My students and any Devon junior can have a free copy of these opening booklets:
Category Archives: Openings
Openings Workshop 2013
‘A difficult position’ (Breyer).
In contrast to previous instances in this unintentional series…
content/openings-workshop-2008
content/openings-workshop-2010
content/openings-workshop-2011
content/opening-workshop-2012
…questions were expressed this time as a series of dilemmas.
1.e4 or 1.d4?
Short answer: 1.e4, but it’s a matter of taste.
Long answer:
1.e4 is likely to lead to open and semi-open games, while 1.d4 is more likely to lead to closed and other more murky structures.
By ‘open game’ I mean a position after the opening which features open files and diagonals, a fairly clear centre and no locked pawn chains. Closed games are the opposite.
Hmm, why is that?
After 1.e4 e5, White can follow up with d2-d4, immediately or after some preparation. White gets open diagonals for the Bishops, and (at least) the chance to get (at least) a half-open file in the centre.
After 1.d4 d5, e2-e4 looks like it loses a pawn right now, and may be hard to organise later. If White has to settle for e2-e3, then White may be obliged to develop the Bc1 before touching the Bf1 and castling. So, the game unfolds more slowly, and open files and diagonals emerge only later.
After 1.d4 Nf6, White may even be invited to play e2-e4, but where any open lines will emerge is not clear.
Why should you care?
Well, open games tend to be easier to follow, easier to play, and are easier settings in which to practice the sorts of things you should be practising when starting out (fast development, king’s-side attacks, tactics, endgames). Closed and Indian systems are not as easy to play or understand. You have to put up with Black’s other responses to 1.e4, but against at least some of them you can steer for an IQP position. If you learn how to play IQP positions, you may not always be able to claim an opening advantage, but you will always be able to know what you are doing.
So, if you start with 1.e4, you’re making a good choice, and one that you needn’t ever change. The Italian Game is a good place to start, while the Ruy Lopez and Scotch Game are both still played by Grandmasters.
1.e3 or 1.d3 or neither?
Short answer: neither.
Long answer: Either or both!
An opening is only as good as the ideas you bring to it. (I think that’s a quote, but I Googled it, and got this website… Could someone let me know where I stole it from?)
If you make moves at random, you might hit on 1.e3 d5 2.a4, or 1.d3 d5 2.Qd2, but those are not opening systems. You have to have a set of ideas you can bring to oppose different Black approaches. You can play either first move with a ready-made set of ideas, maybe e3/b3/Bb2/Bb4 (Nimzo-Larsen Attack), or d3/g3/Bg2 (King’s Indian Attack), and do well. You may note that two of our strongest players, Graham Bolt and Tim Paulden, have been using the Hippopotamus with both White and Black, which uses both e3 and d3, and doing pretty well.
King’s Indian Defence or Grunfeld?
Short answer: King’s Indian.
Long answer:
In the King’s Indian Defence, White is invited to set up a big pawn centre with c4, d4 and e4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 Black generally hits back in the centre with ….e7-e5, when one likely result is that White pushes on with d4-d5, resulting in blocked central pawn chains, rather like the French Defence. 6.Be2 e5 By the way, Black doesn’t lose the pawn on e5: 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Bxd1 Nxe4! 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7
I’ve already talked about the virtues of rehearsing a particular pawn structure, the IQP, above. Similarly, a KID player gets to play this blocked centre position repeatedly, and will be able to adopt and adapt from known plans and piece placements. Black’s pawns point to more space on the King’s-side and a break with …f5; White has more Queen’s-side space and a break with c4-c5.
Viktor Korchnoi was always known as a King’s Indian Killer, being able to show the virtues of the White structure against the strongest players in the world. But this is how he got on against Bobby Fischer in a rapidplay game:
Good advert, yes?
Meanwhile, over in the Grunfeld, White can get you into a variety of very different central structures.
You get one in the Exchange:
A different one in the Russian:
And another from the Taimanov, which is actually characteristic of the Queen’s Gambit, Exchange Variation:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bg5 Ne4 6. cxd5 Nxg5 7. Nxg5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 …
Black is doing OK in all of these structures and all these variations, but my guess is that you are going to have to understand more different structures than in the KID, and you are going to have to rely more on exact knowledge than general plans and analogies from similar positions.
