Category Archives: Openings

What’s the point of learning opening theory?

Posted on by

A four-board match played away at Exmouth one Saturday:

The top board players each made a mistake on move 5: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 now 5.e3(?) was possibly inaccurate, allowing 5…d5! (see Kosten’s book) but Black didn’t play it, preferring 5…Be7.

Board 2, they both scampered along a main line of the French Tarrasch: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0 Bd6 This is the tabiya, where the real first choice lies for White: 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Re1 Be8. Now here all the books give this position as equal; although it is unbalanced I don’t know why White wants to play this line. We than had 15.Ng5 (a very important move) and then 15…Bh5? which was the first deviation from theory… White can now get an instant plus with 16.Bxh7+! e.g. 16…Nxh7 17.Qxh5 Nxg5 18.Qxg5 Nxd4? 19.Nxd5! but it was not refuted by White’s chosen move, 16.Qb1?! …

Board three was a bit less theoretical, although it has been played before: 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 c5 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.0-0 e6 5.c3 Ne7 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 after which Black surely should not have played 8…exd5(?) but 8…Nxd5, when there is some sort of plan against the IQP instead of a ‘normal’ White small plus with no prospects for Black.

And Board 4 had the unlikely start 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3…

So, opening preparation can be a complete waste of time!

“For example, I spent a couple of years studying all the possible transpositions in the Noteboom, but then guess what? Almost nobody gave me a chance to play it, preferring an early e2-e3 and the Anti-Meran…” Ruslan SCHERBAKOV

The Petroff Defence for Beginners

Posted on by

The Petroff Defence for beginners

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

An Exeter Junior Chess Club booklet

Edition 2.,

May, 11

Bibliography:

Karpov,
The Open Game in Action

Kasparov/Keene,
Batsford Chess Openings

Levy/Keene,
An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Club Player

walker,
Chess Openings for Juniors

Various magazines and other books

　

Introduction 3

a. Symmetry in chess 3

b. The isolated Queen’s pawn 4

A. The Classical Variation, 3. Nxe5 5

3… d6 5

1. An alternative on move 4 for White: 4. Nxf7, The Cochrane Gambit
5

2. Main line with 4. Nf3 6

1.1 An alternative on move 5 for White: 5. Qe2, Lasker Variation 6

1.2 The main line with 5. d4 7

1.2 (a) 6…Bd6 Marshall Gambit 7

1.2 (b) 6…Be7 Main Line 8

1.2 (b1) Main line with 8. c4 8

(b1-i) 8… Bg4 9

(b1-ii) 8… Nb4 9

(b1-iii) 8… Nf6 10

1.2 (b2) Main line with 8. Re1 11

(b2-i) 8… Bf5 11

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4 12

(1) Modestly, 9. c3 12

(2) Ambitiously, 9. c4 13

B. The Steinitz Variation, 3. d4 14

(a) 3…exd4 14

(b) 3…Nxe4 15

(b1) 4. dxe5 15

(b2) 4. Bd3 15

(b2-i) 5…Nd7 15

(b2-ii) 5…Bd6 16

C. White tries to get into the Four Knight’s Game, 3. Nc3 17

D. The Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit, 3. Bc4 18

Example games 19

Lasker – Pillsbury, St. Petersburg, 1895 19

Kupreichik – Mikhailchishin, Kujbyshev, 1986 20

Dolmatov – Makarichev, Palma, 1989 21

Introduction

The Petroff is a quiet success story in chess – an old and often
forgetten variation which can give Black a safe way of working for
equal chances in an open game, while avoiding White’s favourite lines.
This booklet tries to give an overview of the Petroff from both sides.
It has a reputation for being “dull and a draw”, but can offer exciting
attacking possibilities for either side. There are a couple of general
themes I’d like to deal with immediately: symmetry, and the isolated
Queen’s pawn.

a. Symmetry in chess

Symmetry usually means equality, and likelihood of a draw – no good
if you are trying to win. The symmetrical Petroff has reputation for
drawishness, but that is not really justified. Look at the Illustrative
Games if you still think the Petroff is dull! And what is drawn at
Grandmaster level can still have a lot of meat left in it for amateur
players (like the Colle system).

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

For example, after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 (the Exchange
Variation of the French Defence), we have a symmetrical pawn formation
with the likelihood of exchanges of the major pieces down the e-file.
In fact, Black wins lots of games in this line, perhaps because it is a
line chosen by weak White players seeking a draw against strong Black
players. (Perhaps the best way to play for a draw is to go for a win!)

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

This line of the Petroff (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3
Nxe4 5. d5 d5) has perhaps the worst reputation for drawishness, but
let’s have a look. Black has an aggressive Knight on e4 – it even looks
as if Black is a move ahead. White is not necessarily trying to draw in
this variation, and it is White to move. White will try to undermine
the Ne4 with moves like Bd3, Re1 and c4; Black can try to castle
Queen’s-side and belt down the other wing. All this can make for
exciting and tense struggles in an open game, which might be a lot
better than suffering White’s favourite line of the Ruy Lopez.

b. The isolated Queen’s pawn

Several lines of the Petroff can lead to an isolated Queen’s pawn
(IQP) position, if White plays to undermine the Black Knight on e4 with
c4, and Black later plays …dxc4. White will have the last remaining
central pawn on d4, a situation which is known from many other
openings. For example:

The isolated Queen’s pawn in the Semi-Tarrasch Defence to the
Queen’s Gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+ph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+P)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

4… c5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e3 Nc6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. a3 cxd4 10.

exd4 Bf6

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+n+pg.+|
|+.+n+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).HB+N+.|
|.).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

The isolated Queen’s pawn in the Caro-Kann Defence, Panov-Botvinnik
Attack

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p+.0p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

4… Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10.
a3

Bf6

Exactly the same!

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+n+pg.+|
|+.+n+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).HB+N+.|
|.).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

And in the Petroff:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d5 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7.
O-O Nc6 8. c4 Nf6
9. Nc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 O-O 11. Nc3 Nd6 12. Bb3

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.h.).+.+|
|+BH.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

So the IQP is important to know about, although in the Petroff
Black doesn’t have the Bc8 stuck behind the e6 pawn. White’s ideas will
still be the same: develop quickly, use the extra space to dodge about,
avoid exchanges (to keep Black cramped), play Ne5, look for a chance to
start a King’s-side attack using the light-squared bishop, maybe throw
in Rf1-e1-e3-h3.

So, let’s have a look at some variations.

A. The Classical Variation, 3. Nxe5

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Black must now play 3…d6. Why not 3… Nxe4? White answers 4. Qe2!

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+

Now 4… Qe7…

[Not 4… Nf6?? 5. Nc6+!

Variation

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+N+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+


winning the Q]

…and now 5. Qxe4 d6 6. f4 dxe5 7. fxe5 wins a pawn.

So, from the first diagram in the column:

3… d6

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now, White almost always plays the main line with 4. Nf3, but there
are two alternatives: 4. Nxf7, the Cochrane Gambit, and 4. Nc4. I have
never seen this last move played, and I don’t think it is dangerous,
but it does deny Black the natural …Bg4 pin. BCO recommends 4. Nc4
Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Ne3 Qf6 and 7…Be6 with an early …O-O-O in mind.

So that leaves us with the Cochrane Gambit to examine before we go
down the main line.

1. An alternative on move 4 for White: 4. Nxf7, The Cochrane Gambit

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+N0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Looks crazy? Looks promising? Your chess personality may make you
feel confident as White or Black in this position, but either way, you
must know about it.

4… Kxf7 5. d4

Black has tried:

[5… Nxe4? 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Qd5+ Be6 8. Qxe4]

[5… d5?! 6. e5 Ne8 7. Bd3 g6 8. h4]

So Black should prefer the safer:

5…g6 6. Nc3

+-----------------+
|rhb1.g.4|
|0p0.+k+p|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now BCO recommends the odd-looking:

6… Qe8

Other tries seem inadequate, e.g.

6… Bg7 7. Bc4+ Be6 8. Bxe6+ Kxe6 9. f4 Kf7 10. e5 Ne8

[or 10… Re8 11. O-O Nc6 12. exf6 Qxf6 13. Nb5 Re7 14. c3
o’neill-solomon 1985]

11. Qf3 c6 12. Ne4+-

+-----------------+
|rh.1n+.4|
|0p+.+kgp|
|.+p0.+p+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.+.)N).+|
|+.+.+Q+.|
|P)P+.+P)|
|$.G.I.+R|
+-----------------+

… with better chances for White (Makropoulos-Toth 1981).

　

2. Main line with 4. Nf3

Black should take the chance to recover the pawn with

4… Nxe4.

white has a choice now, between 5.Qe2, the Lasker Variation, leading
to an early endgame, or 5. d4, the main line.

1.1 An alternative on move 5 for White: 5. Qe2, Lasker Variation

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+

This pin is not dangerous here with the White Knight on f3, just
awkward for the moment.

5… Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg5 Nbd7 8. Nc3 Qxe2+ 9. Bxe2 Be7=

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p0ngp0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.+.G.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HP+N+.|
|P)P+B)P)|
|$.+.I.+R|
+-----------------+

White cannot claim any advantage in this endgame, although Black
still needs to get fully developed. This variation is why the Petroff
is no good when you have to win as Black against a player who knows
this line.

　

1.2 The main line with 5. d4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now Black can get an equal stake in the centre with:

5… d5

And White brings the Bf1 to its best square, so the King can castle.

6. Bd3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Like White, Black should plan to get the K off the open e-file as
soon as possible, and Black has a choice of two squares for the Bf8:

(a) 6…Bd6, a move of Frank Marshall – which looks good but is
perhaps trying a bit too hard – or the safe (b) 6…Be7, sealing the
e-file.

1.2 (a) 6…Bd6 Marshall Gambit

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Let us follow the play after the natural moves:

7. O-O O-O 8. c4 Bg4!?

This is Marshall’s idea.

9. cxd5 f5 10. Re1?

One natural move too many.

+-----------------+
|rh.1.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+P+p+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+


10… Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Nxf2 12. Qc2 Nxd3 13. Qxd3 Bxf3

winning, because if Qxf3, then …Qh4+ will pick up the rook on e1.
Instead of falling for this trap White should play:

　

10. Nc3 Nd7 11. h3 Bh5 12. Nxe4 fxe4 13. Bxe4 Nf6 14. Bf5 +-

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.h.+|
|+.+P+B+b|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

…with advantage, as in the game Alexander- Mattinson from 1938.

