Specialize or Diversify? Opening Study Philosophy

Pick one and stick to it. Inside big openings like the Spanish and the Queen's Gambit Declined you have various options, you can switch from one line to another if needed.

However, in some cases, you need to have both a solid and a sharp opening in your repertoire so you can adjust to circumstances (on this specific day you're bored with dull positions/you're facing a maniac/you need to play for a win). Moreso with black.

Also, in the long run, you need to expand your repertoire little by little and try new things from time to time (to improve as a player the number of positions you can play and to avoid routine).

I believe that it is better to specialize in a few openings than to generally know multiple openings. The only time that I remember deviating from my usual repertoire, is when I played an opponent I know well, and whose style requires me to play carefully.

Pick one and learn it. Later you can pick another as reserve when the first needs repair.

I disagree with the general consensus here. Studying a variety of openings exposes one to a variety of different ideas that can often cross over and allow one to understand that entire phase of the game better.

I don't think so. In this computer era openings are entirely based on concrete details, not general ideas. One idea that works well in some line totally doesn't work in another, very similar one. You have to remember all those nuances and details and therefore it's just too much work if you try to jump from one opening to another.

General ideas in the opening are taught by looking at whole games to build your chess culture, starting with the classics. This is a very important thing to do, but not really opening preparation.

I will have to disagree with my esteemed colleague Nerwal here.

Every top player and commentator talks about opening ideas and general methods, it's the whole point of openings in a way since you end up running out of concrete book and ideas on how to continue is all you have left. Ideas very, very often translate from one line to another. Every top player and commentator talks about how this opening reminds them of another opening where such and such. That's just how openings work - one bleeds into another very easily, especially in strategic openings, the tactical ones less. You can play the same opening and then on move 13 there's a choice leading to a slightly different game in each - it's perfectly normal to study both and have the ideas cross over from each other.

You may be referring to Watson's point about how the idea of chess theory in its most general and philosophical sense, like the hanging pawns theory or attack the base, is always trumped by concrete parts about an opening these days with computers. There's a big difference between saying the ideas don't NECESSARILY translate to a similar-looking line and saying they never do.

Secondly, the best players don't go down particular lines, they look for alternatives. The old trend was for the best players to stick far more rigidly to theory. You used to have super gms that only knew e4 or only knew d4 (of course they'd have picked up the main ideas almost by osmosis, but would have to spend years bringing it up to their high level).

These days all super gms know all the main openings and very often switch between d4 and e4. Carlsen has actually remarked recently that if you want to win you can't even really play the best lines anymore because they're all worked out to a draw. GMs have no problem playing something that gives -0.1 on the computer as white if they believe it looks good for a human to win.

It depends on who you are and what engages you. Jan Timman played just about everything and came close to being World Champion. Karpov played 1. e4 and 1. d4 and 1. c4 and more and was World Champion but with a more restricted overall repertoire. Botvinnik you could probably work out what opening he'd favour at certain points of his career without going to the trouble of asking him. Know Thyself. How much time to study diverse lines do you have? Are there position types you do well or badly in because of restrictions in your talent and vision? (I am subject to such restrictions myself) Do you want to develop a Universal Style meaning that losses while you learn don't matter because each loss teaches you something new about position types? There is no one good universal answer. As Mencken so sagely put it, "There is always a well-known answer to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong".

Pick 1 and expand within.

For example, if you go with the Scotch, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4, if Black plays 4...Bc5, learn 5.Nb3, 5.Be3, and 5.Nxc6, not just one of them. Diversify your position that way within the Scotch Complex.

If 4...Nf6, then diversify in places where White has multiple valid options.

Don't try to play multiple openings, but do expand and master the entirety of the one opening you are studying. Only after you have done that can you expand.

Like in my case, against 1.e4, I have played the French for 30 years as Black. I still play it occasionally, mostly via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5 with a direct transposition to the Exchange French.

Now, being significantly older, I am looking at simpler openings. So for the last 4 months or so, I have been playing the Petroff, and that used to be my backup to the French anyway back in the late 2010's. The Petroff and the Exchange French have a lot in common, and some other lines lead to French-like positions as well. So the openings at least mesh.

The last thing you want to do is try to play one opening just good enough to play it and then jump ship to another opening that is completely different. Stick with one opening but master it in full, then in about 25 years, possibly expand to another opening that has some similarities to the one you already know.