u/panderos_flamencos

Hi everyone! I know there have been plenty of posts like this on this subreddit before, but I'd still like to hear advice from stronger players specifically for my case.

Hi everyone! I know there have been plenty of posts like that on this subreddit before, but I'd still like to hear advice from stronger players specifically for my case.

Also, I'll be sharing some of my own thoughts and analysis of lines, so apologies in advance, this is going to be a long post. I hope that those who aren't interested just won't waste their time on it. For those who, like me, enjoy digging into openings – you're very welcome! I'll be glad to hear your thoughts on the topic.

Right now I'm around 2050-2100 classical on Lichess. I've recently started playing OTB tournaments, so it would be important for me to finally settle on a full repertoire. I really love studying openings as such – I enjoy rich, plan‑filled positions that leave some room for independent exploration and finding your own theory (with engine help, of course). I get genuine pleasure from digging into a position, studying the plans for both sides, and the near‑ideal interpretation of positions (grandmaster games, computer moves). So please don't tell me that such deep opening study is pointless. For me, it's a hobby in itself, just like playing chess!

Given my preferences, it's not hard to guess that I try to stick to main lines:

As White: main lines of the Spanish, Nc3 against the French, English Attack against the Pirc, main lines in the Open Sicilian (except Rossolimo against Nc6).

As Black against 1.d4: I'm very happy with the Nimzo/Ragozin complex.

Against 1.c4: I'm not afraid to answer 1...e5 at all.

I really love the idea of playing "top" openings – an opening that will grow with you throughout your life, and you won't have to change it. I've been loyal to the Spanish as White and to the Nimzo/Ragozin for a very long time – I don't think I'll ever want to replace them as my main openings. So this search for the "perfect opening" might actually have an end, haha!

Rossolimo / classical closed Spanish (like Breyer, Chigorin) as White or the Ragozin Defence as Black – these are perfect examples of theoretically fascinating openings that leave room for independent research! I was surprised how differently you can interpret various Ragozin lines, or – I won't even mention the enormous number of ideas White has in the main Breyer tabiya.

Probably my favourite opening of all is the Spanish (especially the closed variations) for both colours, although as Black I do have some problems with it (more on that later).

About my playing style: I'd say I have a fairly wide chess horizon. I know many ideas, plans, openings. Strategic positions suit me well. I love calculating long, complex forced lines deeply. Endgames.. I play about as well as others at my level. My main problems: frequent board vision lapses (I started playing chess as an adult, so from time to time I still make one‑move blunders). I almost always miss some tricky opponent's resources, which makes me very afraid to give my opponent "room to breathe" – I try to keep up the pressure. Because of that, I force the game too much. I'm worse than many at spotting simple threats, and I'm terrible at fast time controls. I'm used to coming out of the opening with an advantage, so I don't play equal balanced positions very well. I'm a bad defender. I hate playing with a weak king, because no matter how hard I try, I always miss some cheap tricks.

So, to the point: I can't decide on a defence to 1.e4.

For me, the choice comes down to only two options: 1...c5 or 1...e5. I don't consider anything else.

Right now I play 1...e5. I'm happy with almost everything except the Spanish as Black. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the Four Knights Spanish, but 4...Bd6 looks like an interesting move to keep more pieces on the board.

I even found something against the main line of the Four Knights. Here's a rough sketch against 10.Bg5:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 d5 8. exd5 cxd5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 Be6 11. Qf3 Be7 12. h3 h6 13. Bh4 c5 14. Rad1 d4 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Ne4 Be7 17. Nd2 Bg5 18. b3 Rc8 19. Rfe1 Bd5 20. Qg4 g6 21. f4 Bf6 22. Ne4 Be6 23. Qf3 Kg7

Interesting lines after 10.h3 with 10...Rb8, previously mentioned on this subreddit:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O d5 9. exd5 cxd5 10. h3 Rb8 11. Qf3 Rb6 12. Bg5 Bb7 13. Rad1 h6 14. Bh4 Re8 15. Qf5 g6 16. Qf4 Bf8 17. Na4 Rbe6 18. Qd4 Qd6 19. Qxa7 Qc6 20. b3 d4 21. f3 Nd5 22. Qxd4 Ne3

But against the Spanish... I don't like anything. I don't want to play some "slightly" sidelines like the Cozio or Fianchetto defence and such, where White should be a little better anyway. I also don't like the Open Spanish. In general, I have a rather negative attitude towards overly forced lines (like the Botvinnik System in the Semi‑Slav, for instance). The Berlin is not my cup of tea either.