Benoni: immediate or delayed?
Short answer: delayed, but try the Benko instead.
Long answer:
The classic Modern Benoni structure is one where the positions are lively and unbalanced, and where the overall plans for each side are clear enough but the complications may be intense.
Black has a Queen’s-side majority, White a central majority. Black may advance on the Queen’s-side, supported by the strong Bg7 on the long diagonal. White is going to try and push through e4-e5. White can try and do this with pieces alone, but it’s natural to seek support by f2- f4. So, White might move the Knight from f3 to… hmm, where, exactly? Well, how about d2, thence to c4? On c4, it supports e4-e5, and if Black is restrained from …b5 by a2-a4, it will stand very well.
So, Black players devised a cunning plan: delaying …e6xd5. Black reasons that White is going to run out of constructive moves. Black can prepare …b5 for a long while without taking on d5, while White simply cannot play Nf3-d2-c4, because there is a pawn on c4.
This is one argument for avoiding the Schmidt Benoni which uses 1.d4 c5 2.d5. White gets a very early signal about the structure, and can delay or avoid c2-c4, keeping c4 free for a piece.
Overall, I might prefer the Benko for Black: you get a small range of structures and the initiative. I have got into the habit recently of describing the art of chess as creating a position which is too hard for your opponent but not you. I think the Benko is easier to play for Black than for White.
Bonus: How to out-think Houdini
Tom B reports that when faced with this line: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 [I trust you are all savvy enough to avoid 7…Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+] 8.Bc2 Qa6 9.Nc3 Rc8
Houdini and other strong chess programmes can currently be relied on to repeat the position: 10.Bd3 Qb6 11.Bc2 Qa6
Open like a champion
Yes, but which one…
I caught a couple of the Devon U18s playing the English Opening in Wales recently, and I was reminded of these two stern admonitions:
“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game” – RICHARD RETI
and
“Again, a word of warning must be given to the inexperienced: do not attempt (these openings) until you have fully tried out, first, the open game, and then the Queen’s. These are far and away the most difficult types of opening to master. The writer has spent a considerable portion of his chess-playing life studying them intensively and is still liable to be met with shocks…” Harry GOLOMBEK in Griffiths & Golombek: Pocket Guide to the Chess Openings
And I linked these to Reti’s other well-known opinion:
“We perceive after a careful consideration of the evolution of the chess mind that such evolution has gone on, in general, in a way quite similar to that in which it goes on with the individual chess player, only with the latter more rapidly.” — Richard RETI
This made me wonder if you could capture the sweep of chess history (fashion?) in the opening by looking at the ECO codes of openings featuring in World Championship matches. I grabbed all the games labelled “World Championship” in a big database and extracted the year and ECO code. Here is the resulting table: 
I haven’t nitpicked the data because I’m more interested in the sweep.
So, rather broadly:
- We start firmly in the arena of the Italian Game, then move with Steinitz to the Ruy Lopez
- At the start of the twentieth century, the Queen’s Gambit dominates: first with the Orthodox Defence (22 games in 1927!), then the Slav. We also see Black avoiding 1…d5 with the Dutch Defence.
- Post-war, We see Botvinnik avoiding 1…e5 with first the French Defence then the Caro-Kann; we see Smyslov introducing the King’s Indian Defence which was also a favourite of Tal.
- The 1960s had no clear shape; games roamed freely across the range.
- The 1970s and 1980s saw much use of the English Opening, a return to the Orthodox Queen’s Gambit, and use of the Queen’s and Nimzo- Indian Defences.
- The 1980s and 1990s featured the Sicilian Defence in quantity for the first time, a reappearance of the Grunfeld (after Smyslov’s use in the 1950s), and then the King’s Indian
- The 2000s were notable for the dour solidity of the Petroff and Catalan.
