Is it worth it to transition into more open lines when one is used to closed, positional games?

Question

I've played the French and Queen's Gambit, which tend to lead to more closed, positional play. I've played these openings consistently for roughly 25+ years now, with no set opening before then really. I did try to learn both the Center counter, or Scandinavian, and the Danish early but eventually gave up and played random moves (I was quite young). After that it was Petrov for a year, then on to closed games. I'm currently 38 and have been at closed positions now for 25+ years. By consistent I mean every single game I've played since then. If it is relevant my USCF is around 1500, with a peak of 1620.

Answer 1

From a strong expert:

Just because I find open games to be more fun, I would suggest playing more open games. Also a variety of openings will expand your knowledge. (Looking at your tournament history, you may already have enough knowledge.) Just like you don't quit smoking in one day, don't switch to overly aggressive opening. Try the Scotch, Vienna, or Giuoco Piano. These openings requires the learning of more opening traps, but they should improve your quality of play.

Assuming that you have the time to invest in studying an opening, learn the common positions and plans. If after trying this style you feel uncomfortable, go back to playing the closed/positional games. If the game is not fun, it is not worth playing.

When I reached expert level, I switched to a more positional game because I thought this is what was supposed to happen. I lost many games because I hid my talent.

Some GM said that he switched to d4 because he got lazy as he got old. Anna Zatonskih said that with d4, White can make more mistakes before losing the game. You could be hanging on to the safety of known avenues.

Answer 2

My advice is to change openings only if you don't enjoy them and to practice tactics for when a game opens up. This is because:

1. The aim of the opening is to reach a playable middlegame. You reach a playable middlegame in any reputable opening, whether it is the wide open King's Gambit or the closed Advanced French
2. If you enjoy the openings you play, stick with them. Chess is a game afterall, and if you are having fun with the openings you use, then that's great!
3. Most games can be opened up if the opponent wants to do badly enough, so practice tactics to be prepared for open games. Think of the French Exchange Variation for example

Answer 3

I think you should be playing open games, tactical chess, not positional chess and closed/semi-closed positions. Positional chess is inherently more difficult than open, tactical games. It's sounds to me you suffer from the classic idea that "closed" positions somehow protect you from tactics. If you are "afraid" of a tactical fight, become better at tactics! That is a learnable skill. Positional play is way more difficult and requires a deeper understanding to become a "positional" player, which maybe you think you are, or more accurately, you think that is what you want to become. But, most games die by tactics. I've never lost a game to a player who outplayed me positionally - in the end, tactics decides it almost all the time. Of course, be aware of positional motifs in a tabiya, but that is experience talking there.

You should go out swinging as a C-player and trial by fire instead of ducking for cover at every opportunity. "Closed" positions for 38+ years as a C-Player should tell you something. It ain't workin'.

You're chasing the wrong kite. You need to be at least 2100+ to even think about defining your "style" in that respect.

I would go for the most violent openings you can find - Scotch, Giuoco Piano, Kings Gambit - at Class C you don't worry about theory in the least. Just know enough to get into the middlegames and take the gloves off and punch each other in the face. Last man standing.

FYI: USCF 1871

Answer 4

Your question is interesting but not to the point, if you allow me to say. You are speaking about openings and your problem is not about opening. When you say you have been playing closed openings for years, what do you really mean? Are you playing those out of interest or out of fear or prudence? I would advice you, given your rating, to restudy from the beginning the game of chess. Study all of its history with commented games and try to make progress tactically. Practise and practise again until you get a grip on tactics: this is the major step to mastering the basics of chess. You should be prudent: books for beginners and weaker players always insist on ideas, and they are right, but you should not forget that a minimal mastery of concrete tactical chess is unmistakenly necessary. There is no progress without this. Playing closed openings closes road for your progress. There are good books for you to study: just think of Yusupov's course in several volumes, for instance. You read the book with a board aside (computer also) and you think what you want to play and what could be annoying to you. Then when reaching your conclusion, you look up with computer assistance and finally you try to figure out why computer moves are better than yours. This is a very rude way to learn but you will make progress. You can keep on playing your openings, they are not bad, but play them with an open mind and try to master tactics. You rating will then go up. I know this is not comfortable, but there is no such thing as comfort when trying to progress. Maybe you will even lose elo points in the beginning, and so what, if you risk nothing you get nothing. Just try, it's a game, open and closed. Open games are more dangerous in the short term BUT you have to master them to understand what underlies closed positions when those get opened. Closing positions is not an aim in itself, it's just a means. Sorry for being so direct but i really want to help you ahead. Greetings!