Need help deciding on some openings (black defences)

[James Byrne]

...

[Roger de Coverly]

Another factor in my decision is: I want the best combination with otb tournament play in mind,

There is a practical problem though. At levels below the Open, players don't often play the sharpest lines in the openings. It's either because they don't know them or because they are frightened of the complications that can result. Even in Opens, whilst players will try to play the best moves, these aren't always the moves written about in books.

There's every reason to study openings because every game starts from the same position. I think what's needed is a knowledge and understanding of the plans and tactics available in typical positions. Playing lots of on-line blitz will expose you to a lot of positions. Presuming that the server records the games, then checking back against a database or chess engine for alternative ideas could work as a method of study.

[Paul Cooksey]

I've decided to get off the fence and just recommend the dutch to anyone who likes attacking , I was thinking about this thread too when replying to Warren Kingston

[Paul Cooksey]

An afterthought on the Marshall. In theory I had it in my repertoire for a year at the time Nunn was popularising it. I played 1 e4 e5 about 20 times, and think I only had 1 main line Marshall. Even the Spanish was in the minority.

There is an argument of Yermolinsky's that if your opponent diverges to something second rate, learning the main line was worth it, even if you do not get to play it. But I decided that there are plenty of repectable alternatives after e5, and while I don't mind learning some theory, I do like to feel I will get a chance to play it. So i went back to the Sicilian

[Simon Dixon]

Against 1.e4 I play e5. Against 1.d4 I play d5. Against flank openings, I play any old rubbish that I can think of.

What I find is opening prep is of little or no use if you do not know who you are going to be playing against. The chances of you getting a game in the lines you have studied are virtually nil, especially if you play someone who sets out to upset book players from the very beginning.

[benedgell]

Hi James. If the Frome Congress is near to your home town, it might be worth going to the Frome Chess Club when you're not at Uni to get some otb practise. They play on Tuesday nights at the Rugby Club, and http://www.somersetchess.org/Club_pages ... ssClub.htm is their homepage.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi James.

You are getting some good advice there.

Obvioulsy like me and every other player on here who has
pushed pawns for more than 20 years they will have a head full of
opening crap that will never ever be seen on a live chessboard.

The worst advice I was ever given was to get a book on the Latvian
after winning over 20 games with it playing it off the cuff.
Got the book, followed the book and suffered.

The good thing about the Latvian and The Dutch (I don't play the Dutch
but have seen it rec'd here.) is that you will see it OTB.

The Marshall and the Najdorf?

I have some stats from the 2010/11 4NCL.
(and why not, it's recent and all the games were played in Britain.)

You can download all 2790 games here.

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/downloads.htm

451 times 1.e4 c5 was played but only 184 went into an open Sicilian with 3 d4.
The trend (at the moment) is to avoid open Sicilians.
(I expect to see a book within the next 2 years 'White to Win with the Very Rare 3.d4!!')

48 times (from 451?) the Najdorf appeared and after 5...a6 (the key signature of the Najdorf)
There were nine different White replies. 6.f3 6.Bc4 6.Bg4 6.Be2 6.h3 6.g3 6.Be3 6.a4 6.f4
That is a lot of junk to memorise for an opening the odds are you will never see.

276 games began with 1.e4 e5 of which the Ruy Lopez appeared 105 times.

From that the chance to play the Marshall appeard only 13 times with White
avoiding it on the 8th move 9 times (usually with 8.h3 or 8.a4).
One Black player declined playing 8...d5 after 8.c3.
So there were 3 Marshalls from 105 Lopez's. (2 draws and a White win.)

I think the advice is not to waste your time.

I'd take the kind offer to go that chess club and play the game as often as you can.
Play, play, play and then play some more.

I've always been of the opinion that you cannot choose your opening (or style)
it will choose you. So you have to play and play so the game can decide what you are good at.

When you get good and start to meet the other good guys then the openings really matter.
Till then you will find the majority of your games are won or loss in the middle game
where the two move trick is King Conker.

So what opening should you play?

My opening rep is built around openings that if I make a mistake and a game of chess
without any mistakes is nonsense, then I still have enough in it to cloud the waters.
Your idea of cloudy water may differ from mine so I'll leave it there.