- The 2010s and 2020s also don’t have a lot of shape; there is a clustering around various systems of teh Ruy Lopez again, and Carlsen’s use of the Sicilian Defence
List of ECO codes (a complete list is somewhere else):
A0 Unorthodox 1. R' 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4 A1 English 1. c4 A2 King's English 1. c4 e5 A3 Symmetrical English 1. c4 c5 A4 QP 1. d4 A5 Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 A6 Benoni 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 A7 Benoni Classical 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 ed5 5. cd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3 A8 Dutch 1. d4 f5 A9 Dutch mainline 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 B0 Semi-Open 1. e4 B1 Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6 B2 Sicilian 1. e4 c5 B3 Sicilian Nc6 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 B4 Sicilian e6 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 B5 Sicilian d6 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 B6 Sicilian Classical 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 B7 Sicilian Dragon 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 B8 Sicilian Scheveningen 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 B9 Sicilian Najdorf 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 C0 French 1. e4 e6 C1 French 3.Nc3 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 C2 KP 1. e4 e5 C3 King's Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. f4 C4 KP 2.Nf3 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 C5 Italian 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 C6 Ruy Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 C7 Ruy Lopez Morphy 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 C8 Ruy Lopez Open Morphy 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 5. O-O: + 5...Ne4, 5... Be7 C9 Ruy Lopez Closed Morphy 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 D0 QP 1. d4 d5 D1 QG Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 D2 QG Accepted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dc4 D3 QG Orthodox 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 D4 QG Orthodox 4.Nf3 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 D5 QG Orthodox 4.Bg5 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 D6 QG Orthodox main line 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 D7 ?King's Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 R' d7-d5 D8 Grunfeld 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 D9 Grunfeld 4.Nf3 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 E0 Catalan 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 E1 Queen's Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 E2 Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 E3 Nimzo-Indian Classical 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4: + 4. Bg5, 4. Qc2 E4 Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 E5 Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein 5.Nf3 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Nf3 E6 King's Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 R' d7-d5 E7 King's Indian 4.e4 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 E8 King's Indian Samisch 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 E9 King's Indian Classical 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3
List of matches/tournaments:
Steinitz - Zukertort (1886) Steinitz - Chigorin (1889) Steinitz - Gunsberg (1890) Steinitz - Chigorin Rematch (1892) Lasker - Steinitz (1894) Lasker - Steinitz Rematch (1896) Lasker - Marshall (1907) Lasker - Tarrasch (1908) Lasker - Schlechter (1910) Lasker - Janowski (1910) Lasker - Capablanca (1921) Capablanca - Alekhine (1927) Alekhine - Bogoljubov (1929) Alekhine - Bogoljubov Rematch (1934) Alekhine - Euwe (1935) Euwe - Alekhine Rematch (1937) FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948) Botvinnik - Bronstein (1951) Botvinnik - Smyslov (1954) Botvinnik - Smyslov Return Match (1957) Botvinnik - Smyslov Rematch (1958) Tal - Botvinnik (1960) Tal - Botvinnik Return Match (1961) Petrosian - Botvinnik (1963) Petrosian - Spassky (1966) Petrosian - Spassky Rematch (1969) Spassky - Fischer (1972) Fischer - Karpov (1975) Karpov - Korchnoi (1978) Karpov - Korchnoi Rematch (1981) Karpov - Kasparov (1984/85) Karpov - Kasparov (1985) Karpov - Kasparov Rematch (1986) Kasparov - Karpov (1987) Kasparov - Karpov (1990) Kasparov - Short (1993) Kasparov - Anand (1995) Karpov - Anand (1998) Kasparov - Kramnik (2000) Kramnik - Leko (2004) Kramnik - Topalov (2006) FIDE World Championship Tournament (2007) Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) Anand - Topalov World Championship Match (2010) Anand - Gelfand World Championship Match (2012) Anand - Carlsen World Championship Match (2013) Carlsen - Anand World Championship Match (2014) Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match (2016) Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018) Carlsen - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2021) Ding - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2023)
Again, not nitpicked.
