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

I was thinking about what openings I should choose as White. I had the idea of playing 1.d4 2.Nf3 and then play most of the openings that can result from these two moves, except those that involve g3. So my White repertoire would be very wide, it would include London, Torre, Colle-Koltanowski, Colle-Zukertort, and many openings with c4 (Slow Slav, QGD, QGA, etc). These openings tend to be slow, quiet, solid, positional, strategic, theory-light, understanding is much more important than memorization. Even though my repertoire would include very many openings, I still think that I would be able to learn them all, because they tend to be theory-light. Learning this White repertoire will take me about 3 times more time than learning one average White repertoire, so I think it's still manageable. The point is to be impredictable and to be very difficult to prepare against OTB. I won't get an advantage out of the opening, but my opponent won't get an advantage either, even if he spends hours analyzing my opening repertoire, we will just get an equal position, and I'm okay with that. Do you think this is a good idea?

Theory-light and 1.d4 don’t go in the same sentence

Makes perfect sense. Bent Larsen wrote a great repertoire book 'Solide Åbninger' back in 1980 (in Danish) where White's play is based on just 1.d4 and 2.Nf3.

I think you can do it. I did something very similar - I just started with 1.Nf3 and played 2.g3 and whatever position I ended up in I would just play chess. It worked quite well. I see no reason why your 1.d4 2.Nf3 wouldn't work.

@1

"playing 1.d4 2.Nf3" ++ OK

"London, Torre, Colle-Zukertort, Colle–Koltanowski, and openings with c4 Slow Slav, QGD, QGA"
++ Better pick one and play it exclusively to accumulate experience.

"All these openings are slow, quiet, solid, positional, strategic, theory-light" ++ No.

"understanding is much more important than memorization" ++ Always.

"my repertoire would include very many openings" ++ Too many.

"I would be able to learn them all" ++ No.

"they are all theory-light" ++ No.

"be impredictable and to avoid opening preparation" ++ Are you Magnus Carlsen and is everybody preparing to draw against you? Do not fear preparation. Tal, Fischer, Kasparov were predictable: Sicilian Najdorf and King's Indian Defense as black, Ruy Lopez as white.

"I won't get an advantage out of the opening, but my opponent won't get an advantage either"
++ As always in chess. Chess is a draw.

"even if he spends hours analyzing my opening repertoire, we will just get an equal position"
++ As always in chess. Chess is a draw.

"I'm okay with that" ++ OK.

"I don't want to enter a memorization contest, I just want to play chess" ++ Great.

"Do you think this is a good idea?" ++ 1 d4 2 Nf3 is a good idea, but the many openings not.

a) d4 openings, including the zuckertort, are not theory light. If your goal it to "just play chess" something like the nimzo larsen (1. b3) will much better achieve that.

b) Unpredictability is indeed very important. But in online chess... where you aren't in a tournament setting, and you aren't playing the same opponent multiple times in a row or having your games analyzed beforehand... unpredictability is not achieved by playing many different moves in a given position, but rather by playing an uncommon or strange set of moves. Some lines in the zuckertort will achieve this, and can be played. But it wouldn't be necessary for you to play many different moves to achieve this.

c) It is natural to gravitate toward one of the transpositional 1st or 2nd move setups, like the Reti / English / Van Geet / Trompowsky / London. These all feature some committal move, whether it be a knight or bishop or pawn move.

With the zuckertort setup - it goes in the Reti camp. If you get good with the zuckertort the next evolution of your repertoire would probably be to play a zuckertort-based Reti system.

The problem with your approach though... is even with d4 / Nf3 played this is still very non-committal. Because most d4 openings feature Nf3 at some point. So you're basically saying... well I intend to play all of d4. It's not realistic... d4 is very theory heavy contrary to your statements.

The next question you'd need to answer is... do you want to play c4 based zuckertort, or a more Bg5 or Bf4 based zuckertort, or a more g3 based zuckertort, maybe even e3. Moves that are more committal.

By playing a variety of openings with a common set of committal moves... the openings actually can transpose and tie into one another, and you can end up playing different move orders to reach the same openings. And you'll also find that sometimes the positions, or similar ones, just pop up on the board when the opponent plays an uncommon move.

I play all sorts of different openings as white that involve Nc3. I don't play c4 openings, I felt they were too theory-heavy. But against the french I play the Paulsen, against the caro-kann I play things like the fantasy variation, two knights, goldman, etc. I also play the Jobava. I've messed around with the Vienna game in e4e5 setups as well. For a while I also tried playing the Trompowsky (Bg5), so I experimented with the Byrne variation of the Pirc / the Richter-Veresov. Then I expanded to include some Bf4 positions - London / Jobava. Eventually I settled on the Van Geet (1. Nc3), because most the positions I liked did involve Nc3 and could be transposed into from the Van Geet.

So I didn't do this completely intentionally, it was more like an evolution of trying out different repertoires, trying to get the variations to transpose, remembering what I liked, reassessing... etc. and things just seemed to coalesce.

d) I still feel like it's good to keep learning different lines on the side, I don't like the idea of just always playing the same moves and never trying out anything else - one approach would be to learn the openings you face by playing them yourself, or just to learn new variations within the openings you play, or openings with similar structures, etc.. It's going to lead to a deeper understanding. And one thing I notice that does characterize good players and distinguishes them from club players is they often are very flexible.

Still though I think it is necessary to have a core repertoire otherwise... you're just not going to reach a certain level of mastery.