So the rather boring truth about this line seems to be that back on
move eight Black should play instead

8… c6

when theory knows of

9. Nc3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Bg4 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. Rb1 Nd7 13. h3 +=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+n+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+b+|
|+.)B+N+P|
|P+.+.)P+|
|+RGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Now, this position is solid but offers so few active possibilities
for Black that we should prefer as Black 6…Be7.

　

1.2 (b) 6…Be7 Main Line

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

And now play often goes:

7. O-O Nc6

…when White has a choice:

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Hit at the centre with 8.c4 (b1), or develop with 8.Re1 (b2). (White
can also play 8.Re1 and 9.c4, but this allows 8…Bg4.)

1.2 (b1) Main line with 8. c4

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

What are the alternatives here? Black does not have time for (b1-i)
8…Bg4. The position of the knight is now so wobbly that Black should
move it – both

(b1-ii) 8…Nb4, and

(b1-iii) 8…Nf6 have been tried.

(b1-i) 8… Bg4

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Like I said, Black really doesn’t have time for this.

9. cxd5 Qxd5 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Qxf3 13.
gxf3

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P+.+.).)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

The two bishops and strong centre give White the advantage in this

ending; White has natural ideas of Rb1 and Re1/Be3 which are
difficult

to meet.

(b1-ii) 8… Nb4

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.hP)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Now White usually preserves the bishop with:

9. Be2


[less promising seems
9. cxd5 Nxd3 10. Qxd3 Qxd5 11. Re1 Bf5 12. Ne5 g6=
Belyavsky-Smyslov 1986
]

　

After 9.Be2 Black has tried

(1) 9…Be6

(2) 9…O-O

(3) 9…dxc4

(1) 9… Be6

A line quoted by Karpov.

10. c5 Nc6 11. Qa4 a5 12. Ne5+=

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|+p0.gp0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|0.)pH.+.|
|Q+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+B)P)|
|$NG.+RI.|
+-----------------+

With an advantage for White.

(2) 9… O-O

10. Nc3 Be6

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+b+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.hP)n+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+B)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

The Grandmasters are still having a think about this one. It’s as
difficult for White to get an advantage as it is for Black to equalise!

BCO quotes games with 11. Be3, 11. a3, and 11. Nxe4!?. Having just
seen the Karpov line above, you might even fancy 11. c5!?

　

(3) 9… dxc4

This surrender of the centre doesn’t seem to work out too well for
Black.

10. Bxc4 O-O 11. Nc3 Nd6

12. Bb3+=

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.h.).+.+|
|+BH.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

…as in a couple of games from 1985, seems to leave White with a
plus in this IQP position. White will plan to complete development, and
then play Ne5 with hopes of an attack.


(b1-iii) 8… Nf6

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

This is a safe and simple move. Play may continue:

9. Nc3 O-O 10. h3 dxc4

11. Bxc4 Na5 12. Bd3 Be6

13. Re1 Nc6 +=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+bh.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.HB+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.GQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

White is held to have a slight advantage in this well-explored
position due to the extra central space, although in the ending the
d-pawn may become exposed.

1.2 (b2) Main line with 8. Re1

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Black has a choice of squares for the last minor piece:

(b2-i) 8…Bf5

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4.

(b2-i) 8… Bf5

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Karpov has shown that this is inaccurate.

9. c4 Nb4 10. Bf1

[not 10…dxc4 11. Nc3 +- with clear advantage: Karpov-Portisch]

10… O-O 11. a3 Nc6 12. cxd5 Qxd5 13. Nc3 Nxc3 14. bxc3
Bg6+=

+-----------------+
|r+.+.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+b+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).).+N+.|
|.+.+.)P)|
|$.GQ$BI.|
+-----------------+

…with a small advantage for White: Karpov-Portisch 1982. Karpov is
rather behind in development at the moment but he is threatening to
unravel with c4, dominating the centre.

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This very well-known position has a reputation for drawishness
(which is not really true at amateur level). White can play modestly
(1) 9. c3, or ambitiously (2) 9. c4.

(1) Modestly, 9. c3

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This rather modest move can lead to an interesting gambit which
Black should not be afraid to play

9 … f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Nbd2

(See Lasker-Pillsbury below for 11.Bf4.)

11…Kh8 12. Qxb7 Rf6 13. Qb3 Rg6=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.+.i|
|0.0.g.0p|
|.+n+.+r+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+Q)B+N+.|
|P).H.)P)|
|$.G.$.I.|
+-----------------+


　

(2) Ambitiously, 9. c4

Black’s knight is again too wobbly in the centre.

9… Nf6 10. cxd5

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|.+.).+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+


10… Bxf3

[10… Nxd5 is also known: 11. Nc3 O-O 12. h3 Be6 13. a3 Nxc3
14. bxc3 Bf6 15. Bf4 g6 16. Be4 Na5 17. Ne5 c6 18. Qf3+=

Variation

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+.+p+p|
|.+p+bgp+|
|h.+.H.+.|
|.+.)BG.+|
|).).+Q+P|
|.+.+.)P+|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+


After this long sequence, White has a small advantage which will
be long-lasting: Tseshkovsky-Barua 1986]

11. Qxf3 Qxd5 12. Qh3 Qxd4 13. Nc3 Rd8 14. Bf5 h5 15. Qg3
Kf8 16. Be3 Qb4 17. a3 Qa5 18. Qf3 g6 19. Bc2 h4

+-----------------+
|.+.4.i.4|
|0p0.gp+.|
|.+n+.hp+|
|1.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.0|
|).H.GQ+.|
|.)B+.)P)|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

Another long variation, rather a messy one this time, which BCO
assesses as unclear. I prefer White here: Velimirovic-Kurajica 1984]

　

B. The Steinitz Variation, 3. d4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

This is the main alternative to 3. Nxe4 and in the late 70s was
thought to give White good chances of advantage. That was because
everybody then played (a) 3..exd4. More recently Black has been
equalising with (b) 3…Nxe4.

(a) 3…exd4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.0P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now White must try

4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 +=

It has been thought for a long while that White has the edge here.

5… d5 6. exd6 Nxd6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. Qf4 g6

　

[or 8… Bf5 when BCO gives 9. Bb5 Qe7+ 10. Be3 Nxb5 11. Nxb5
Qb4+ 12. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 13. c3 Bd6 14. Nxd6+ cxd6 15. O-O-O O-O-O 16. Nd4
Be6 17. b3 a6 18. Ne2+=

Variation

+-----------------+
|.+k4.+.4|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+n0b+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+P).G.+.|
|P+.+N)P)|
|+.IR+.+R|
+-----------------+


when Black’s weak d-pawn gives White the better endgame
(Gurgenidze-Beim, 1982) ]

Natural moves to follow are:

9. Bd3 Bg7 10. O-O O-O+=

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+pgp|
|.+nh.+p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.!.+|
|+.HB+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

All the central pawns have disappeared, but White is a little better
placed (Short-Murei 1982-3)

　

(b) 3…Nxe4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now White usually tries 4. Bd3, but we ought to have a quick look at
4.dxe5 before accepting this as best.

(b1) 4. dxe5

The game may now go:

4…d5 5. Nbd2 Nxd2 6. Bxd2 Be7 7. Bf4 c5 8. c3 Nc6 9. Bd3
Be6=

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p+.gp0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|+.0p).+.|
|.+.+.G.+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.+QI.+R|
+-----------------+

This position is about equal (Short-Seirawan 1986).

(b2) 4. Bd3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

This is probably the best move here as on move 6 of the Classical
Variation.

4… d5 5. Nxe5

This variation is both like, and unlike, the Classical. Black’s main
tries are (b2-i) 5…Nd7 and (b2-ii) 5…Bd6, although 5…Be7 and even
other moves have been played.

(b2-i) 5…Nd7

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0n+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+pH.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

White has tried all sorts of moves here:

(1) The cheeky 6. Nxf7

(2) The safe 6. Nxd7

(3) The logical 6. Qe2

I’ll just give one quick example of each.

(1) Cheeky

6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qh5+ Ke7 8. Qxd5 Ndf6 9. Qb3 Be6 10. Qxb7
Bd5 11. Qa6 Kf7

+-----------------+
|r+.1.g.4|
|0.0.+k0p|
|Q+.+.h.+|
|+.+b+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NG.I.+R|
+-----------------+

Nenashev-Baikov 1985: “unclear” says BCO!

(2) Safe

6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. O-O Qh4 8. c4 O-O-O 9. c5 g5 10. Nc3 Bg7 11.
Ne2 f5 12. f3 Rhf8 13. a4 Rde8°

+-----------------+
|.+k+r4.+|
|0p0b+.gp|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.)p+p0.|
|P+.)n+.1|
|+.+B+P+.|
|.).+N+P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Again, “unclear” says BCO (Sveshnikov-Makarichev, 1987). It does
show how Black can play for a win if required.

　

(3) Logical

6. Qe2 Nxe5 7. Bxe4 dxe4 8. Qxe4 Be6 9. Qxe5 Qd7 10. O-O
O-O-O 11. Be3 Bb4 12. Nc3 f6 13. Qg3 Bxc3 14. bxc3 h5 15. h4 g5 16. f3
Rdg8-+

+-----------------+
|.+k+.+r4|
|0p0q+.+.|
|.+.+b0.+|
|+.+.+.0p|
|.+.).+.)|
|+.).GP!.|
|P+P+.+P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Not at all unclear: Black won in the famous upset of Karpov-Larsen,
1980

(b2-ii) 5…Bd6

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+pH.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

The balance looks a little tense, but Black seems to be able to
hold.

6. O-O O-O 7. c4 Bxe5 8. dxe5 Nc6

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p).+.|
|.+P+n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

This position offers equal chances.

　

C. White tries to get into the Four Knight’s Game, 3. Nc3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now, after 3… Nc6 we get into those genuinely dull, drawish
variations of the Four Knights Game. I don’t care if Short and Nunn
have played it, it’s a poor line for juniors (in my opinion). It tends
to be stodgy and blocked, you probably won’t enjoy it and it doesn’t
give you the sort of training in open games that you need.

Thankfully Janowski found that Black can play

3… Bb4

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.g.+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

BCO now gives

4. Nxe5 O-O 5. Be2 Re8 6. Nd3 Bxc3 7. dxc3 Nxe4 =

+-----------------+
|rhb1r+k+|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.)N+.+.|
|P)P+B)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

…with equal chances in a more open game. White’s two bishops don’t
frighten me.

