Minimum and maximum Elo rating for each opening

In this thread, you can give some openings and give the minimum and/or the maximum FIDE Elo rating at which they remain good choices.

If an opening has a maximum Elo rating of X, this would mean that if your goal is to reach X Elo or less this opening would be a good choice, but if your goal is to reach more than X Elo this opening would be a bad choice, this opening is good enough to reach X Elo but not to reach more than that. Of course it is possible to reach GM level (2500 Elo) with absolutely any openings, even garbage openings like the King's Gambit, Budapest Gambit, Sicilian Wing Gambit, but yet these openings are not good choices to reach GM level, IMO the maximum Elo for these openings is about 1800.

I'm talking about this opening as an ONLY weapon. So the French Exchange is playable as a secondary weapon up to 3000 Elo, but IMO as an only weapon it is only playable up to 2000 Elo.

The openings that are commonly played by super-GMs (e.g. Najdorf, Nimzo, Semi-Slav, Grunfeld) don't have a maximum Elo.

I'm particularly interested about knowing what's the maximum Elo rating for the following White systems:
- the London
- the Torre
- the Colle–Koltanowski
- the Colle–Zukertort
- the "Reversed QGD Tarrasch system" where White plays 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.c4 4.e3 closing the Queen's Bishop behind the Pawn chain (this does not have a maximum Elo when it is played against the QGA, the Slav and the Semi-Slav, but it does have a maximum Elo when it is played against the QGD, the QID, the KID and the Benoni)
- the "Catalan system" where White plays (in some order) d4, c4, Nf3, g3, Bg2, O-O against everything (many say that beginners shouldn't play the Catalan)

1 : 2400

2 : no idea

3 : 2000

4 : 2100

5 : no idea

6 : I guess 2400 by playing subtly enough, otherwise 2000 or 2100

I think if you put the work into any specific reasonable opening that you can achieve high rating 2600+ because rating measures the consistency at which the player performs.

You can't go on this ... This is pure logical fallacy

Ding Liren vs Ian Nepomniachtchi
Nepomniachtchi - Ding World Championship Match (2023), Astana, Kazakhstan, rd 12, Apr-26
Queen Pawn Game: Colle System (D04) · 1-0

Wei Yi vs Vidit Santosh GujrathiTata Steel Masters (2024), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 13, Jan-28Colle System (D05) · 1-0

If the Colle is an opening for 2000-2100. What are two super elite GM's using it at crucial moments in their tournaments? (I'd also look at the games ... the tactics that were flying were not 2100 elo tactics .)

You could have mentioned Vincent Keymer and Matthias Bluebaum who from memory play or have played the Colle system against GMs or even Arthur Youssoupov... and you can disapprove the London system 2400 speaking of victories from Ding Liren against Nepo or games from Alireza Firouzja in the Norway Chess 2024.

I also remember me what the op said :

"Of course it is possible to reach GM level (2500 Elo) with absolutely any openings, even garbage openings like the King's Gambit, Budapest Gambit, Sicilian Wing Gambit, but yet these openings are not good choices to reach GM level, IMO the maximum Elo for these openings is about 1800."

Otherwise the topic can't be taken too seriously because it makes a very subjective and strange kind of game which is basically not serious and I say 2000 and 2100 because this is what I believe if in practice a player only plays the Colle system and "never studied or played anything else" because for ex. Ding Liren didn't become world champion by only playing the Colle system (and if it is still taken too seriously from the moment where a strong bot could beat any player with the Colle system that means that the opening is good enough to potentially be able to beat any human player)

This thread is pointless. It is more harmful than helpful. 

Any opening can be played by any level of player with success. 

of course there are sharp openings, popular with top grandmasters who have memorized long sequences of moves. But the same opening can also be played by a newbie, who has memorized 2 or 3 moves and has then learned some of the general themes of the opening. 

for example, I strongly recommend today’s video commentary on the match between MVL and Firouza. All three games were Sicilians. But the first two games had novel positions in the first 8 moves. The commentators, GM Naroditsky and IM sachdev, were great. The games had a rapid time control—10 minutes. The commentators explained the themes clearly. Game 1 went from an opening to an endgame and the commentators explained how the two were connected. It was one of the best examples of commentary I have seen. And most of what they said addressed the themes—not long sequences of moves—that could be understood by players under 1500. So complicated openings like the Sicilian Najdorf CAN BE TAUGHT TO NEWBIES. 

to go back to the initial question, just about every opening has been played by world champions. carlsen played the London. Spassky played 1. b3. Fischer played the Benoni. Lasker used to play inferior moves to get the opponents out of prep, and he then wiped the floor with them.

As a follow-up, I think it is a good idea for beginners to play a variety of openings. They should look over their games and learn from their mistakes. In that way, they learn various openings and find which one suits them. 

When I started playing chess seriously in high school, my school teammates all selected different openings. As white, one played e4, another played d4, another played c4, and another played Nf3. As Black, we played four different openings against e4 (e5, e6, c6, and c5) and four different openings against d4 (d5, Gruenfeld, king’s Indian, Benoni/Benko Gambit). Since we played lots of practice games against one another and we analyzed all of our games against other teams, we all learned a variety of openings fairly quickly. We all did pretty well in USCF tourneys, reaching Class A or higher within two years. 

this is an approach I have recommended to high school teams for years.