Right now I'm trying to play a Marshall‑based repertoire, but I'm not fully happy with it. I don't really want to play the Marshall itself (despite good results at club level). My problem is the excessive forcing nature of it. Also too many pieces come off the board too early. An FM friend of mine (a coach) said about the Marshall: "you learn a ton of theory, and in the end it's still a draw." Sure, at my level the draw problem doesn't really exist, but I still don't like such dry positions. Also, it's quite hard to find something against d3 lines. Recently the Marshall with ...Bb7 instead of ...c6 has become relatively fashionable, but I don't think it's something that will make White tremble with fear.

And while in d4 lines you can still try to find interesting, less trodden paths, the d3 lines really didn't appeal to me. I looked at Gustafsson's recommendations, and some lines indeed end in forced draws. (Again: I know that's not a problem for me, and nobody will play that against me, but the very fact that the opening in a sense "exhausts itself" at some level is telling. I accept that chess is a draw, but I'd like to have a decent alternative when I don't want to "force events.")

I haven't studied Ganguly's new Marshall repertoire in detail, but as far as I know, the pawn‑down endgames and forced draws are there too. I fully understand that as Black you can't have everything in the opening, but still, the nature of the fight in the main Marshall lines genuinely bothers me.

I didn't like what I saw in d3. So I decided to look into 13...Qh4 instead of the usual 13...Bf5 (which Gustafsson called bad). Still, a lot of time has passed since his analysis...

This endgame comes out almost forced after 13...Qh4 with best play for both sides:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d3 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 Nf6 16. Rh4 Qf5 17. Nd2 Ng4 18. f3 Ne3 19. Qe2 Nd5 20. c4 Nf6 21. Ne4 Nxe4 22. dxe4 Qg6 23. Bc2 Bxg3 24. e5 Bxh4+ 25. Bxg6 hxg6

It's quite hard for me to evaluate this with my modest level, but intuitively it feels like if anyone wants to win here, it's White.

(Again: I perfectly understand that nobody will play this against me, but I just don't like learning an opening where such an endgame is the dream scenario. The main problem here isn't that with perfect play I can't win (especially as Black) but that Black has absolutely no deviations. After ...Qh4, Black essentially has only one move at almost every turn, while White has various options.)

In essence, I'm only playing the Marshall because I want to get improved versions of closed Spanish positions. But I still haven't figured out what to do if someone actually goes into the main Marshall tabiyas. I just don't like it.

I thought for a long time that maybe I should just play the classical closed Spanish (I mostly looked at the Breyer), but after studying it in detail, my conclusion is: the effort is not worth the reward. White has a million move orders, and Black needs extreme precision in every line. It's just too passive. Sure, nobody refutes the Breyer, but the positions are simply nicer and easier for White, and you get winning chances mostly when your opponent overpresses. White can basically play almost any legal move in the main tabiya and still be no worse.

You could even play something like this:

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 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. c4?! – a pretty interesting and underrated (imho) sideline.

In short, the positions are wonderful, but I'd prefer to have them only as White.

My current main candidate(in e5): the Archangel with ...Bc5. I haven't looked at these lines much, but I don't like, again, the unbelievable number of White setups. Almost any natural move leads to a great position for White. As Black, you need extremely high precision. It feels like a very fine line and a strategically risky endeavour. As far as I understand, it (yes, yes, like (almost?) everywhere) doesn't save you from forced draws and quick drying out of the position. Besides the main tabiyas, some unpopular move orders can be very unpleasant too, for example something like this:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. a4 Rb8 8. c3 d6 9. d4 Bb6 10. Qd3 O-O 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. axb5 axb5 14. Qxb5

In other words, my problem with the Archangel is that I'm not sure the risk is worth the reward. Right now it's my main candidate if I stick with 1...e5. People often call the Archangel "the Sicilian of the e5 world". And that's when it occurred to me: if I'm going to play that kind of style anyway, maybe 1...c5 would suit me better than 1...e5?

Regarding 1...c5 – I've never been able to find a suitable Sicilian as Black.

Again, I want to play only the main, most critical tabiyas, so all second‑tier options (e.g. the Kan) are out.