　

D. The Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit, 3. Bc4

Now Black can steer for the equally promising lines of the Two
Knights Defence with 3…Nc6, but to look at that properly will take
another booklet.

Two Knight’s Defence

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+B+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has no real reason to avoid:

3…Nxe4

white can try other moves, but the usual try is

4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 Be7

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0pgp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+B+.+.+|
|+.).+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has no weaknesses, and White will find it difficult to get
through. Black will want to get the two bishops working, but must be
careful to keep lines
closed
 until development is complete. White has tried various plans in
this position but they are all pretty unconvincing.

　

Example games

Lasker – Pillsbury, St. Petersburg, 1895

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3
Be7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Re1 Bg4 9. c3 f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Bf4

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.g.0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.)nGb+|
|+Q)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$N+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

White allows the King’s-side to be weakened.

11… Bxf3 12. gxf3 Ng5 13. Kg2 Qd7 14. Qc2 Ne6 15. Bc1 Bd6
16. Nd2 Rae8 17. Nf1

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|0p0q+.0p|
|.+ngn+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P)Q+.)K)|
|$.G.$N+.|
+-----------------+

Black’s pieces are much better placed than White’s. If White was
hoping to tempt Black into an unsound attack, he has only tempted
Pillsbury into a sound one.

17… Nexd4 18. Qd1 Rxe1 19. Qxe1

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|0p0q+.0p|
|.+ng.+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P).+.)K)|
|$.G.!N+.|
+-----------------+

Black now starts a king hunt, sacrificing a piece for a couple of
pawns.

19… Nxf3 20. Kxf3 f4 21. Qd1 Ne5+ 22. Ke2 Qg4+ 23. Kd2
Qxd1+ 24. Kxd1 Nxd3

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.+.0.+|
|+.)n+.+.|
|P).+.).)|
|$.GK+N+.|
+-----------------+

Black has recovered his piece, and still has his pawns. White is
lost.

25. Ke2 Ne5 26. f3 Re8 27. b3 Ng4+ 28. Kd2 Ne3 29. Bb2 Ng2
30. h3 Bc5 31. Nh2 Bf2 32. c4 dxc4 33. bxc4 h5 0-1

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+k+|
|0p0.+.0.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+P+.0.+|
|+.+.+P+P|
|PG.I.gnH|
|$.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

If anything, White’s position has gone from bad to worse.

Kupreichik – Mikhailchishin, Kujbyshev, 1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. c4!? Nc6 6.
d4?!

[Mikhailchishin gives 6. Be2 d5 7. Nc3 Be6]

6… d5 7. Nc3 Bb4 8. Qc2 Qe7 9. Be3 Bf5

Black has the advantage: White cannot easily complete development
and his poor Queen is embarrassed.

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.1p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.gP)n+.+|
|+.H.GN+.|
|P)Q+.)P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+


10. Qc1

[10. Bd3?! dxc4 11. Bxc4 Ng3-+]

10… Nxc3 11. bxc3 Ba3 12. Qd2 Nb4!!

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.1p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.hP).+.+|
|g.).GN+.|
|P+.!.)P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+

White is busted. He tries to hang on with Ke2 but it doesn’t take
much longer with the K stuck in the middle.

13. Ke2 Nc2 14. Rd1 dxc4 15. Ne5 O-O 16. f3 b5 17. g4 Nxe3
18. Qxe3 Bd7 19. Kf2 Rae8 20. Qd2 Bc8 21. Re1 Qh4+ 22. Kg2 f6 0-1

Janowsky – Marshall, 1912

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3
Bd6

6…Be7 is honestly better

7. c4 O-O 8. cxd5

Castling was a lot better here

8… Bb4+ 9. Kf1 Qxd5 10.

Qc2 Re8 11. Nc3 Nxc3 12. bxc3

+-----------------+
|rhb+r+k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.g.).+.+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P+Q+.)P)|
|$.G.+K+R|
+-----------------+


12… Qxf3!! 13. cxb4

[13. gxf3 Bh3+ 14. Kg1 Re1+ 15. Bf1 Rxf1#]

13… Nc6 14. Bb2 Nxb4 15. Bxh7+ Kh8 16. gxf3 Bh3+ 17. Kg1
Nxc2 18. Bxc2 Re2 19. Rc1 Rae8 20. Bc3

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.i|
|0p0.+p0.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.G.+P+b|
|P+B+r).)|
|+.$.+.IR|
+-----------------+


20… R8e3

[brilliant, but 20… Rxc2 21. Rxc2 Re6 was easier]

21. Bb4

[21. fxe3 Rg2+ 22. Kf1 Rxc2+ 23. Ke1 Rxc1+ 24. Kd2 Rxh1]

21… Rxf3 22. Bd1 Rf6 0-1

　

Dolmatov – Makarichev, Palma, 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7
Bxd7 7. O-O Qh4 8. c4 O-O-O 9. c5 g5 10. f3!? Nf6 11. Be3 Rg8 12. Nc3
g4

Black plays with great energy and has a fierce attack.

+-----------------+
|.+k4.gr+|
|0p0b+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.)p+.+.|
|.+.).+p1|
|+.HBGP+.|
|P).+.+P)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+


13. Qe1

[13. Bf2 is better]

13… g3 14. hxg3 Rxg3

+-----------------+
|.+k4.g.+|
|0p0b+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.)p+.+.|
|.+.).+.1|
|+.HBGP4.|
|P).+.+P+|
|$.+.!RI.|
+-----------------+

15. Qd2

[not 15. Bf2, as 15….Rxg2+ 16. Kxg2 Qh3+ 17. Kg1 Bd6 18. cxd6
Rg8+ wins]

15… Bxc5 16. dxc5 Rdg8 17. Rad1 d4 18. c6 dxe3 19. cxd7+
Kd8 0-1

+-----------------+
|.+.i.+r+|
|0p0P+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.1|
|+.HB0P4.|
|P).!.+P+|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

Black has various threats – …Rh3, …Rxg2, …Qf2+ and so on –
which cannot all be met.

“Dull and a draw”, eh?

Novel Opening Play

Posted on by

Jonathan wanted to have something on this session thinking about the English Opening, but, in case you don’t play that system, I’ll broaden it out a bit.

The experience of meeting novelty

It needn’t be a completely new move, of course, just new to you. Let’s see if we can create that experience for you. Some examples that we came up with: As White, facing 1.d4 e5!? As White, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? As Black, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4!? Some examples for more experienced players, can be found in the SOS volumes.  For example, here are the suggestions from SOS 13: Responses to novelty Emotional responses: suspicion, derision, fear, panic, amusement, complacency, offence, dismissal, distraction… “He must be a duffer”/”He must have studied it and know everything”… “I’d hate to lose quickly, what’s the safest move here?” “What are they up to?” You have to get past those emotional responses as fast as you can and start thinking about the position in front of you right now.  The one strand that is very relevant is that last one: What are they up to?  That’s always a good chess question, because your opponent is always up to something! So, looking for rational responses: it’s just another move.  What’s the idea? — or, more likely, the ideas?  What are your ideas?  What moves are at all plausible for me?  What moves do I want to play anyway? Maybe there is a combative line that is quite theoretical and leads to a clear advantage for your side.  But can you find it while steering clear of any traps? Perhaps more practical is to seek a smaller, safer advantage. Let’s have a look at these approaches in our examples:

Example 1

1.d4 e5!?

This sprightly idea is called the Englund Gambit.  Imagine you are facing this move in the first round of the Bristol Rapidplay against an unknown opponent.

I think it’s clear that after 2.c3 or 2.d5 Bc5 White has abandoned any hope of an opening advantage.  Really the only way forward is to take it

 

2.dxe5

No qualms here yet I think.

2…Nc6 3.Nf3

Also qualm-free.  A very natural move, one we probably want to play anyway, and one that defends the pawn.

[3.f4 looks like Trying Too Hard.  Maybe it’s good, but with 3.Nf3 available and the clock going, why bother?]

3…Qe7

OK, that is an awkward-looking move.  That may mean that Black really is a bit of a duffer, or this is an unusual move with a point.  One very natural response is:

4.Bf4

But remembering last week (loose piece, exposed King, look at all checks and captures every move) you should instantly spot the point:

4…Qb4+

Now one line that you might be tempted by is 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3 (an unnatural move I think, and a Warning Sign) 6…Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1 ‘mate!

That’s not forced of course.  Perhaps White can improve without spending too much thinking time with 6.Nc3 e.g. 6…Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5…

However, if your analysis skills aren’t up to all that in rapidplay, I think you should take one look at 4.Bf4, spot 4…Qb4+, and move on to the next most natural move:

4.Nc3

Must be OK.  Let Black have the pawn back, we’ll carry on playing good strong sensible moves.

4…Nxe5

Now, Black still has some problems due to the awkward …Qe7.  It’s not hard to recommend here:

5.e4

 

White has easy development and a small advantage.  We can look forward to continuing our sensible opening play, perhaps arriving at a position where we have completed development in good order when Black is still trying to get sorted out, and we can then look for a way of seizing the initiative or forcing a weakness.  Perhaps 4.Bf4 leads to a bigger advantage with best play on both sides, but 4.Nc3 and 5.e4 is easier to handle and free from risk.

 

[5.Nxe5 Qxe5 just solves Black’s problem for them: the Bf8 can now be developed.]

Example 2

As White, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!?

Again there is a fiendish trap: 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3# (Blackburne’s Shilling Gambit)

But I’m sure you can spot the suspicious time-wasting by the White Knight.  I think a better move is easy to find:

4.c3! and now after 4…Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 White has an obvious plus.

Example 3

As Black, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4!?

The idea is to play the Urusoff gambit: 3…exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4, when White plans Nc3 Bg5 O-O-O and Rhe1. I think 3…exd4 is a move you want to play anyway, but after 4.Nf3 we can find something else. 4…Nc6! transposes into the main lines of the Two Knights’ Defence, which gets us back into what we know.  What’s that? Oh, dear… It turns out not too many of us know the main lines of the Two Knights’ Defence, but we do know the Giuoco Piano. In that case, I think we have no business playing 2…Nf6, and instead, 2…Nc6 is the only way to preserve any hope of getting into known lines.  But if White wanted to play the Giuoco Piano I assume they would have gone for it straight away, so we still need to know another line here (Vienna Game?).  At least after 2…Nc6 there will be no Urusoff. So, the advice when faced with a novel move is:

  • Don’t Panic, and Don’t Sneer
  • Ask yourself, what is the idea?
  • Play natural moves, and moves you want to play anyway, when you can
  • Be suspicious of moves that disobey standard opening guidelines.