Barring risky gambits... All openings and defenses are playable. IMO, rating opening's by an elo is moot

" The age of securing a win through an opening advantage is dead at the GM level" Now it's stay away from the chess engine's 1st and 2nd level lines (because your opponent is booked up on all the latest ) ... and play lower level sidelines to pull your opponent into uncharted waters

I believe the goal is to have fun and play... all while not caring if your playing an opening some wanabe GM thinks is a joke...

this is the wrong approach. A lot of secondary openings are playable at a very high level so long as it becomes very hard to prepare agaisnt you. This means, you must either play a lot of openings in which case its unlikely they will prepare deeply in your sideline or you play it so rarely that they have no idea you play it.

Also a lot of openings are good for a specific role but terrible at others. For example, a GM can play the philidor defense as a draw weapon, but as a must win defense agaisnt 2300's its a poor choice.

even something like the colle, the main reason you dont see it more often at very high levels is that you have better choices so objectively speaking even if the colle where ok on its own merits, it would almost never see play. OR take a look at the legions of ancient ruy lopez lines for black which are widly unpopular despite being fully sound , the main reason you dont see them is not so much their own inadequacy but the superiority of the berlin and a small number of other variations in equalizing quicker. (im a big devotee of the old steinitz defense myself)

They are some hard limits. take something like the Latvian gambit for example, OTB, there is probably a level where you simply wont be able to keep this in your repertoire. the minute you as a strong player (2000+ FIDE) are pegged as a latvian player, you bet people will learn how to refute you as you are a walking free point if they do their homework deep enough, But this level of hard rough really only occurs for the worst of defenses (and mostly with black, you can get away with a lot more with white).

Today i lost a good game vs 1.e4 e5 2.d3!? nf6 3.f4!?. i never even seen this before. i wonder what is the upper rating ceiling of such a move? its kind of a dumb question. There is no obvious refutation and there is enough material in the game for any result

I have heard that beginners and intermediate players should not play the Catalan because it is theory-heavy and requires the White player to spend a lot of time memorizing opening theory. Is this true? And if yes, does this apply only to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3, or does it also apply to the Fianchetto variations of the KID, Benoni, Grunfeld, Slav, Dutch? Because the term "the Catalan" is most often used to refer only to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3, but sometimes the term "the Catalan" is used with a wider meaning to refer to the system where White plays d4, c4, Nf3, g3, Bg2, O-O (in some order) regardless of what Black plays.

its somewhat true, to play these lines best requires a lot of work and its doubtful if your average class player will throw 15 moves of theory agaisnt you. So you end up in a scenario whre you overbooked for weaker players and underbooked for stronger players (since you rarely get to practice long book lines)

I played the Catalan back in the 1980s. At that time, it had the reputation of being drawish and out of fashion. It was not played much at the highest levels. I liked it precisely because it was not very popular and so it gave players lots of room for creativity.

Carlsen, Giri, and other top players revived the Catalan in the last 15 years or so. So it is fashionable and now has lots of “book.” But it is still playable at all levels.

dont think that you have to memorize the book lines to play an opening. Focus on the themes. Then play it.

You will learn an opening faster and more effectively by playing it and then reviewing your game afterward than by trying to memorize all the book lines.

@10

"beginners and intermediate players should not play the Catalan" ++ It is hard to play right.

"does this apply only to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3" ++ The essense of the Catalan is to gambit pawn c4 and not recapture Bxc4 as in the Queen's Gambit. White gets compensation for the pawn c4 if black accepts it with his active bishop on g2 and square e5 for Nf3. Example:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2122755

"does it also apply to the Fianchetto variations of the KID, Benoni, Grunfeld, Slav, Dutch?"
++ No. On the contrary: the Catalan is sharp, while fianchetto variations of those openings are less sharp than other tries.

"Catalan is most often used to refer only to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3" ++ Yes.

"Catalan is used with a wider meaning to refer to the system where White plays d4, c4, Nf3, g3, Bg2, O-O (in some order) regardless of what Black plays." ++ No.

Of course I'm not 2500 elo so this is all just a guess, but based on what I've read some GMs say about high elo and openings... people don't even really know the lines until you're at like 2200, and only around 2400 does it become a serious issue. That matches my experience where even the 2000 rated players I run into don't really know the lines in the classical sicilian, at least not very deep.

And for the question let's assume you mean as the main repertoire, not as a surprise weapon.. something people can prepare against.

So based on this info... this would be my guess:

1) London has been played in world championship matches with success, there is no elo cap to it.

2) Torre - it depends on which variation you're talking about, since you can transpose into it. If it's the variation where black plays e6 this is a fine position and there is no cap. If the position where black plays d5 - some good players still play this but I don't think it's good, good players can play anything, still my guess is it can be played reliably up til like 2500 elo. I'm also not a fan of the g6 variation.

3) Colle–Koltanowski - again I'd prefer to transpose into it from some c3 setup, there are lines where it does well and lines where it does very badly. But if you wanted to play this all the time... probably a good player can play anything but generally I wouldn't expect to see alot of success if you're using it as your main weapon beyond 2400

4) Colle-Zuckertort - I think my opinion is similar to the Colle-Koltanowski - it does much better against some of whites setups than others, but 2400ish+ I'd be looking for a more serious opening

5) not really familiar with this system

6) there's no cap to either the catalan or pseudo-catalan setup... I think sam shankland uses the pseudo-catalan as his main repertoire. And catalan is played all the time at top level

Elo is about much more than opening systems. It's about the positional and tactical decisions that you make along the way, once the game has left book.

None of the openings you described have anything objectively wrong with them - so there isn't really a wrong choice to be made. You can pick any of them and play it.

How far you climb depends on what you do once the opening phase has ended ... that's where games are won, lost, or drawn.

There may be a maximum for Englund Gambit, Danish Gambit, Grob...
There may be a minimum for Catalan, Najdorf, Sveshnikov, Grünfeld...