The most critical Sicilians (as far as I understand the state of theory) are the Sveshnikov and the Najdorf.

Sveshnikov problem: the Rossolimo. I play it as White and understand those positions a bit. I'm not ready to study the Sveshnikov just to get hit with Bb5. I wanted for a long time to make it work as Black. But I just cannot learn to love it. I've looked at it from White's perspective a lot, and I've found millions of dangerous ideas and setups. It reminds me of the Breyer in the Spanish – yes, the play is rich and strategic, yes, nobody will ever refute it... but White is just a bit better, that's all. And Black doesn't get much in return. Besides (I don't know how true this is), I recently saw someone very strong on this subreddit mention that the Sveshnikov at the top level nowadays is more of a drawing weapon – and the Marshall would do that job just as well, if not better.

Najdorf – very, very scary. I tried it once long ago. Until recently I thought it was madness. More on the Najdorf later.

Taimanov – I recently looked at these lines deeply. Apart from the famous Qf3, White has a hundred other dangerous forced or slower strategic attempts to choose from. Without doubt, it's a great practical weapon. The positions are very combative and breathtaking! But my conclusion is that it's so risky and requires so much theory, and still has a worse theoretical reputation than the Najdorf. And actually, White has even more moves against the Taimanov than against the Najdorf! (It's just that the theory isn't as developed. But that doesn't reduce the number of dangerous tries.) If White wants, he can just dry out the game (e.g. the Qf3 endgame). So my conclusion was: if you're going to play something that risky and theory‑heavy, why play this when the Najdorf exists?

Four Knights Sicilian: I've heard many say it's the most underrated Sicilian and the best at club level. I decided to check... Gentlemen, the main lines after Nxc6 are madness! A very, very narrow path for Black. It all holds up according to the engine, yes. BUT! White actually has a lot of side deviations, and for each such deviation Black has to play 20 only‑moves just to keep the position within equality.

Example:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Qc7 9. f4 Qb6 10. a3 (sideline! Played in 7% of master games) 10...Ne3 11. Qd3 Nxf1 12. Rxf1 Ba6 13. c4 f5 14. exf6 d5 15. Be3 (this is actually a novelty – no games) 15...Bxc4 16. Qc3 Qb3 17. Qxb3 Bxb3 18. Nc5 Bc4 19. Rf3 gxf6 20. Rc1 – Black has only moves everywhere. White has branches at almost every step. In the main tabiya after 10.c4, White similarly has branches at every move, and Black only moves.

In short, honestly, a paradise for preparing a pet line as White. I found the quiet move 8...Bb7?! interesting:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 – and honestly, I even managed to make it work more or less. It seemed to me there's much less forced madness on the board! I finally found a way for Black to have some choices. Plus, it's incredibly good practically – many opponents will be surprised by move 8, and you can expect the most common answer to be 9.c4, where Black seems to have many comfortable options.

Here are examples of "critical" lines after 8...Bb7?!:

First line:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 9. Be2 c5 10. O-O Qc7 11. c4 Ne3 12. Bxe3 Bxe4 13. Bf4 Be7 14. Qd2 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16. h3 Bc6 17. f4 g4 18. hxg4 hxg4 19. f5 O-O-O 20. f6 Bf8 21. Bf4 Rh4 22. Kf2 Bh6 23. Bxh6 g3+ 24. Ke1 Bxg2 25. Rg1 Qxe5 26. Be3 Re4

Second line:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 9. Be2 c5 10. O-O Qc7 11. Nd6+ Bxd6 12. exd6 Qc6 13. f3

In practice, it seemed to me that White can easily get into trouble. Here's an example of how an unprepared White can lose:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 9. c4 Nb4 10. a3 Qa5 11. Bd2 Qxe5 12. axb4 Qxe4+ 13. Be2 c5 14. f3 Qd4 15. b5 Qxb2 16. O-O

However, this made me think: what do I do against an attempt to transpose back into the Sveshnikov? And I didn't find an answer.

The line called the Cobra variation is fun, of course, but definitely not a "lifelong main opening", no way:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Ndb5 Bc5 7. Bf4 O-O 8. Bc7 Qe7 9. Bd6 Bxd6 10. Qxd6 Qd8

For fast time controls, it looks amusing, I'll admit.