“This reminds me of a rule I know very well because I made it up: When you are caught in an opening you don’t know, make good developing moves!” — Bent Larsen in Evans et al.

P.S. GM example appended

Openings workshop 2011

Posted on by

Four questions from the floor with comments from all

A defence to the Kings Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.f4

Asking around the group for moves for Black at move 2, we collected:

2…f6;
2…d6;
2…Nf6;
2…Nc6;
2…Bc5;
2…exf4;
2…Qh4+;
2…Qf6;
2…Qe7;
2…d5 …

And that probably doesn’t exhaust everything that has been tried, but it will do for now.  All have some logic so let’s work our way through them.

Before we do, it is important to note at the start that White is not yet threatening the Black e-pawn,  Here if 2…a6 3.exf4?? Qh4+ and White is embarrassed.   So actually Black can pretty well do what they like.

* 2…f6 is well motivated but fails to the elementary tactical sequence

3. fxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qxe5+ Qe7 6. Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7. Be2 Qxg2 8. Bf3 …

* 2…Nf6 and 2…Nc6

Both neglect to support the King’s pawn.  After 2…Nc6 3.Nf3 Black has the same problem.

3.fxe4
becomes a threat after 2…Nf6 and the logical sequence:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nf6 3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5 (4…Nc6 5. d3 Nc5 6. d4 Ne4) 5.d4
Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf2

…as in Fischer-Wade, 1968, gives White an edge.

* 2…d6

Not daft, not bad, but not best.  This move is unkind to the Bf8,
and, as there is no direct threat to the e-pawn, we can go:

2…Bc5 3.Nf3 d6

Now White can try 4.Nc3 and 5.Bc4, or 4.c3, with normal chances of a
small White advantage.

 * Falkbeer/Nimzowitsch

2…d5

White can avoid all dangers

3.Nc3

– however, White is also in no danger of getting an advantage with this
tame move.

3. exd5

Now Black has a choice of counter-gambits, Nimzowitsch’s 3…c6 and
Falkbeer’s 3…e4.

After 3…c6, any mess can be declined with 4.Nc3, reckoned to
be the best line at the moment.

3…e4 is a great idea but I
think White can find a way towards an advantage:

4. d3 Nf6

(4… Qxd5 5. Qe2 Nf6 6. Nd2 Bf5 (6…Bg4 7.Ngf3) 7. dxe4 {idea ?xe4, 8 g4! is very strong.})

5. dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3

(6. Be3!? is an idea of Spassky: 6… Qh4+ 7. g3 Nxg3 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.hxg3
and now 9…Qxe3+ 10.Qe2 or 9…Qxh1 10.Qe2)

6… Bc5 7. Qe2 f5

(7… Bf5 8. Nc3+=)

8. Nc3 Bf2+ 9. Kd1 += and
Black’s juggernaut has run into sand.

* The Gambit Accepted and the Cunningham Defence

Turning now to ways of accepting the gambit, after 2…exf4, Black’s threat of playing 3…Qh4+ is most easily met by 3.Nf3. Now Black has another enormous choice here, but I recommend looking first at the Cunningham Defence.

3…Be7 threat …Bh4+

4. Bc4

4.Nc3?! Bh4+ 5.Ke2 may not be terrible, but White probably doesn’t want to go down this line.

But after 4.Bc4, 4…Bh4+ 5.Kf1 may inconvenience Black more than White.

4… Nf6

There are now an encouraging number of mistakes for White to make in the first few moves.

(5. O-O? Nxe4)

(5. Nc3?! Nxe4!)

(5. d3?! d5!)

So, by the process of elimination:

5. e5! Ng4!

Now 6. h3?? Bh4+ is awful for White and 6. d4 d5 7.exd6 Qxd6 looks OK for Black, so

6. 0-0 0-0! 7. h3?! d5! 8. Bb3

[8.exd6 then 8…Qxd6 threatens to win the loose c4-bishop with 9…Qc5+.]

8…c5! 9.c3

[9.hxg4 c4 10.Ba4 b5 11.Bxb5 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 Qxb5 13.Nc3 Qc6 14.d4 Bxg4 15.Bxf4 Nd7 16.Qd2 Bxf3 17.Rxf3 f6 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Re1 Rf7 20.Rfe3 Nf8 21.Be5? Bg5 …0-1 Kennaugh-Hebden, 1994]

9…c4 10.hxg4

[10.Bc2? loses swiftly to 10…Qb6+]

10…cxb3 11.Qxb3 d4! 12.d3

[12.Nxd4 Bc5 13.Rxf4 Nc6 14.Qc4 Nxe5! 15.Qxc5 Nd3!]

12…Nc6 13.c4 g5! 14.Nbd2 Bxg4 15.a3

[15.Qxb7 Nb4 is horrible for White.]

15…Qc7 16.Re1 Bh5

(idea 17…g4)

17.Ne4 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Nxe5 19.Kg2 f5 20.Nf2 Ng6 0-1 Holmes-Motwani 1994.

Tchigorin’s bust of the Stonewall Attack.

When the Stonewall works, it can feel as simple as shelling peas:

That is very much How Not To Defend Against The Stonewall Attack, although the move order is worth remembering.

However, Black can play more craftily and survive, mostly by not castling into the attack, but also by making a more determined effort to control the light squares and/or the centre.

In a way, White has learned a trick, like Scholar’s Mate is a trick:

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?? 4.Qxf7#

(Actually that was my first ever game in a chess club, and I was Black…)  Once Black has seen the idea it is not so hard to dodge.  Then White needs an opening with more and deeper ideas, that poses Black problems that are not so easy to see coming or to deal with.

Tchigorin worked out a move order that makes nonsense of the whole Stonewall Attack, which Brian (**) is having trouble with:

* Tarrasch-Tchigorin, 1895 [GAME]

Sad to say, there is no answer to this for White.  You either have to hope that Black players don’t know this defence, or you need to trick them with some other move order (3.Nd2!?), or really you need to find a better opening.

By all means start towards it with 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 but now I suggest 3.Nf3.

After 3…e6 we can play the Colle System and after 3…Bf5 we can play the Slow Slav with 4.c4 – not a hugely inspiring way to play but Kramnik struggled occasionally
in 2006 when faced with it by Topalov in their 2006 match.  (3…Bg4 4.c4 is similar.)
Certainly, White has better chances with these ideas than in the Tchigorin line.

That’s not to say that you should forget all about this formation.  You might find that Black uses a move order in the opening which does not allow Black to play the very best defences.

(1) You might be able to spring a Stonewall Attack after a different start, while playing more mainstream QP openings:

* Portisch-Petrosian, 1974 [GAME]

* Prie-Jablonski , 2003 [GAME]

(2) You can try Bird’s Opening:

* Danielsen-Halldorsson, 2002 [GAME]

(3) And lastly, there is still an enthusiasm for playing the Stonewall Dutch Defence as Black (ask Tim!), perhaps not with such directness as this:

* Glucksberg-Najdorf, 1935 [GAME]

Kramnik famously declared that, with the extra space, the Stonewall Dutch is easier to play with Black than for White!  I was very struck when I got a copy of NCO, to see all the main lines of the Stonewall were given an unadorned “=”.

With recommendations like that, it is hard to dismiss the defence, but of course with greater attention came greater number of ideas for White, and it perhaps is less easy to play the Stonewall for Black than it used to be.

There are a couple of excellent books on the defence around, by Aagaard and by Johnssen et al.

(**) I will just say here that Brian’s adoption of the Stonewall is due to the book How to Think Ahead in Chess, which, whatever its title might suggest, is an opening repertoire book recommending the Stonewall for White.  I note that this book appeared in 1943 while Tchigorin’s bust has been known since the well-known game Tarrasch-Tchigorin, Hastings 1895.  Soltis also suggested the Stonewall for White in 1992, but at least
he had the integrity to mention the problem and suggest a solution. (4. f4 Nb4 5. Nf3 Nxd3+ 6.Qxd3 when Soltis suggests the central control is still worth something.)

Defending against the Ruy Lopez.

Well, if I could guarantee a trouble-free life against the Lopez, I would be able to earn a fortune selling the secret.  It seems the GMs are still working out the details of the Zaitsev and the Marshall and the Moller, but these sophisticated and subtle systems are buried under a mountain of theory, not easily absorbed by club players.

So what are we to do?  Lots of options, but let’s have a look at these two:

* Open Defence
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3

I always liked to see Korchnoi’s progress with this vigorous Defence, favoured by Tarrasch and also adopted by the upright Dr.Euwe.  When I was a boy I had a notion of playing the Dilworth Variation, a complicated line of which the evaluation defends on a
complicated endgame:
9… Bc5
Alternatives are
(9… Be7)
and
(9… Nc5)

Sadly, Korchnoi’s persistence with the line at World Championship level provoked Karpov and his team to develop better anti-Open variations, and these days 9.c3 is discarded in favour of the modern 9.Nbd2.  This is particularly sad for fans of the Dilworth, for although Black is still battling away with 9…Be7 and 9…Nc5, it seems White has a simple small advantage after 9…Bc5.

 * Berlin Defence

Is there any reason to play a line without 3…a6?  Fine showed the superiority of Morphy’s move-order in clear terms in his well-known book, emThe Ideas Behind The Chess Openings./em After strong1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5/strong with and without strong3…a6 4.Ba4 /strong

Without …a6 With ….a6
3…Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.Nc3+= 4…Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3=
3…d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.Bg5+= [4…d6 5.d4 b5 6.Bb3 Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Bd5 Rb8 9.Bc6+ Bd7=

You can argue about the moves but I hope the point is made.

Only if you were very keen to avoid the Exchange Variation would it
seem advantageous to omit 3…a6.

However, while Black’s winning chances in the Berlin are not great,
White’s winning percentage is not huge either.  Let’s look at the
main line:

strong3… Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 (6. dxe5!? Nxb5 7. a4) 6… dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8.
Qxd8+ Kxd8/strong

The Queens come off and White has to try his best in an endgame
where yes, the King’s-side majority is a big asset, but Black has two
Bishops and already a lot of light-square control.

White can point to several advantages but the position is relatively
quiet and the play positional. So what?  Well, Kramnik possibly
owes his World Championship title to the Berlin Defence, where in 2000
Kasparov failed to make effective use of the White pieces:

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
 * 1 * . . . . . * 1 . . * . .

so, 2-0 or 8.5-6.5 to Kramnik.  The marked games were draws
where Kramnik played the Berlin and held
it. The Berlin is a smart move against a player with such a marked

reference for complex attacking play.