Morphy vs Steinitz
I keep seeing “Morphy would have beaten Steinitz”, which we will never know, but here is some food for thought, from Steinitz’ International Chess Magazine of 1886:
(Nov 1886 pp 333-335)
“To what I have said on the subject before, I may only add quite in conformity with the substance of my previous remarks that I have never quarrelled with anyone who bonafidely believes that Morphy could have beaten me even, if he had made progress with the time. But if anyone says that the Morphy as he was, and not the one who might have been, could give Pawn and move only to a second rate nowadays I can only pity his understanding, or I must call it an impudent assertion. There will be an outcry over this,
no doubt, and nothing but blind conceit, selfishness, or worse will be imputed to me. I can not help that, nor perhaps would I help it if I could. For if our readers will allow me to give them a little perfectly true anecdote, which I consider amusing and instructive, I think I can
produce in support of my contention truthful, reliable, impartial, honorable, independent, honest etc., evidence. Would you believe it? The first witness whom I shall call to the stand, and to whose testimony I ascribe all the above-named virtues, is actually one of the above-named
trio, and in reality Samuel Loyd in life size and in flesh, and not his shadow. I think he will perhaps pardon my giving him such a character, and if not, I sincerely apologize to all the other witnesses whom I shall call. For in justice to his
“smartness” of which he bears such repute, and of which he chiefly prides himself, I ought to state that to the best of his knowledge he had at the time no personal interest
whatever in telling an untruth, and moreover his sayings were not intended to be published in one of James Gordon Bennett’s journals. But the miracle of his giving an honest opinion happened this way: It actually occurred before the A. C. E. A. had been composed and solved alone by its author (or dissolved as far as I am concerned, for I have
resigned from that body), by the simple process of his putting four-fifths of the funds of the Association into his own pocket. At that time, only about four months back, I was as friendly with Loyd as the public prosecutor might be with anyone whom he suspects (for I have known Loyd before), but whom he has not caught yet in flagranto delicti.
At any rate his pronounced public opinion on Morphy did not influence me any more than it does with several warm friends who can not dissociate themselves from old ideas, and he was a welcome visitor at my house. On one of those occasions, however, and in the course of a discussion it
occurred to me to play a little trick on my visitor, which comprised no deception à la Loyd, though I must plead guilty to a concealment for a little while. I can not give a verbatim report of the conversation in which the matter was introduced, but I am sure I shall faithfully state
the substance of it.“Could you judge approximately the strength of two
players if I showed you part of one of their games, and if in order to save time I gave you some critical comments which, of course, you may judge for yourself?” I asked.“Yes, I think so,” replied Loyd modestly.
“Well,” I said, please look at the following position :
“Y,” and “Z” played that game, and they have as you see only arrived at an early stage of the opening. In fact I may tell you it is only White’s 9th move in the present position.
Continuing my little lecture I said:
“You notice that Black has thus early three holes in his battleorder of Pawns or what I call weak strategical spots, which means any squares on his third or fourth rows on which a hostile piece might be planted sooner or later without being liable to he driven away by a Pawn. The weak points are at QR4, QB3 and QB4. Black’s K P is loose
and can only be defended by a piece or P–KB3, and the latter is generally inconvenient before the adverse QP is got rid of or further advanced than here. He has also two minor pieces standing undefended, and his QKtP is a mark for a dangerous attack by P–QR4, at the proper time. White’s position is compact with the exception of the QP which,
however, is well defended. Black’s chief weakness has arisen, I may tell you, from his having prematurely advanced P-Q4 instead of P-Q3. It is White’s move, and I feel satisfied from analogies of positions that
Kt x P, followed by P–Q4, would give him much the best of it, even against the subsequent answer of …B–Kt5, with the view of sacrificing a piece if White play P–KB3 (or else, I may now add, against the immediate answer Q–K2, pointed out subsequently by Mr. Teed, for White would also reply Q–K2). However castling is obviously a very good
and safe move, but White instead plays here 9 P–KR3. What do you think of that?”“Certainly unnecessary and weak,” said Loyd.
“It is now Black’s turn,” I proceeded, “and if I were in his place I certainly would not give my opponent an opportunity of getting rid of his QP, and opening the diagonal for his Bishop, commencing with Kt x P. I would
withdraw B–Kt3 or B–Q3 first, for 9… Castling, what he does, will keep.”Loyd nodded assent.
“Now White could do what I have just pointed out, and I feel sure he could get the better game, and much the best of
it, should Black answer BXP ch., which would have also been bad at the previous stage, where I suggested Kt XP. There are too many cases in point on record. But he plays 10. Castles.”“But now,” I proceeded,
“it is evidently the highest time for Black to remove his Bishop, but he actually plays 10…P–KR3; do you think that good play ?