I'm not having you come back on here in 20 years time saying that fool Chandler once
told me to play the Latvian and I lost 200 grading points, my house and my girlfriend.

Good Luck.

[Jonathan Rogers]

If you dislike defending, you might have another reason to drop the Grunfeld. In the sharper lines, Black often has to hang on for dear life in the early middlegame, and so he needs to know his theory very well; but also I think he needs to have an instinctive "feel" for what he can get away with.

It suited Kasparov simply because he was such a superb tactician, and he could find tactical defences in sharp lines. But at lower levels players might well be competent tacticians when seeing tactics that work "for" them and much less good at working out all their opponent's threats when the tactics potentially work "against" them. From what you say, that might be your case.

As for KI v Slav - well, you are less likely in general to "attack" in the Slav, but also how comfortable are you with

(a) the risk of losing, even if when it's not obvious what you have done wrong? (a more likely KI experience)
(b) the risk of weaker players holding out for a draw (a possible 3 cxd5 experience in Slav)
(c) making speculative sacrifices (sometimes "forced" in a high sense, in KI lines)?

To echo Paul above, I had exactly this dilemma after my first year at University - and chose the Dutch, with instant success.

[Paolo Casaschi]

However I do like the looks of the following d4 openings (cause they look quite sharp): Grunfeld, King's Indian and Semi-Slav (Moscow & Meran varations). Time to study isn't really an issue because I have another 2 years of Uni left i.e. lots of free time, however, instead of learning all 3 I'd rather just try and master 2 of them till/if I ever become a Master. Also I have an excellent memory so that isn't a problem either, which is also why I'm looking specifically at heavily theoretical openings.

Against the non-e4 opening, for an attacking player, two options come to mind:

1) the Dutch: it allows you to play aggressively since the beginning with an unbalanced position where it's easier to take some risks; the downside is the Dutch is surprisingly common in UK especially at the strong club/league player level

2) the modern Benoni / Benko gambit: also risky and aggressive, on the plus side it's not very popular in UK and you might surprise your opponent especially in those lines that require memorizing a certain amount of key variations; on the downside, White might avoid it but this usually leads to positions where Black is ok (but might not have a lot of aggressive play at the beginning of the game)

[Justin Hadi]

The tarrasch defence is quite active and you can play it, (or put pawns on e6 d5 c5) against almost any non e4 opening. Aagard wrote a book on it way back when called Meeting 1.d4. It's not particularly popular which is a plus, but you have to be prepared to play with an isolated pawn with black.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I must express caution about the Dutch (having used it in my "youf" until some horrendous drubbings meant I dropped it for 1....d5 permanently) It is *very* easy for Black to get blown away in short order if he doesn't know what he is doing (a consequence of deliberately weakening your K's safety, of course )

The good thing about it (and why I stuck with it for a while) is that if White plays passively and planlessly, Black can build up a fearsome position himself - much more easily than he usually can against the early e3/London/Colle type stodges similar players use when permitted to.......

Your games won't be dull, but be warned - nor will they all be pleasant, I suspect

[Jonathan Rogers]

But were there any good books on the Dutch in your "youf", Matt? It should be easier to avoid early catastrophe in the opening now (though you wouldn't think so, to judge by the way that simon Williams regularly brings up his game v Gormally at Liverpool ...).

Black is much more likely to lose directly because of a bad opening in the Grünfeld, when he finds White mating him down the h-file or promoting his d-pawn on move 25.

The Tarrasch has something to commend it, from what James says of his style. But when I looked at Aagaard's book some years ago, I found so many variations where White (even according to Aagaard himself) seemed to have a risk-free advantage. I commend his objectivity but it was also off-putting - I had been hoping to read that Black had free and easy play in the vast majority of lines except maybe one or two awkward ones ...

[Justin Hadi]

Which variations were those then ?

[Justin Hadi]

Also, it's unlikely to be a risk free edge at first tournament level. It takes quite a lot of chess skill to neutralise the opponents' play when he/she has activity versus structural plus. IMO activity is key when you're starting out. The Tarrasch gives you a safe but active position out of the opening.

[Jonathan Rogers]

True. I didn't like to ask James' current playing standard (and by implication, that of the people whom he wants to start beating regularly), but it is another relevant factor.