 * Schliemann Gambit

Just a second suggestion if the Open and Berlin don’t appeal.

The main lines of this variation are long and difficult and probably
better for White.  White has to know them, though!

Lutz,C – Yagupov,I Groningen, 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4
5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qxf4 10.Ne5+ c6 11.d4
Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh3 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bf4 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 Bd6 16.Kb1 Rhf8 17.Rhf1
Kb8 18.a4 Ka8 19.a5 Bxc4 20.Qxc4 Bxe5 21.dxe5 Nd5 22.a6… 
(1-0,60)

Sokolov and others have pointed to 5…Nf6 as a less high-stakesoption, where Black has reasonable chances for the pawn.

A line in the Alapin Sicilian

Charlie asked after the variation:

1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. exd5
Qxd5 …

Now both Charlie’s suggested plans:

5. d4
5. Na3

… look like very reasonable ways of seeking the advantage.  I
don’t know much about this line but I looked it up.  The move
order is not one that you find in all the books, but after 5.d4 we are
into a fairly well-known position where Black can try 5…cxd4, 5…Nf6
or even 5….e5!? with reasonable chances of equality.  5.Na3 has
been tried a couple of dozen times in the last 10 years, with fair
results, although following 5.Na3 the most common sequence has been
5…Bg4 6.Be2 e5, and
I can’t see that White has succeeded in setting Black any problems
after this.

In the search for novel play we should avoid:

* Potze-Van der Elburg, Hoogeveen 2006: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Na3 Bg4 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.Qa4 e4 9.d3 Bxf3 0-1 as 10.gxf3 exd3
11.Bd1 d2 wins a piece.

Nice things happen: play-through Italian Game suggestions

Posted on by

Nice email from Robert Janninck:

I am a fan of your site. It helped me getting started with openings. In return I put the Italian game for you in chessbase format. For me when i see things happening on the board it always help, so i thougth maybe that will help others too.

…

My motivation: I like to help youre concept (site) to get better/easier and help others in having more fun in chess. Make it reachable and not for the money.

Thanks a million Robert!

Original handout: https://devonjuniorchess.co.uk/wp/drdaveexeter/1996/04/28/the-italian-game-for-beginners/

Robert’s conversion:

italian.pgn

Attacking the Two Knights’ Defence

Posted on by

There are three main ways you can try to attack against the Two
Knights’ Defence.

(A) 4.Ng5 is the most obvious, but I don’t recommend it. 
White
can win a pawn, but if Black knows the book moves, you will have to
defend against very active Black pieces.

e.g. 4.Ng5 d5! 5.exd5 b5!? 6.Bxb5 Qxd5

4.d4 is the move I recommend.

(B) There is a fun line which Black can equalise against but it’s
White who is attacking: Max Lange Knight Variation

4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 d5! 7.Bxd5! Qxd5 8.Nc3! e.g. 8..Qa5
9.Nxe4 Be6 and now 10.Neg5 or 10.Bd2

(C) Max Lange Attack: This is another fun line which is very sharp
and both sides are under attack!  Black may even be better in the
long main line…

Smerdon,D – Heidenfeld,M [C55]
Australian Open Canberra
AUS
(11), 09.01.2001


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4
8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5 10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4 0-0-0 12.g4 Qe5 13.Nxe6 fxe6
14.fxg7 Rhg8 15.Bh6 d3 16.c3 d2 17.Re2 Rd3 18.Qf1 Qd5 19.Rd1 Be7 20.Qg2
Ne5 21.Rexd2 Nf7 22.g5 Nxh6 23.Rxd3 cxd3 24.gxh6 Qh5 25.Rxd3 Qxh6
26.Rg3 Bh4 27.Rg4 Qc1+ 28.Qf1 Qh6 29.Qc4 Rxg7 30.Nc5 Qf6 31.f3 e5
32.Rxg7 Qxg7+ 33.Kf1 Qe7 34.Qg4+ Kb8 35.Nd7+ Ka8 36.Nf6 1-0

…but often loses long before:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6
dxc4
8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qxf6? 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qh5+ Qf7 12.Qxc5

When your opponents all know the long main lines of the Max Lange,
you can turn to the Modern Variation:

(D) 4.d4 exd5 5.e5

4.d4 exd5 5.O-O Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.Bb5

This is a calmer way to play for a win, badgering Black about weak
pawns.

e.g. Doghri,N -Matsuo,T [C56] Yerevan (7), 1996
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5
8.Be3 Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Nd2 Qh4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4 12.O-O Bb6 13.Re1 Qg6
14.Nb3 O-O 15.Bc5 Rfe8 16.a4 Bf5 17.Rc1 Rab8 18.Re3 Bxc5 19.Nxc5 Rxb2
20.Qd4 Rxc2 21.Rxc2 Bxc2 22.h3 a5 23.Kh2 Bf5 24.Rg3 Qh6 25.f4 g6 26.Nb3
Ra8 27.Rc3 Qh4 28.Rxc6 Rb8 29.Nxa5 Qe1 30.Rc5 Be4 31.e6 c6 32.Nxc6 Re8
33.Ne7+ Kf8 34.Rc8 1-0

Nineteenth-century Openings

Posted on by

Article < mattg.66.0C7302D4@indirect.com > of rec.games.chess.analysis

Many of the posts here on r.g.c.a. take the form “what should I play against…” or the related, but very different, “what’s a good line against…“. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, both for myself, and, more especially, for my students, who range in strength from beginner to class A, and I’ve come up with some thoughts that I’d like to share and invite feedback on.

I believe it was Reti who first advanced the thesis that the development of the individual should follow the course of the development of chess itself. In other words that a player will first (Greco et al.) learn some cute tactical tricks, then (Morphy, Anderssen) become competent at deeper tactics, and concepts such as rapid development; next (Steinitz, Tarrasch) will come a fairly rigorous learning of positional concepts, etc.

Surprisingly, I have never seen the parallel thesis that A player’s opening repertoire should similarly follow historical trends. Therefore one should start by learning a “19th century” opening repertoire based upon open games, then move on to a “Classical” repertoire, leaning heavily on the Lopez and Queen’s Gambit, and only adopt hypermodern and post-war openings much later. The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Early in a chess career, tactics predominate, and piece mobilty is the primary strategical consideration. (Remember that pieces lose mobility drastically and permanently if they are captured.) Therefore we should adopt openings that will reward rapid mobilization. (A specific example: after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 6 4.Ng5 I have taught several of my students (rated < 1300) to play 4…Bc5!? (*) The result? an absolute 100% success rate, with not a single White King making it to move 25! White always grabs f7 and h8, and then perishes miserably. my players have not memorized reams of analysis, but have instead been shown a couple of key ideas, and then unleashed.)

Once a player has achieved a certain level of competence playing these open games, then she is ready for openings that will teach and reward certain specific types of strategic knowledge. A second rule applies here: The greater the strategical complexity of an opening, the higher rated you need to be before playing it. Again, an example: Two openings frequently recommended to players in about the 1400-1800 range are the Torre Attack and the Stonewall. These recommendations are usually based on the superficial truth that “It’s easy to learn- White plays the same moves no matter what Black does.” However, in the Stonewall, it is almost true to say that there is only one strategical idea at work- “Keep the centre closed, occupy e5, and attack on the K-side“. By contrast, White’s strategical options in the Torre are numerous, and which plan to adopt frequently depends upon fairly subtle understanding of Black’s defensive scheme. Therefore, I believe, despite the fact that White does make the same first half-dozen or so moves against almost any Black setup, the Torre is a very hard opening to learn to play well.

Maybe the hardest openings to play well are those that require not only broad based strategical understanding, but also a willingness to engage in tactical pyrotechnics at the appropriate moment. The systems (predominantly subvariations of the Sicilian, KID and maybe Slav) probably should not be attempted by players lower rated than 2000. The fact that many of these are currently popular at Super-GM level proves the point. After all, if a 2650 is trying to set problems too hard for a peer to solve, the chance of an 1800 understanding anything about the position must be pretty low.

Another, seemingly paradoxical, question that must be asked before an opening is selected is this: “Do I want to win, or do I want to become a better player?” If the primary goal is short-term maximization of results, then a variation should be selected which maximizes those strengths that the player already possesses. However, if the goal is long-term improvement, then the selection task becomes more difficult. It is necessary to evaluate overall playing strengths and weaknesses, choose an appropriate goal (eg. “Learning to play more patiently“) and then select variations which will reward patient play. It is in this area that a higher rated colleague or coach may be of help – both in determining what is an appropriate strategic task to work on, and in selecting variations to help accomplish the task. The short-term results of such an approach may be painful, but the long-term improvement will be worth it.

Conclusions:

1) Selection of an opening repertoire can be a powerful tool for improvement.

2) The question “what should I play against…” cannot be adequately answered without further data. (rating, previously used systems, goals, etc.)

3) There are good reasons to believe that individual progression of opening understanding can and should mirror historical progression.

I welcome any discussion or criticism of the theories I have outlined above, and I hope that the readers of r.g.c.a find this article both interesting and useful.

a

Matt Guthrie (click to mail)

Matt Guthrie is a USCF Master and professional chess teacher. He is Arizona State Champion, and coach of the teams that won both the Primary and Elementary sections of the 1995 All-America Cup.

(*) Wilkes-Barre Variation: see Example Games
WARNING

  These games contain uncut scenes of chess violence. Do not play through them late at night, or in the presence of sensitive adults.

Four choices in the opening

Posted on by

Introduction: your four choices

There are four basic choices to be made before sitting down at a chessboard.

You must decide whether to open as White with 1. e4, with 1.d4 or with a Reti/English system

(and have something in mind against each semi-open or Indian defence)

You must decide how to respond to 1. e4 as Black

You must decide how to respond to 1. d4 as Black

You must decide how to respond to the Reti/English system as Black.

What you choose may depend on whether you like to attack or to play more solidly, and whether you prefer to play open or more closed positions.

You should also consider how it fits with what else you have chosen. For example, if you adopt the Dutch or English Defences with the move order 1. d4 e6, you must be prepared to play the French. Or, if you like to play the Slav with …c6, you might feel the Caro-Kann with …c6 is a nice fit.

The commonest – and many would say the best – opening move is 1. e4, and 1. d4 is also a good first move. But almost every other first move has been played and advocated at some time or another, and almost every legal Black move has been tried in reply to 1.e4/1.d4.