“No, decidedly not,” said Loyd.
“Of course White ought to take advantage of that without the least hesitation by 11 Kt x P,” I remarked, “but he
actually plays 11 P–Q4 instead, and naturally his QP is isolated. Now, what do you think of the strength of the two players. Are they first, second or third class?” I am sure I put the question fairly enough, for I believe if I had given him the choice of five classes he would have chosen the last. As it was, he answered at once:“Third class at the utmost.”
“Would you be surprised to learn,” I said, “that this play
occurred not merely once, but actually in two games of the match between Morphy and Anderssen, in the second and in the fourth Tableau!”And so it is indeed. The two great masters actually repeated the whole opening without the least amendment on either side, which proves that they had not the slightest suspicion that their development contained defects that about twenty-eight years later could only be described as grave strategical errors. By the way, as Loyd may have forgotten the whole affair, owing to his complicated business transactions as Vice-President of the A. C. E. A. and self-elected Treasurer of four fifths of its funds, I may remind him that on the same occasion I showed him that in the celebrated game with Paulsen, in which Morphy sacrifices
his Queen, the latter had a lost game early in the opening, and albeit Paulsen committed an error such as any Pawn and Two player would most probably avoid nowadays, his game was absolutely won just one move before the celebrated sacrifice, without any possibility of retrieving
it on Morphy’s part–of course assuming best play on both sides–if the former had played 16 Q–R6 only one move earlier, instead of the silly move 16 R–R2.”
Lessons in Philidor’s Defence
Coaching Zone at East Devon Congress 2026
Thanks to all those who attended, shared games, contributed comments and heckled; I hope you got something out of taking part.
LINK to Lichess study for Saturday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/6WyVNXpv/
LINK to Lichess study for Sunday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/QIirDybT
Short talks
- Saturday
- Sunday
- 11:00 Endgame study
- 12:00 Openings Q&A
- 1:00 Using computers
- 2:00 [Vote for a topic]
- 4:30 Candidate moves
- 5:30 Analysing your own games
- Extra links
Not all the talks actually happened but here are the intended slides; the slides were designed to support a talk and not to stand alone.
Opening inspiration
I have produced a bunch of short booklets with illustrative games as a ‘starter kit’ to introduce young players to an opening system or defence, like the one on the Colle System.
The other booklets and their accompanying PGN files are not public, but I put together a collection of illustrative games for each booklet, and these are available as Lichess studies, linked below. Use CTRL_F to find the name you are after:
Opening choices (U18 training day)
Thank you for filling in the opening questionnaires online, and I’m sorry we didn’t get time to look at your responses on Saturday. But here is what I might have said:
Systems for White
Scotch Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4)
My main recommendation for a first opening system, leading to an open game with chances to attack. Good stuff, just the style you should use when you start playing chess.
Colle System (1.d4 with Nf3/e3 and without c4)
A good first opening system — develop and attack!
London System (1.d4 with Bf4 and without c4)
Not a bad first opening system. The good thing about it is, you can play the same moves against everything, but that’s also the bad thing about it — you can plod through the opening moves without thinking and without adjusting to what’s happening on the board. For example, in the London System White usually plays, in some order, d4 Nf3 Bf4 e3 c3 Nbd2 and Bd3. Nothing wrong with that, but c3 is useful only as a reply to …c5 or …Nc6. If your opponent doesn’t play …c5, you can save a move. So, play it with thought, and notice what might be different about the position in front of you today.
Queen’s Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4)
A fine opening — maybe not for your first opening system, but surely for your second, once you know how to attack.
Facing Black dodges: quite a few ‘play the same moves as I usually do‘ replies there — and you really need to play a different way to get your pieces out. For example, 1.e4 2.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 is fine against 1…e5, but against the Sicilian 1…c5 it can walk into 2….e6 and 3…d5, upsetting your plans. ‘I play the main lines’ — perfect.
Most of you are playing 1.d4, it seems — which was a bit of a surprise. It’s more solid than 1.e4 but less exciting and not so good for practising the things most people need to practise — development, open lines, tactics and attacking play.
