to clarify I don't have an issue w/ draws, it is just that the Marshall is labeled as aggressive when it is drawish above 2000 Elo. And then there are the Anti-Marshalls, such as a4 (even though that just gives you a chill game, but you still don't get to play the Marshall), and the Martinez (Which is playing d3 instead of Re1 after Be7, although all Closed Ruy lines must deal w/ that).
CANDIDATES FOR SICILIANS:
- The Najdorf is the best Sicilian. It is very high theory and teaches you all aspects of chess it seems, so it is great for improvement. One of my biggest issues with it is that it just seems too sharp, and even though I do not mind sharp positions too much, the Najdorf is just so sharp I am not sure if I can handle it. It is also the most popular Sicilian (d6), so even though it has so many resources and has been studied to death, most Open Sicilian players would have lots of experience w/ it.
- The Sveshnikov is the 2nd best Sicilian. I have found nothing but conflicting opinions over whether it is sharper/easier than the Najdorf or not. Overall, the positions seem enjoyable, although forcing (even though none of that matters for now). However, the Sveshnikov runs into the same problem as that Marshall, as in people will avoid it w/ Anti-Sicilians and Rossolimos (Although all Sicilians have this problem, but the Sveshnikov especially as the Rossolimo is just so good for white). I know Fressinets course (or whatever his name is) has some good recommendations against the Rossolimo, but I still just don't enjoy playing w/ doubled pawns, so idk if the Rossolimo is too much (if any Sveshnikov players are reading this, please comment your opinions down below).
- The Classical is probably the best Sicilian for my improvement. I have heard it recommended a lot, and it seems really logical, and the Richter-Rauzer seems fine for black. But it is not the most testing or highest pressure Sicilian, so I simply don't know whether or not this is right for me.
RANKINGS/CONCLUSION:
If I had to rank these options from most likely for me to play to least, here:
- The Berlin
- The Archangel
- The Sveshnikov
- The Najdorf
- The Marshall
- The Classical
Overall, each of these options have so many ups and downs that I just can't choose one. I don't know which I want to commit to learning yet, so any advice would be appreciated.
POTENTIAL RESOURCES:
I would like to leave this final section to explain what I think I should use to learn these openings, maybe this can help someone who finds this thread in a couple years lol. BTW, Yes I know that many Chessable courses can be massive hulking beasts of theory that can have be impractical for intermediate players, but I feel that as many of these openings are so large in terms of theory, having a course to guide you can greatly help you.
- If I play the Berlin I will probably play his highly acclaimed LTR on it, which seems pretty simple especially considering it is an LTR. From Berlin To Rio seems like a good course on the Rio variation, if anyone plays that let me know how it is.
- If I play the Archangel I probably have no choice but to get the oversized Caruana course. There are no other extensive resources on the Archangel free or paid so I feel as if he just has a monopoly on Archangel resources.
- If I play the Marshall obviously then I must get Surya's course, the Marshall is so massive that I almost certainly need a course to guide me through the forcing lines.
- If the Sveshnikov, Fressinets course is probably going to be necessary as the Sveshnikov just has so much complexity and forcing lines etc...
- If the Najdorf, then the Najdorf Supercharged because Giri's course is just too big, and I already have Grunfeld Supercharged and like it. Also the Najdorf is so complex I think I would use a course for it lol.
- If the Classical, then I will probably not get a course, as the Classical seems simple enough to study on your own.
EDIT: I have narrowed it down to the Berlin and Sveshnikov, I will probably just learn the Berlin, seems simple and I can focus on other stuff.