I enclose an openings map below. Even if you learned this off by heart, there are still over 1000 more openings, defences and variations listed in the Oxford Companion to Chess. This is a map, not so you can go charging off everywhere, but so if someone shows you something, you can look it up. You should know that each opening has a plan (or if it doesn’t, it’s not a very good opening!) You will easily find things not on this list – either mainstream (e.g. last time I visited a bookshop it had a new book on the Torre Attack 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 and 3.Bg5), and or amongst the ‘fringe’ (e.g. the Vulture 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 Ne4). Moreover, as GM LOMBARDY once said (cited above),

“All openings offer good winning chances in amateur play“.

I used to know a Henry who was known as H.4.Stewart because of his inclination to 1.h4 as an opening move, and I’m sure it saved him a lot of time sweating over the latest line in the Sicilian Dragon. How should you reply to this? If faced with 1.h4, or anything else unusual, just keep playing good chess – keep calm, keep developing, keep your eye on the centre, and keep your wits about you.

The variety of openings can be daunting. I think there is a trick to coping with this, which is expressed in Reti’s famous statement:

“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

The development of a chessplayer should naturally progress through stages just as chess has passed through stages in its history. MacDonnell and LaBourdonnais (and even Steinitz and Tchigorin) lashed at each other with the Evans Gambit; by the time Steinitz played Lasker we saw more of the Ruy Lopez. The titanic Capablanca-Alekhin struggle was fought out mainly with the Queen’s Gambit Declined (whereas the era of Steinitz was more concerned with the Gambit Accepted). The Euwe matches saw the French, a Semi-Open defence, and Indian Defences like the Dutch, Grunfeld and Nimzo-Indian adopted as main choices at World Championship level for the first time. By the time of Botvinnik we saw the Caro-Kann, the King’s Indian and the flank openings (Reti and English) appearing in matches, while Karpov and Kasparov seem to have played everything.

From this we can draw up a hierarchy, on each side of the board:

1. Open games and Gambits with 1. e4 e5; Queen’s Gambit Accepted.

2. Ruy Lopez; Queen’s Gambit Declined.

3. French; Dutch, Grunfeld, Queen’s and Nimzo-Indian.

4. Flank openings; King’s Indian.

There is no doubt in my mind that only once you have served your apprenticeship with the earlier and strategically more simple openings should you venture out to play in the jungles of the later ones.

Also, if you do want to move down the list, I think you should not move through dissatisfaction or fear with your current repertoire, but preferably from boredom, or the experience that opponents at your level know all about how to play the openings you practice. One might also remember that Bobby Fischer rarely departed from 1. e4 throughout his career, and that the Giuoco Piano was played by Karpov against Kortchnoi.

 

Playing Aggressively or Solidly as White and Black

Did I say four choices? There is another choice which you need to make first: do you wish to play solidly or aggressively? Reti and I suggest that you play open games, which more or less obliges an aggressive style. It is in these games that you can practice attacking play and learn to spot tactics, without which there is not much point considering more strategically complex systems. However, if you feel you have been through this apprenticeship, there are some more solid, strategical choices available.

For example, the Italian Game generally results in fewer draws than the English Opening, and more draws than the King’s Gambit, although the percentage score from each opening may be similar, acording to databases I have examined:
Italian Game: 41% White wins, 26% drawn, 33% lost by White (total 54%)
English Opening: 37% White wins, 36% drawn, 27% lost by White (total 54%)
King’s Gambit: 47% White wins, 15% drawn, 38% lost by White (total 54%)
Within the Giuoco Piano alone, playing d2-d4 instead of d2-d3 reduces the proportion of draws by 10%. So, you have quite a lot of influence over the style of the game by your opening choices, although these are always negotiated (as it were) with your opponent!

Here is a sorted list of common opening systems, from which you can make your four choices.

  • Playing White with 1. e4
    • Playing aggressively as White with 1. e4
      • After 1…e5: Danish Gambit, Giuoco Piano with d2-d4/Max Lange, King’s Gambit, Vienna Gambit, Bishop’s Opening (Urusoff Gambit), Ruy Lopez with an early d4
      • Against semi-open defences: early d2-d4, advance variations, transposition to Blackmar-Diemer Gambit or other Gambits (e.g. Morra).
    • Playing solidly as White with 1. e4
      • After 1…e5: Centre Game, Bishop’s Opening/Giuoco Piano with d2-d3, Ruy Lopez with d2-d4 late or never, Vienna Game,
      • Against semi-open defences: advance variations, King’s Indian Attack.
  • Playing White with 1. d4
    • Playing aggressively as White with 1. d4
      • After 1…d5: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Queen’s Gambit with Queen’s-side castling,
      • Against Indian defences: King’s-side Pawn storms e.g. Samisch vs. King’s Indian.
    • Playing solidly as White with 1. d4
      • After 1…d5: Queen’s Gambit Declined with O-O, Queen’s Pawn games without c2-c4.
      • Against Indian defences: Queen’s-side Pawn storms e.g. Classical King’s Indian.
  • Playing White with the Reti/English
    • Playing (relatively) aggressively as White with the Reti/English
      • King’s Indian Attack, Botvinnik system of English.
    • Playing solidly as White with the Reti/English
      • Queen’s-side Pawn storms, systems with b2-b3.
  • Playing Black
    • Playing Black against 1. e4
      • Playing aggressively as Black against 1. e4
        • Sicilian, Alekhin’s, Pirc/Modern
      • Playing solidly as Black against 1. e4
        • Petroff or other lines with 1…e5, French, Caro-Kann, Modern with …c6
  • Playing Black against 1. d4
    • Playing aggressively as Black against 1. d4
      • Tarrasch Defence, Budapest Gambit, Benko/Benoni, King’s Indian, Grunfeld
    • Playing solidly as Black against 1. d4
      • Slav Defence, Queen’s Gambit Declined e.g. Tartakower, Nimzo/Queen’s Indian
  • Playing Black against the Reti/English
    • Playing aggressively as Black against the Reti/English
      • Reversed Sicilian, Dutch systems, King’s Indian
    • Playing solidly as Black against the Reti/English
      • Slav, London System

If you don’t know what these openings are yet, you might look them up below, but you will need more information than this to play them properly!

Changing your opening repertoire.

It may be from reading things like this that you are thinking about changing your opening choices. There are some things to consider:

  • Don’t try and change your whole repertoire from a given date. It’s much better to experiment with part of your repertoire at a time, and you don’t have to play your new line in every game.
  • The first thing to do is to get hold of a good verbal summary of the ideas behind the new line(s). [Don’t spend a fortune on specific monographs until you are committed to the line; you are better off owning more general, inclusive titles until you pass 1400 ELO (Class C).] Reuben Fine’s The Ideas behind the chess openings is a great place to start, but it is terribly dated. [He disparages some openings which, fifty years on, are believed to be very playable.] If you have access to this book, and can bend the ear of a couple of players who are a couple of classes or more above you, this is probably all you need.
    There are some brief explanations which are quite nice in “BCO2”, the second edition of Batsford Chess Openings.
    There are also some monographs which cover a variety of openings and which are designed to explain the ideas: some of the best of these are also rather old and out of print like the RHM series “Understanding the …”, or books which cover several openings at once [e.g. The Italian Game, Botterill/Harding].
  • The next thing is to find some example variations and games. BCO2 is fine for variations, and there are game databases on the internet for different openings. All of these are totally unannotated. Play over a few lines or games to get a “feel” for the opening – which squares your pieces often come to, and which side of the board to play on.
    To get hold of annotated games, try magazines, and games collections like, say, Alekhin’s Best games of Chess.
  • So, now you should know the ideas behind the openings, some of the main lines, and have a feel for how the game may go. The next step is to try it out. Play friendly “quick” games using this opening at your club, or on one of the chess servers; it’s nice to find an opponent who will cooperate by agreeing to play your chosen opening. [I say quick rather than blitz: I have a prejudice that 5-minute chess (G/5) is useless for learning openings, but 10-15 minute chess is very useful. Every so often in the opening you will need to stop and think for 2-3 minutes, which you can do at G/10. ]
    This should let you know what the basic variations are that you will meet most often in practice, and the plans most often adopted.
  • Then introduce it into your serious games. Again, you don’t have to play it in every game; I’ve been experimenting with 1. e4 as a replacement for the English 1. c4 in my games, but I still play the English if:
    1. a draw is more important than a win, or
    2. my opponent is a known skilful attacking player who hates slow games, or
    3. my opponent is a junior who is likely to be inexperienced in the English, or
    4. my opponent plays a defence to 1.c4 which I like to play against, or
    5. my opponent plays a defence to 1.e4 which I don’t like, or
    6. I feel like it!
  • Playing a couple of postal games with your new opening is very good practice.

A simple openings map.

Openings without 1.d4 or 1.e4

There are hundreds of tried and untried moves. I recently came across Larsen’s Gambit 59: 1. g3 e5 2. Bg2 d5 3. b4!? Bxb4 4. c4! Stefan Bucker of Norwalde, Germany, has actually invented a little trio of related defensive systems for Black. Amazingly, they occur after some very familiar initial moves:

They are:

The Vulture: 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. c4 Ne4
The Habichd: 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. Nf3 c4
The Woozle: 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Qa5 (idea …b5)

(The “Habichd” comes from the German phrase for “I’ve got you” (maybe we would say in English: Gotcha!), and the “Woozle” comes perhaps from English slang “woozy”, meaning drunk or befuddled.)

There are some morals to be drawn from the existence of these openings: one gloomy, one cheerful.

1. You cannot anticipate everything. Time spent trying to come up with a “complete”, failsafe opening repertoire is doomed to failure. You will get locked inside an arms race where the only winners are the publishers. You are better off studying chess than openings!

2. There is always scope for originality in the opening. Even if you feel yourself being drawn into your opponent’s preparation you may be able to head off into untheoretical territory – not by playing a bad-looking move, but perhaps with an odd-looking one, or a good-looking one that just isn’t in the books. Tartakower used to say, “Unfashionable, therefore playable”!

1. Na3 [unhappy] Durkin Opening (a.k.a. Sodium Attack). Supports c4 but isn’t really going anywhere. I recommend 1…e5 in reply. I can’t guarantee you will emerge equal but it’s a natural way to try.

1. Nc3 [solid] Dunst Opening. One of the better non-standard lines: White can hit out with e4 or go solid with g3.

1. Nf3 [solid] [unhappy] [bookish] Reti Opening. White invites Black to set up a pawn centre; White can follow up with g3/c4. (The [unhappy] is for the difficult and subtle nature of many of the main lines – save it for later in your career. This applies also to other modern openings like the English and Catalan.)

