Andrey -
You are asking the wrong question.
As Phototone noted, the first issue is that contrast choice is an artistic decision, and only you can decide what is right for you. Some people (Ralph Gibson, for example) prefer a more contrasty result, while others (Bill Abranowicz) tend toward lower contrast. Different strokes for different folks.
Another issue is that the selection of paper grade is inextricably tied to the range of contrasts in your negatives. If you are sloppy in exposing and processing your negatives, you will probably need a wider range of paper contrasts to accommodate the wider range of negative contrast. But if you are anal about exposure and development you can get a fairly narrow range of negative contrasts, and can then be satisfied with fewer paper grades.
Finally, contrast grade is not something that is highly standardized. You will find that Brand X paper will yield a totally different result from Brand Y paper using the same filter. And switching brand (or vintage) of filters while keeping the paper the same will also lead to different results.
My approach to printing was influenced by Abranowicz, and as a result I tend to want to see detail over a very wide range of shadow through highlights. I try (but don't always succeed) to expose and develop negatives such that I can achieve the print quality that I want with a contrast range of 1 to 3 with my filters and using Ilford MG papers. If I am using Kentmere papers, I find that I need a contrast range using the same filters of 0 through 2. And if I were to switch to another brand of filters (or even a new set of filters in the same brand), I would probably get a different answer.