Systems for Black
Facing 1.e4
Not too many named systems in there!
Four Knights’ Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6)
that’s White’s choice not yours! I recommend after 4.Bb5 you play 4…Nd4.
Two Knights’/Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 with 3…Nf6 or 3…Bc5)
both fine and just the sort of style you should be playing. (Usually you choose one or the other.)
French Defence (1.e4 e6)
very good, solid and with chances to attack, not easy to play against.
Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5)
an excellent though difficult defence, which will last you for life.
Caro-Kann (1.e4 c6)
a fine and even fashionable defence, but you don’t usually get chances to attack, so wouldn’t be my recommendation.
Facing 1.d4
The only things with a name I see are:
Dutch Defence (1.d4 f5)
An excellent unbalancing and dynamic defence. It’s likely to work well against a player that has started playing 1.d4 too early in their development.
Queen’s Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defence (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6)
A good first defence to 1.d4, solid and logical, and might last you all your life.
I suspect the rest of you are making it up as you go, which is likely to lead to trouble against the Queen’s Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4). Pick a system — the most common are the Slav Defence (2…c6) and the Orthodox Defence (2…e6, of which the Swiss Defence (7…a6) and All-Purpose Defence (…b6) are variations), and stick to it. You can usually play the moves of a defence to the Queen’s Gambit against everything apart from 1.e4.
I’m happier for you to pick a solid style as Black — it’s a dangerous world out there when you are Black, and a solid approach can give you confidence.
Here are your replies (rows) with my individual comments:
| Main White Opening e.g. Scotch Game | DR comments | What do you do when Black dodges*? | DR comments | Defence as Black against 1.e4 e.g. French Defence | DR comments | Defence as Black against 1.d4/2.c4 e.g. Swiss Defence | DR comments |
| Scotch Game | Great | I play the same moves as I normally do | That’s not going to work against everything, maybe not against anything! | French Defence | Great | Make it up | Do learn a proper system with a name |
| London system | Fine to start with you might need something chewier later | I play the same moves as I normally do | Probably OK | Caro-kann defence | Great | The Dutch defence | Great |
| London system | Fine to start with you might need something chewier later | I play the main lines | Probably OK | e5 | OK | c3 | Not sure what you mean? |
| london system | Fine to start with you might need something chewier later | I play the main lines | Probably OK | have not decided on one opening as I tend to try different ones | Hmm – pick a system and stick to it is my advice! | have not decided on one opening as I tend to try different ones | Hmm – pick a system and stick to it is my advice! |
| The Queen’s Gambit | Great | ? | c5 | Great | c5 | Fits | |
| 1.e2e4,2.f1d3 and g1f3 | Bf1d3 won’t do you any favours unless you play d2d4 first | I play the same moves as I normally do | That’s not going to work against everything, maybe not against anything! | unknown | Needs a look! | unkown | Needs a look! |
| Queens gambit | Great | I play the same moves as I normally do | Not bad, but might need some care against eg. Nimzo-Indian | Four nights | OK | Slav defence | Fine |
| London | Fine to start with you might need something chewier later | I do something else (please tick then describe below) | ? | 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 | OK | Queens Gambit Declined or Slav Defence | Fine |
| Queen’s Gambit | Great | I play the main lines | Grear | Two knights defence or Guiccio Piano game | Giuoco! But all good | Slav defence or Caro-kann | Also good |
| Queens Gambit | Great | I play the main lines | Great | Im trying to learn karo-kann | Good | If c4 i play e5 and d4 i play d5 | Fine |
| Attempting the Colle | Great | I play the same moves as I normally do | Probably OK | depends | Hmm – pick a system and stick to it is my advice! | depends | Hmm – pick a system and stick to it is my advice! |
Your mileage may vary
Seen on a YouTube thumbnail:
SIMPLE AND SOUND:
Basic openings for Black:
Sicilian Dragon and King’s Indian
The secret about dangerous openings
<p>The secret is: they’re all dangerous!</p>
<p>The great (really great) Garry Kasparov just lost in 7 moves:</p>
<p>From Leonard Barden in the Guardian:</p>
<p>
</p>