1. Nh3 [unhappy][skull] Amar Opening (Paris Gambit). Usually intending 1.Nh3 d5 2. g3 e5 3. f4 Bxh3 4. Bxh3 exf4. Tartakower played this and even won] but don’t you play it until you’re as good as Tartakower.

1. a3 [solid] Anderssen Opening. A way of reserving options. White may follow up naturally with 2.b3 or 2.b4, transposing.

1. a4 [?!] Meadow Hay Opening. The name is insulting (implying, a yokel opening). Not really going anywhere: 1…e5 equalises.

1. b3 [!?] Nimzo-Larsen Opening a.k.a. Queen Fianchetto Opening. White will allow Black to set up a pawn centre [which can then be used as a target.

1. b4 [!?] Sokolsky Opening a.k.a. Polish Opening a.k.a. Orang-Utan Opening. Black is again allowed a pawn centre, but is not given the freedom of …c5.

1. c3 [solid] Saragossa Opening. A way of reserving options. 1…e5 should equalise.

1. c4 [solid][bookish] English Opening. A major opening complex. Black can reply

1 … c5 – Symmetrical Variation

1 … e5 – Reversed Sicilian

1 … Nf6 – Indian-style variations

1. d3 [solid][smile] King’s Indian Attack, a.k.a. Mieses Opening. The KIA requires a follow-up with Nf3,g3,Bg2,O-O and then e4 or c3/a4. You can also get into it via 1.Nf3 or 1.e4, and these are more common in practice.

Openings with 1.d4

1. d4 [smile]

1. d4 Na6 [skull] (never seen by your inexperienced author: may intend …c5)

1. d4 Nc6 [?!] may transpose into the Kevitz-Trajkovic Defence: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6.

1. d4 Nf6 [bookish][active] leads to various

Indian Defences [e.g…

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 (with …e6) – Modern Benoni Defence. [active]  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 – Old Indian Defence.[solid]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 – Nimzo-Indian Defence. [active]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 – Queen’s Indian Defence. [solid]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb6 – Bogo-Indian Defence. [solid]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Ne4 – Dory Defence. [unhappy]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 – Neo-Catalan Opening. [solid]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 – Budapest Gambit. [!?] [trappy]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 – Grunfeld Defence. [active]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d6 – King’s Indian Defence. [active]

1. d4 Nh6 [skull] (never seen)

1. d4 a5 [?!] (never seen)

1. d4 a6 [!? ] (usually intended as a transposition to …b5 lines)

1. d4 b5 [!?] Polish Defence. Black intends …Bb7 without allowing a block by c4/d5

1. d4 b6 [!?] English Defence. Black tempts c4 and e4 which can be undermined with e.g. …f5

1. d4 c5 [solid] Old Benoni Defence.

1. d4 c6 [solid] (usually transposes to e.g. Slav Defence to Queen’s Gambit)

1. d4 d5 [smile] (leads to main-line Queen Pawn openings)

1. d4 d6 (usually transposes to e.g. King’s Indian Defence)

1. d4 e5 [bomb][trappy] Englund Gambit. (a.k.a. Charlick Gambit) Vigorous but unsound. 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Qd5! += (4.Bf4 Qb4+ can lead to trouble).

1. d4 e6 [solid] (usually transposes [e.g. to Nimzo-Indian or French Defence)

1. d4 f5 [active][smile] Dutch Defence. Black stakes out space on the King’s side.

1. d4 f6 [skull] Onc’s Defence. Intends …Nh6-f7.

1. d4 g5 [skull] (loses a pawn: see 1…h6)

1. d4 g6 [active] Modern Defence. Black invites White to make a centre with c4/e4 which can then be attacked.

1. d4 h5 [?!] (never seen)

1. d4 h6 [?!] Borg Defence. (Grob reversed) Black will play …g5,…Bg7 and probably …c5 or …d5.

1. e3 [solid] Van’t Kruy’s Opening. A way of reserving options.

Openings with 1.e4

1. e4 [smile]

1. e4 Na6 [?!] (never seen – Benjamin and Schiller call it the Lemming)

1. e4 Nc6 [!?] Nimzovitch Defence. Black can counter-punch with …d5 or …e5, sometimes transposing.

1. e4 Nf6 [active] Alekhin’s Defence. Black invites 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4, after which …d6 strikes back at the extended centre.

1. e4 Nh6 [?!] (never seen: may intend …f5)

1. e4 a5 [?!] (never seen)

1. e4 a6 [!?] St.George’s Defence (a.k.a. Baker’s Defence). Black intends …b5, …Bb7 and probably …e6,…c5 and …Nf6

1. e4 b5 [skull] (loses a pawn: see 1…a6)

1. e4 b6 [?!] Owen’s Defence a.k.a. Queen Fianchetto Defence. Black invites White to set up a pawn centre which can then be attacked.

1. e4 c5 [active] Sicilian Defence. Black will exchange if White plays d4.

1. e4 c6 [solid] Caro-Kann Defence. Black will counter-punch with …d5.

1. e4 d5 [solid] Centre Counter Defence a.k.a. Scandanavian Defence.

1. e4 d6 [active] Pirc Defence. Black will develop first] and strike out in the centre later.

1. e4 e5 [smile] (leads to the main King Pawn games)

Defences to 1. e4 other than 1…e5 are generally referred to as

Semi-Open Defences

and include the Alekhin, Sicilian, Caro-Kann, Pirc and French.

1. e4 e6 [solid][smile] French Defence. Black will counter-punch with …d5.

1. e4 f5 [skull] The Fred Defence. Ugh.

1. e4 f6 [skull] Onc’s Gambit. 2.d4 e5 3. dxe5 Nc6 4.exf6 Nxf6. Ugh.

1. e4 g5 [?!] Borg Defence. (Grob reversed). see 1.d4 h6.

1. e4 g6 [active] Modern Defence. (a.k.a. Kotov/Robatsch Defence) Black invites 2.d4; the centre can then be used as a target.

1. e4 h5 [skull] (never seen)

1. e4 h6 [?!] see Borg Defence above.

1. f3 [skull] Barnes Opening. Rude players have even followed this up with 2.Kf2 (known as the Pork Chop).

1. f4 [solid] Bird’s Opening. Not bad; White can play as if playing the Dutch or follow up with 2.b3.

1. g3 [solid] Benko Opening a.k.a. King Fianchetto Opening. Often transposes.

1. g4 [!?] [trappy] Grob’s Opening. Intends a gambit with 1 … d5; 2 Bg2 Bxg4 (2 … c6 is safer) 3.c4!

1. h3 [unhappy] Clemenz Opening. English IM Michael Basman has played this, along with other ‘odd’ moves like a3 and g4/b4 (and the same for Black), as a way of reserving options and tempting opponents to over-commit themselves.

1. h4 [unhappy] Desprez Opening a.k.a. Reagan Opening (‘Thoroughly unmotivated and creates weaknesses with only vague promises of future potential‘ – BENJAMIN and SCHILLER).

Double Queen Pawn Openings

1. d4 d5 [smile] (leads to main-line Queen Pawn openings)

1. d4 d5 2. e3 [smile] Colle System. White is aiming for a 1.e4-style game after Nf3,Bd3,Re1 and e4

1. d4 d5 2. e4 (dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3) [active][bomb] Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. Tricky and with something of a cult following.

1. d4 d5 2. f4 (or 2.e3+ 3.f4) [solid] Stonewall Opening. Playing for a slow K-side attack, but leaves weak points. Not good enough, really.

1. d4 d5 2.Nc3 (2…Nf6 3.Bg5) [!?] Veresov Opening a.k.a. Richter-Veresov. White often aims for e4, sometimes with f3, although can play more quietly.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 [solid] Queen’s Gambit. The main weapon of 1.d4 players

1. d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 [!?] Queen’s Gambit, Tchigorin Defence. Tricky, trappy difficult chess.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 [!?][trappy] Queen’s Gambit, Marshall Defence. Often played by beginners, and not to be rushed at.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 c5 [?!][unhappy] Queen’s Gambit, Symmetrical Defence. White should be able to preserve an advantage.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 [!?][bookish] Queen’s Gambit, Slav Defence. A good defence, combining solidity with possibilities for playing for a win.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 dxc5 [!?][bookish] Queen’s Gambit Accepted. More open and fighting approach than the Orthodox.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 e5 [active][trappy] Queen’s Gambit, Albin Counter-Gambit. A difficult gambit line, usually mistrusted, sometimes tried with success.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 e6 [solid][bookish] Queen’s Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defence. The main highway of the QGD, with many sub-variations.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. g3 [solid][unhappy][bookish] Catalan Opening. Slow, solid, subtle.

Double King Pawn Openings

1. e4 e5 [smile] (leads to main-line King Pawn openings)

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 [active][smile] Bishop’s Opening. Under-rated for many years, now taken more seriously. Often played at GM level in a very solid way, which I don’t think you should imitate until you have a good few years experience.

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 [solid][smile] Vienna Game and Vienna Gambit (3.f4). Worth a look: not a real kick-and-rush opening but has its points.

1. e4 e5 2. Ne2 [solid] Alapin’s Opening. Intends f4 without loss, but is too slow a move for this stage of the game.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 [solid][bookish] Ruy Lopez. Very large opening system: the main weapon of many 1.e4 players. An opening for life.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 [smile] (generally) Italian Game. Just the sort of open, tactical chess you should be playing.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 [active][smile][bookish] Giuoco Piano. A good training ground for your early chess games.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 c6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 [active][smile][bookish] Evans’ Gambit. A sharp and enterprising line, which sadly has not really survived Lasker’s scrutiny.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 [solid][unhappy] Hungarian Defence. Unnecessarily passive, but not bad.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 [smile][active] Two Knights’ Defence. A good counter-attacking line.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Be2 [solid] Tayler Opening. Recently explored, but no great discovery.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 [solid] Three Knights’ Game. A way of trying to avoid the Four Knights. (3…Bc5 is not good)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 [solid] Four Knights’ Opening. Solid, square, often stodgy.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 [solid] Ponziani Opening. Slow, but some interesting lines if Black stirs things up.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 [smile][solid] Scotch Opening. Fashionable recently, worth looking at.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 [smile] Goring Gambit. Not fashionable [but also worth looking at.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. g3 [solid][smile] King’s Indian Attack. Slow but aggressive: not at its best in this form but often used against the half-open defences such as the French and Caro-Kann.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 [active] Petroff Defence. Recently very fashionable, enough to make people look at the Bishop’s Opening to avoid it.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 [bomb] Queen’s Pawn Counter-Gambit. Unsound.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 [solid] Philidor’s Defence. Solid but nothing special: may lead to a slower game than White would prefer.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 [bomb] Latvian Counter-Gambit. The line with 3. Bc4 probably wins for White, although 3. Nxe4 Qf6 4. Nc4 is +=

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 [skull] Damiano’s Defence. Unsound.