At your level all you will need is an anti-blundering white & black repertoire.

He was 1800 rapid at one point and his latest game is 92% accuracy, he's past the "just don't blunder" stage.

Looking back at all the openings you want to play - Torre, London, etc. I think you should check the Saragossa opening out. It can transpose into the zuckertort sometimes, but other times it has its own unique lines which are generally favorable. If your goal is to 'just play chess' i.e. avoid your opponents book while playing those lines I think the Saragossa would actually be a great way of doing it - https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/sagarossa-opening-1-c3?page=1

Of the 7 setups that I want to play, only 3 of them include the move c3, but all 7 of them include the moves d4 and Nf3. So, in order to preserve maximum flexibility, I should start 1.d4 2.Nf3, which takes firm control of the e5 square and therefore prevents Black from playing ...e5 without preparing it with ...d6 and ...Nbd7. 1.c3 allows Black to immediately play 1...e5.

After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6, if White wants to play the Torre, 3.Bg5 isn't very good because of 3...Ne4, so White should play 3.c3 and then after 3...e6 or 3...g6 or 3...c6 White can play 4.Bg5 to get into the Torre. 3.c3 makes sense, it waits for Black to make a move that will allow White to get into the Torre. But 1.c3 is senseless, it prepares d4, but White could simply have played 1.d4.

1.c3 only makes sense if White has in his repertoire
at least one of these three: London, Torre, Colle–Koltanowski
AND
at least one of these two: Macleod Attack (1.e4 e5 2.c3 or 1.c3 e5 2.e4), Sicilian Alapin
But I am not interested into transposing into the Macleod Attack or the Sicilian Alapin, so 1.c3 does not make any sense for me.

Of the 7 setups that I want to play, only 3 of them include the move c3, but all 7 of them include the moves d4 and Nf3

Well sure but your repertoire actually doesn't make any sense to begin with since you want to play pretty much all of 1. d4 which... is just not practical. And I think you even justified this by saying the lines in 1. d4 were "low on theory" which is just complete nonsense.

But 1.c3 is senseless, it prepares d4, but White could simply have played 1.d4.

No, not at all but apparently you find it confusing so allow me to explain it for you:

a) white does not have to play 2. d5, as you yourself have just pointed out. For example.... 1. c3 c5 2. e4 - this is the alapin. 1. c3 e5 2. e4 - this is the macleod attack as you just pointed out yourself.

b) the black player is far more likely to play 1... e5 which leads into favorable lines such as the QGD exchange while bypassing other 1. d4 defenses

c) the black player is liable to handle the transposition incorrectly, this alone has value

But what is senseless is your idea of playing all of 1. d4 as a repertoire

You think my repertoire "doesn't make any sense" and is "not practical" because it is too wide, but yet your 1.c3 repertoire is almost just as wide as my repertoire.

No, not even close actually...

I want to play a large fraction of 1.d4, but far from all of 1.d4.

My repertoire will not include:
- g3, which includes the Catalan, the pseudo-Catalan, the mainline against the QGD Tarrasch, the mainline against the Dutch
- f4, which includes the Modern Benoni Taimanov variation and the KID Four Pawns Attack
- f3 and Nge2
- the Exchange QGD
- the Nimzo
- the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
- and I am not sure whether my repertoire will include the Jobava, the Benoni (d5 against ...c5), c4 and e4 against the KID

And all these variations that my repertoire will not include precisely happen to be those that are the sharpest and most theory-heavy.

(You made a typo. You meant d4, not d5.)

But in these two openings, the entire idea of c3 is to prepare d4. In the Sicilian Alapin, White will play d4 on move 3 or 4 or 5.

Lol

- The exchange QGD is far smaller than the modern or three knights QGD. Playing the QGD exchange would reduce the size of your repertoire, not increase it.

- If you could somehow play the blackmar-diemer that would again reduce the size of your repertoire, not increase it. Because it is a forcing gambit and it bypasses the alternative positional lines, whenever you restrict blacks options your repertoire becomes smaller. Saying that you don't intend on playing 2. e4 and going into the blackmar-diemer is not an argument that your repertoire is small.

- Likewise saying you don't intend on playing f3 or Nge2 is not an argument that your repertoire is small. Pretty much no one plays these moves anyway. But you're correct, I am not claiming that you intend on playing literally every one of whites responses in every position, very good.

- you've avoided the nimzo via the anti-nimzo setup d4/c4/Nf3, but instead you end up facing the QID - your repertoire isn't small this is just a different line.

- instead of the Tarrasch you will get either a semi-tarrasch or a pseudo-tarrasch. You actually get more tarrasch. But it doesn't matter - none of this is included in a typical london or torre repertoire. You are playing two repertoires. Which is larger than one. Not complicated

There are a good number of lines in 1. c3, but it is a coherent repertoire unlike what you have, and is not any larger than a typical 1. d4 or 1. e4 repertoire (a coherent one).

You can only very rarely reach the alapin from 2. d4 or 1. d4 > 2. c3. If your goal was to play the alapin you'd obviously just play 2. e4. You're correct that at some point in the game d4 will be played. This is a meaningless observation since 1. d4 won't lead to the same lines as 1. e4, but it is true.

Anyway, if you are set on this bad idea of playing d4/c4 + london / torre / colle / everything else then why did you start this thread asking for any advice? Just go play your bad repertoire as you want to do.