A limited repertoire
We played Barking on Thursday night. Whenever we play Barking I seem to play the same opponent (not always on the same board), and I always have white. Three times we have met in the last couple of years or so, and three times we have played the same line of the Two Knights Defence.
In the first game I should have won after being given a pawn, but only drew. In the second game it was my turn to give away a pawn, and though I probably ought to have held the opposite-coloured bishop endgame that followed, I failed to do so. In the third game no pawns were given away, and we played a fairly dull draw.
So when I found that I had white against the same player once again, I naturally felt that it might be nice to vary the opening. But as each move came, I realized that I just don't have a backup repertoire. The thought process goes something like this:
"Well, I've only ever played e4 so, of course:"
1.e4 e5
"I don't know anything at all about the King's Gambit, and there aren't really any other serious moves here, so:"
2. Nf3 Nc6
"Well, I'd kind of like to take up the Spanish... but to play my first ever game with it now, in a serious match against a strong opponent? I don't think so."
3. Bc4
... and given the opportunity I imagine that I would have gone on like this, quite possibly talking myself into completely repeating one of the earlier games!
My opponent was braver than I am and varied at this point with 3. ... Bc4. Braver but perhaps wronger, as he was out of his book almost immediately and played a thoroughly dubious line. The rest of the game went splendidly from my point of view, turning into a winning attack on his unfortunately placed king. (The only disappointment was that when I chose to cash in the material, I missed a mating line. No difference to the result, of course, but it's always nice to deliver mate. I'll leave this as a not very difficult exercise for the reader.)
Should I be worried about my limited repertoire? (If I were a strong player, I could call myself a specialist!) I can't think of any game I've played where I could attribute a lost point or half-point to not having an alternative opening available, which suggests that it's not all that important. It would probably be good for me to be exposed to more types of positions, and to that end a few more strings to my bow would be desirable. But this is very long-term thinking: would effort spent learning a new system really be more valuable than the same effort spent studying endgames, or tactics? How many different opening lines do you play?
In the first game I should have won after being given a pawn, but only drew. In the second game it was my turn to give away a pawn, and though I probably ought to have held the opposite-coloured bishop endgame that followed, I failed to do so. In the third game no pawns were given away, and we played a fairly dull draw.
So when I found that I had white against the same player once again, I naturally felt that it might be nice to vary the opening. But as each move came, I realized that I just don't have a backup repertoire. The thought process goes something like this:
"Well, I've only ever played e4 so, of course:"
1.e4 e5
"I don't know anything at all about the King's Gambit, and there aren't really any other serious moves here, so:"
2. Nf3 Nc6
"Well, I'd kind of like to take up the Spanish... but to play my first ever game with it now, in a serious match against a strong opponent? I don't think so."
3. Bc4
... and given the opportunity I imagine that I would have gone on like this, quite possibly talking myself into completely repeating one of the earlier games!
My opponent was braver than I am and varied at this point with 3. ... Bc4. Braver but perhaps wronger, as he was out of his book almost immediately and played a thoroughly dubious line. The rest of the game went splendidly from my point of view, turning into a winning attack on his unfortunately placed king. (The only disappointment was that when I chose to cash in the material, I missed a mating line. No difference to the result, of course, but it's always nice to deliver mate. I'll leave this as a not very difficult exercise for the reader.)
Should I be worried about my limited repertoire? (If I were a strong player, I could call myself a specialist!) I can't think of any game I've played where I could attribute a lost point or half-point to not having an alternative opening available, which suggests that it's not all that important. It would probably be good for me to be exposed to more types of positions, and to that end a few more strings to my bow would be desirable. But this is very long-term thinking: would effort spent learning a new system really be more valuable than the same effort spent studying endgames, or tactics? How many different opening lines do you play?
Comments