1.d4 2.Nf3 very wide anti-preparation White repertoire

Your opponent will be well versed in whatever defense he plays against d4/c4/Nf3, there are many of them. There are like 5 or 6 different forms of the semi-tarrasch you'll need to know, for example... there's a vienna gambit, there's the ragozin defense, there's the QID... if you try to play d4/c4 in just certain lines you undermine the idea that you're being unpredictable (even though you aren't unpredictable anyway).

You now stated plainly that your opening will lead you, the white player, to be at a disadvantage.

If the idea of playing d4/c4 in addition to the Torre / Colle / London / Jobava is to be "unpredictable" you are simply not achieving that when you play d4/c4.

So you're not unpredictable, you don't have an advantage... what is the point, then? Other than that you just want to play all the lines and don't care how you score, which is fine but not a serious attempt at a repertoire, it's a personal preference and not something you need anyones advice about. If you had acknowledged that fact from the beginning we wouldn't be debating anything, as no one could ever tell you not to personally feel like playing something. The point of your repertoire is what?

"In this kind of opening, if you make a mistake, typically, you won't get a completely lost position, you won't get mated, you won't lose tons of material, you will just get a small subtle positional disadvantage, no biggies."

"You now stated plainly that your opening will lead you, the white player, to be at a disadvantage."

No. You misread. I said "IF you make a mistake". And I didn't say "if I make a mistake" or "if White makes a mistake". I said "if YOU make a mistake". So the statement applies to my opponent as much as it applies to me, the statement applies to the Black player as much as it applies to the White player.

I don't want to debate one person. I want to get the opinions of many different people.

ibrust, our debate can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

"No. You misread. I said "IF you make a mistake. And I didn't say "if I make a mistake" or "if White makes a mistake". I said "if YOU make a mistake". So the statement applies to my opponent as much as it applies to me, the statement applies to the Black player as much as it applies to the White player.

Just by stating this following our establishing the Lasker goes to depth 17 at 2000 elo on lichess, a fact you previously denied, you are acknowledging the likelihood of you making a mistake. Because that is the progression of the conversation. Your opponent isn't liable to make a mistake the same way you are, because this is the main defense your opponent plays meanwhile you're playing countless others...

It is good to play a variety of openings for fun / learning purposes, maybe having a secondary opening is nice in a competitive context, but if your goal is to create a serious competitive repertoire you simply wouldn't play 4-5 main lines of different repertoires like you are doing.

Carry onward!

I edited the first post.

Here is my 2 cents. The OP should narrow the scope of openings he/she plans to employ.

Here is why:

I have based my repertoire around 1.d4 2. Nf3 and 3.e3. (I think... and still do, the pawn formations, and resulting positions are hard for Black to pull me out of my book) Yet, what I found is there is a lot more theory than I realized.

I play the Colle (both variations, )

Against 1...d5 one has to know both variation. Black in thwarting one of the Colle variations allows the other. I mainly focused on Koltanowski var, leaning Zuckertort lines where needed.

Against 1...d5 Black has a lot at there disposal. The Pseudo Grunfeld, The Accelerated Qc7/E5 lines, Focusing on the Koltanowsi Var ... Nbd7, Early b7-b6, Early c5-c4 and Nc6 mainlines. Then you got the various Anti-Colle defenses.

Theory wise I haven't even got to the Indian defenses.

I also will caution the original poster to be skeptical about where and by whom they pull there opening prep from. The London, The Torre.... i.e. all the D4 variants have been subjected to Snake oils salesmen... Lot's of GARBAGE OUT THERE ON THESE SYSTEM OPENINGS.

GM's who have NEVER played these openings, write books on them and have kept regurgitating bad lines for white for decades!!! ... (the Chess Novice drops $$ on the book, plays the openings, and runs into a brick wall as they move up the elo ladder, then drops the opening repertoire (only to have to reconstruct a new one)

Narrow the scope. and get solid analysis...

:tup :tup :tup :scream :scream :scream

I guess the question I have is how well does your repertoire hold up to various lines?

Most lines filled with theory exist in order to maintain White’s advantage.

You seem to be wanting to avoid these theory rich lines which makes me wonder how good these lines you have selected actually are.

The 1…d5 lines will be the 1st hurdle of lines to over come.

The move 2…Nf6 seems to keep Black position most flexible as well.

3. Bg5 - I think Black will play Ne4

3. Bf4 - I think Black will play c5 and their is very pesky line with Qb6 which forces you to play Nc3. I never liked the Nc3 line as white. I hated it so much that I stopped playing 2.Nf3 in favor of 2.Bf4 as an effort to avoid the line. Your playing 2. Nf3 as part of your repertoire so you would have to be comfortable playing that Nc3 line as white.

3. c4 - I think Black can play QGA, QGD, or Slav - Those lines are full of theory.