This probably holds too, but White actually has attempts here that seem even more dangerous than the main theory. It's just rarely played at the highest level, so the theory isn't that developed.

The main theoretical move is 6...Bb4, but honestly, again, I'm not thrilled by lines like:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Ndb5 Bb4 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Nxc3 d5 9. exd5 exd5 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O Bg4 12. f3 Bh5 13. Bg5 Qb6+ 14. Kh1 Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bxe4 Qxb2 17. Qb1 Qb6 18. Qxb6 axb6 19. Rfb1

So probably the Sveshnikov transposition is the most interesting path, but I'm not sure I want all the additional lines (including the side 7...Bb7 in the main Four Knights) just to play the Sveshnikov and avoid the Rossolimo... Sounds very questionable.

In the end, I thought: maybe the Najdorf isn't such a stupid idea for someone like me (a theory lover).

Regarding the Najdorf, I had long concluded that if even top grandmasters stopped playing it because they don't want to be targets of insane computer preparation, then at amateur level it's an even worse idea. My image of Najdorf games is that Black spends 60‑70% of his time in the opening (I'm talking classical, mostly) just to figure out the details and not lose by move 15, then gets into time trouble and loses in the second half of the game, or if lucky, makes a very nervous and hard‑fought draw.

When I looked at the Najdorf as Black, the real reason I decided against it was 6.Bg5. I didn't want to play the Poisoned Pawn (then I'd really be better off with the Marshall, hah), and in 6...Nbd7, at the time, it seemed White was better everywhere.

The main e6 systems also didn't appeal to me at all. Today (as before), I still think 6...Nbd7 is the best move for Black.

When analysing the main tabiyas (for example this one):

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 Nbd7 7. Bc4 Qb6 8. Bb3 e6 9. Qd2 Be7 10. f3 Nc5

– I came to the conclusion a few years ago that White has a bunch of move orders (not necessarily Bc4, there's also Qe2, etc) that lead to Black just barely surviving, and Black's margin for error is extremely low. I found many ideas with material sacrifices and crazy attacks for White. It looked very, very scary for Black, as if the position could fall apart at any moment. So I gave up on the Najdorf.

In practice – I haven't played the Najdorf much in classical. But I almost always got winning positions. Every game followed the same script: I calculated a lot and heated up during the game. Slowly built an advantage and seized the initiative, while my opponent made average moves. By the end of the game, I was so tired that I made one‑move blunders in winning positions. (That can happen with any opening, but in the Najdorf I always throw away technically winning positions because I feel very tired after intense thinking early in the game.) In general, I find it very easy to get good positions from Sicilians, but for some reason I convert winning positions in 1...c5 much worse than winning positions in 1...e5 – at least that's my feeling. If I'm winning in an e5 game, I can usually just stay calm, but even with an extra piece in a c5 game (especially in blitz), my opponents always find counterplay against my weaknesses.

I am very afraid when my king is under attack. I'm not good at sharp tactical positions. So playing the Najdorf feels very, very scary. I've heard that you should do exactly what scares you, hah! Maybe the Sicilian will help me get rid of my weakest points. I love any anti‑Sicilian, and I'd be happy to play 1...c5 in every game if my opponents always played an anti‑Sicilian against me! In 1...e5, it makes me a bit sad when I've done my homework well and know my lines, and my opponent plays the Four Knights against me.

Currently, I'm considering these options (from most likely to least):

1. Switch to the Najdorf.

2. Сontinue playing 1...e5, answering the Spanish with the Archangel.

3. Continue playing 1...e5 and go into the Marshall (but I'm still unsure about specific Marshall lines).

4. Play the Sveshnikov directly via 2...Nc6.

5. Try to play the Four Knights Sicilian with 8...Bb7 and transpose to the Sveshnikov if White wants.

I would very much like to hear from players who have played (or play) any of the above! I'm especially interested in the experience of those who play or have played the Najdorf. Please share your personal experiences! How often, for example, do you get caught off guard and not allowed to leave the opening phase? I feel very nervous about playing the Najdorf in otb tournaments essentially, I'd have to "survive" the first phase of the game. Given that I'm an extremely slow player, that usually means I won't have time left to finish the game properly without obvious blunders.

I guess I would like to have something in my arsenal that could best be described as "high work, high reward". My main question: do you think the Najdorf is the one that fits this description best?

Thanks!