3. e3 - I think Black has already equalized.

—————————

The 1…Nf6 - e6 structures are another concern.

You avoid the Nimzo Indian, but you still allow Bogo Indian & Queen Indian correct?

How do you plan to proceed I guess would be question.

————————————

The 1…Nf6 - g6 structures would probably be last big structures to tackle.

The KID’s & Gruenfeld lines are what you would expect.

Most people use KID to counter the London or Colle

KID kind of suffers vs. g3 line, but your not playing g3 line.

Are you going to play mainline vs. KID that would be interesting question?

Their is a line you can play with Bg5, c4, d4, and e3 type of structure which can do good against KID if the KID player doesn’t know what he is doing. He can get in big trouble.

I think it’s called Semi-Averbach or Averbach, but I could be mistaken on name.

The correct way for Black to play is to treat position like Benoni with c5 break.

Than Black is supposed to be ok. I don’t know if you will play that as white though.

- I don’t see any line you recommended which is holding up to Gruenfeld.

Based on everything you said, The Gruenfeld is going to destroy you.

I don’t see what your going to do exactly.

Maybe, you can elaborate some more on your plan.

Perhaps, you have something but I just over looked it.

Several decent plans are available for White against the Grunfeld. (After 1.d4 2.Nf3 and 3.e3)

My current favorite (David Rudel's Idea) Play it, and just sit back and watch Black's eyeballs bug out for several minuets.... White transposes into a bad, colors-reversed version of the Benoni ! This variation is so bad for White (or, in this case, Black) Stockfish 16.1 gives this a healthy .50 in White's favor and that's Black's best line. 

Then ya got..

If I choose to follow this idea of 1.d4 2.Nf3, in the first 2-3 years I will probably first start by playing only 5 setups:
- London
- Torre
- Colle-Koltanowski
- Colle-Zukertort
- c4, d4, e3, Bc1

Then, after a few years, I shall gradually widen my repertoire by adding more setups if I still want to.

I'm not sure if you're really explaining yourself correctly or not. There is a big difference between playing the london in a particular line vs. playing the london per se. Or the torre in a particular line vs. playing the torre per se. If you had a repertoire, like occurs in 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. c3, where if black plays something like 3... e6 you play 4. Bg5 the Torre; while if 3... g6 or 3... c6 you play Bf4 the london - here your repertoire is not exploding in size, yes you're playing different specific lines in different openings but that's perfectly reasonable. However, if you're saying what you seem to be - that you just plan on playing the entire colle, the entire torre, the entire london, blah blah blah... that's another matter. Which is my interpretation of what you're saying. Which I think is what you're saying, because only this would mix things up and "throw off" opponents in a tournament setting. But that's the part where you go off into generally bad idea territory.

If over years you wanted to just branch out and try different specific lines in specific positions, that'd also make sense. So maybe after 3... e6 you're playing the Torre, but you also pick up 3... e6 the london sometimes. Your repertoire is only minimally growing in size there. But again, if you're just playing 3... Bf4 every game, or 3... Bg5 every game - if there's no cohesion to your repertoire - you will just drown in theory.

On the other hand, it's probably good for a players development to have a main repertoire but then play sidelines just to get exposure to different ideas. Still the player has a main repertoire that is compact and that they'd use in serious situations.

I saw post #50

I didn’t respond to his post because I was waiting to see how the OP was planing to respond.

I was hoping to talk about what OP had to say + what Pcalugaru had to say in same post.

The lines Pcalugaru showed are not theoretically correct.

Most Gruenfeld players have also played King’s Indian Defense lines.

For the above reason, they will not play the moves Pcalugaru was showing.

In the above position, I would play 2…g6.

The move 2…d5 is more of a Slav or Queen Gambit type of move.

The move 2…g6 is more fitting for a Gruenfeld or KID type of position.

————————————-

At this point, White next move can influence what Black does next.

If White plays 3. Bf4, I would play 3…d6 to blunt the Bishop

My position would turn into more of a KID line which does well vs. London.

If White plays 3. Bg5, I would play 3…Bg7 Maintaining flexibility with my line.

My position would still be very flexible with both options available Gruenfeld or KID

If White plays 3. e3, I would play 3…d5 - The move e3 is passive and none threatening.

My position would turn into a better version of a Gruenfeld at least I think so.

I think the toughest move for White would be 3. c4, It’s sort of a tricky line.

Black can play 3…d5, but it is not regular Gruenfeld.

It is the Neo-Gruenfeld and I have never really liked Neo-Gruenfeld.

The Neo-Gruenfeld feels weaker to me vs. the regular Gruenfeld.

The reason I avoid playing it is because of the below line.

The Neo-Gruenfeld has Knight on F3.

The Regular Gruenfeld has Knight on C3.

Just to show you the comparison.

White gets Big center, but it comes under heavy attack so Black often has good pressure.

Black knight also traded which causes white to respond.

Black follow up moves are all designed to pressure d4 so they are very harmonious and they feel as if Black is the one on the attack with constant pressure.

When you compare the above line to Neo-Gruenfeld, you can see the Knight on d5 can’t trade any longer so it gets pushed around. It doesn’t feel like Black is pressuring any more.

The Knight on d5 is also very shaky.

It’s not clear where it should go or what it should be doing.

This is why I don’t like to play 3…d5.

Instead, I try to delay a move, I play 3…Bg7

If White plays 4.Nc3, I can play 4…d5 and the line can transpose.

The problem is I think it’s bad for White to do exchange variation at that point.

I am pretty sure this is bad for White because of the Knight on f3.

I think in the normal Gruenfeld Exchange line.

The King’s Knight goes to e2.

The King’s Knight on f3 allows Black to play killer Bg4 move later on.

I am pretty sure that isn’t how they are supposed to play, but I don’t play the White of this line very much so I don’t know 100%.

So in this position, you would have to play

- Qb3 - Russian Line

- e3 - Quiet line is name of it if I remember.

- Bg5 - I don’t remember the name of it

- cxd5 is playable, but you have to follow up with Bd2 because I think the e4

(Exchange Line Transposition isn’t good)

——————————————

Another thing to mention is the g3 line

I showed what would happen if white plays Nc3, but g3 is actually a very deadly line as well.

I have tried playing d6 in this position (KID set up)

Its pretty bad. White g3 line is tough as nails.

You can’t really do King side attack on it.

The g3 line is also very positional which means they can sit on the position.

I tried a KID line recommended by Bronstein which featured d6 + c6, but it still didn’t have the desired effect I wanted it to have.

David Bronstein had some amazing wins with Black against g3 line.

I never was able to replicate any of them in my games.

The position felt miserable.

————————————

I also tried the d5 line against the g3 line.

I didn’t like that line either.

I didn’t like the trades.

The best line I found was c6.

I think c6 is the killer move.

Yep - The c6 + d5 combo makes sure Black keeps pawn on d5.

It’s very equal rock solid defense against White.

Yeah, Its tough to say what the OP should do.

The g6 lines are tough nut to crack.

indeed. I don't have to read every comment or post to infer this conversation is going in circles. Some points go on tangents here and here or redirected "there" at a certain point. Serious players have offered valid concerns, counterpoints. Over-explanations. {whew!}

indeed2. I have to tread carefully not to offend anyone ("name & shame") but okay...a lot of overdramazation by certain parties (maybe meant to effect discord or ... ?) really makes some arguments seem superficial. To the point that you're knocking yourself into a brick wall.

But people do indeed play the Pseudo Grunfeld against 1.d4 2.Nf3 and 3.e3 and Yes from a White point of view those lines I showed are indeed theoretically sound. White need not fear the pseudo Grunfeld.

And you have to be careful about having the perspective e3 is passive. People used to say that about the London.

let's note ... What you advocated... allows g3 fianchetto main lines, Classical main lines , The Bayonet attack, The Torre attack , a transposition into a couple Pirc lines , the Barry attack, a London (or a sub-variant of the London. )

There are pros and cons to everything

In the 30+ years I've been playing, it's been a Life-long journey of Practice, Study, and Tribulations to hone my 1. d4 d5, 1. d4 Nf6, 1. d4 (whatever) 2. Nf3 into a "system". A Cohesive Repertoire only Self-serving to Me, and only I alone. Trends come n go, games have been agonizingly lost or triumphantly saved and surprisingly won. Most have been deservedly Well-played due my obsessive passion to play it the way I want to. Sorry for the Monologue.

Thing is, 1. d4, 2. Nf3 is limited. Doesn't give anyone (including me) any validation or pretense to say it's "End all". Far from it. Good on you if you have the gumption to say so...that you have pretty much figured out Everything. Heh. From what I can tell, you have just scratched the Surface. I bid you n anyone best wishes to take it further than I have ever done at this point (and I'm pretty much done as far as researching and striving for more).

What you said is false. In the Exchange Grunfeld, White has two possible setups, and they are both equally good and equally popular among GMs:
- Nf3 followed by Be2
- 7.Bc4 8.Ne2

Nf3+Bc4 would be bad for White because of ...Bg4.

I did something similar based around 1.d4 2.Nf3 and 3. e3.

To do it... I had to go back in time and pull opening ideas from what they played when opening the game in this fashion was somewhat popular. (1890s to around 1940)

It's anything but theory light ( and I still tweak it)

What line are you talking about exactly?

Because I feel like I didn’t say anything False.

———————————

Are you talking about the Rb1 line?