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd5 [solid] Centre Game. 3…Nc6 simply gains time and White will struggle to equalise against accurate play by Black.

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 [active][unhappy] Danish Gambit. The way to liven up the Centre Game, although Black can decline or return the gambit with good chances.

1. e4 e5 2. f4 [active][smile] King’s Gambit. Bold, vigorous, dangerous. Black can decline or return the gambit pawn, and even offer a gambit with …d5, but in no case can Black avoid a complex game with a full board.

Key

[bookish]= Popular opening [books or other support material readily available

[smile] 🙂 = a good opening for juniors

[!?] = Interesting or tricky]

[?!] = Dubious or difficult]

[bomb] = Too risky

[unhappy] 🙁 = Not recommended

[skull] = Definitely not recommended

Style

[solid] = Solid – won’t get you into trouble

[active] = Active (White) or counterattacking (Black)

[trappy] = Trappy

Ten rules for the opening

Posted on by
  1. Get your pieces out into the centre quickly. The opening  is a race to see who can get their pieces out first while keeping at least a share of control of the centre.
    • This is the main point to remember; all the other rules are just footnotes to this one.  Sortez les pièces!
  2. Get a firm foothold in the centre – a pawn on one of the ‘little centre’ squares e4/e5/d5/d4 – and don’t give it up without good reason
  3. Move your king to safety at the side by castling
  4. Complete your development before moving a piece twice or starting an attack.  By move 12, you should have connected your Rooks, or be about to do so.
  5. More detail on winning the race:
    • move pieces not pawns, and
    • move them to their best squares in one move if you can, and also
    • try to gain time if you can by aggressive moves.
  6. Move your minor pieces out early on generally move Knights before Bishops, and generally straightaway to f3/c3 or f6/c6 (but probably not both, as White)
  7. Don’t move out your major pieces (Q+RR) where they will get chased around by the little guys and possibly trapped.
  8. Don’t grab pawns or attack if you haven’t completed developmen; especially, don’t charge around with your Queen trying to hoover up pawns.
  9. If one side gets ahead in development:

    • If you are ahead in development, start something going and open up lines for your better pieces
    • If you are behind in development, don’t start anything and keep things closed until you have caught up. This is especially true if you have not castled!
  10. Rooks are the hardest piece to develop: “openings should be judged on the prospects they offer to ambitious young Rooks” – PURDY.  To develop your Rooks, open a file; to open a file, bring pawns into a position to swap them off; so after 1.e4, plan to play d2-d4 or f2-f4 soon.
    • In fact, you have to attack the opponent’s centre with pawns to get much chance of an advantage as White (The Four Knights’ Game is next to Old Stodge in drawishness), so d2-d4 makes sense for more than one reason.

Further advice on playing the opening

I’ve collected here some other advice from the grandmasters of the past.

Lasker’s rules for the opening

  1. Do not move any pawns in the opening of a game but the King and Queen pawns.
  2. Do not move any piece twice in the opening, but put it at once on the right square.
  3. Bring out your knights before developing your bishops, especially the Queen’s Bishop.
  4. Do not pin the adverse King Knight (ie. by Bg5) before your opponent has castled.

[cat] COOL TIP: Why should you move the knights first? Well, knights are very much more effective if they are in the centre. (Bishops are more effective here too, but they can work from a distance). For the opening that has to mean Knights moving to c3 and f3 (or c6 and g6). Where should the Bishops go? The White King’s Bishop on f1 could go to b5,c4,d3 or even e2. Which is best? That depends on what your opponent is up to. So, move your knights straight away to the centre, and while you are doing that your opponent’s moves may suggest to you where you should put your bishops.

Reuben Fine on the opening:

  1. In the initial position White, because of the extra move, has a slight advantage. Consequently:
  2. White’s problem in the opening is to secure the better position, while…
  3. Black’s problem is to secure equality.

Fine’s rules for the opening

  1. Open with either the e-pawn or the d-pawn.
  2. Wherever possible, make a good developing move which threatens something or adds to the pressure on the centre.
  3. Develop knights before bishops.
  4. Pick the most suitable square for a piece and develop it there once and for all.
  5. Make one or two pawn moves in the opening, not more.
  6. Do not bring your queen out too early.
  7. Castle as soon as possible, preferably on the king’s side.
  8. Play to get control of the centre.
  9. Always try to maintain at least one pawn in the centre.
  10. Do not sacrifice without a clear and adequate reason, eg.:
    • it secures a tangible advantage in development
    • it deflects the opponent’s queen
    • it prevents the opponent from castling
    • it enables a strong attack to be developed

Fine’s two last questions to be asked before a move is made:

  • How does it affect the centre?
  • How does it fit in with the development of my other pieces and pawns?

Nimzovitch’s Seven Axioms

(from My System)

  1. Development is to be understood as the strategic advance of the troops toward the frontier line (the line between the fourth and fifth ranks).
  2. A pawn move must not in itself be regarded as a devloping move, but merely as an aid to development.
  3. To be ahead in development is the ideal to be aimed for.
  4. Exchange with resulting gain of tempo.
  5. Liquidation, with consequent development or disembarrassment.
  6. The pawn centre must be mobile.
  7. There is no time for pawn hunting in the opening, except for centre pawns.

— NIMZOVITCH

Suetin’s four principles for advanced players

  1. The fight for control of the centre
  2. The striving for the quickest and most active development.
  3. The creation of conditions that permit early castling.
  4. The formation of an advantageous pawn structure

— SUETIN

Hort’s 13 rules for all players

  1. Take advantage of every tempo.
  2. Do not make pawn moves without careful planning.
  3. Begin the game with a centre pawn, and develop the minor pieces so that they influence the centre.
  4. Develop flexibly!
  5. Develop harmoniously! Play with all your pieces
  6. Do not make aimless moves. Each move must be part of a definite plan.
  7. Do not be eager for material gain. The fight for time is much more important than the fight for material, especially in open positions.
  8. A weakening of your own pawns may be accepted only if it is compensated by a more active placement of your pieces.
  9. With the help of your pawns, try to get an advantage in space and weaken your opponent’s pawn position.
  10. Do not obstruct your pawns by grouping your pieces directly in front of them; pawns and pieces must work together.
  11. During the first few moves, pay special attention to the vulnerable KB2 square on both sides.
  12. Remember that the poor placement of even a single piece may destroy the coordination of the other pieces.
  13. With White, exploit the advantage of having the first move and try to gain the initiative. With Black, try to organize counterplay.

This last point is worth particular attention, for, although it contains much wisdom, it is not always applied in current tournament practice. Unfortunately, we belong to a time when White usually tries to gain only a minimal advantage, because to try for more entails the taking of risks. Black, having no sure method of developing counterplay without risk, usually tries to minimise White’s attacking possibilities. The game thus proceeds towards an endgame in which neither side has real winning chances.”  — VLASTIMIL HORT

Portisch on forming a repertoire:

“Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.” “…To all players I can recommend the following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great masters… A solid opening repertoire fosters self-confidence.” — LAJOS PORTISCH

(LP goes on to discuss the Exchange Ruy Lopez, the Modern Steinitz (as Black), slow lines of the French Winawer, the Classical Pirc, the Closed Sicilian and the King’s Indian Attack against the French (and Sicilian; and on the other side of the board the Exchange Queen’s Gambit and lines of the King’s Indian Defence and Nimzo-Indian)

Choosing an opening repertoire

Posted on by

The Bottom Line {D}

[cool cat says:]

“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 the 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, Masters of the Chessboard

See also a recent post.

Comments on openings {C}

(following ECO codes)

A: Irregular openings
– 1. Lines without 1. e4, 1. d4;
– 1. d4 Lines without 1 …d5, 1… Nf6;
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. Lines without 2. c4;
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Lines without 2… e6, 2… g6
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Leave these alone except to work out what to do if someone played them against you. Mostly these are good for surprise value, but you can only surprise me once, and next time I’ll be ready for you. The main lines are the main lines because they are the strongest openings. Avoid theory, sure, but don’t handicap yourself.
The honorable exception to this among these openings are the lines of the Reti/English complex (1.Nf3/1.c4), which are slow but deep and strong. I’d still leave them alone until you are sure you know what you are doing. Be prepared to defend against them as Black: I recommend using a Dutch formation.
B: Semi-open games
– 1. e4 Lines without 1… c5, 1… e6, 1… e5
– 1. e4 c5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these second after you have got the hang of C: Open Games. This section includes some of the most exciting and important openings in chess, like the Sicilian, but they are not IMHO for beginners.
C: Open Games (and French Defence)
– 1. e4 e6
– 1. e4 e5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these first – this is what Reti advises above. The anomaly is the French – a half-open defence that ECO groups under C. Despite Reti’s admonition, I would not object to a relative beginner playing the French – it is a solid defence in which most of the ideas are easy to understand, and Black’s pieces often come to similar squares in each line.
D: Closed Games (and Grunfeld Defence, a semi-closed line)
– 1. d4 d5
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 + d7-d5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these last of all; they are among the most demanding of openings. They are slow, which may lead you to think they are safer, but things can go horribly wrong for the novice and there is no point trying these until you are sure you know what you are doing – say, that you are familiar with the material in the ‘Strategy’ section of the canon. There are one or two ‘open’ lines that start 1.d4, like the Colle System.
E: Semi-Closed Games
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 ‘ d7-d5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these third; they are, like the semi-open defences, very tasty, but rather strong meat for inexperienced players. You will need to know what to play against 1.d4 as Black, particularly as you improve, and my recommendation is to adopt a counter-attacking line like the Budapest Gambit or the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defence

Putting together a repertoire of variations {B}

What do you hope for when you play 1.e4? Which opening you choose after 1…e5 will depend on what sort of player you are. What I’d like to do below is suggest how you might proceed if Black doesn’t reply 1…e5. First you need to choose a basic plan of campaign:

  • Fast attacking game with pieces
  • Slower attacking game with f4
  • King’s Indian Attack with g3
  • Fast attacking game with pieces
    • Giuoco Piano (my main recommendation for junior players) or
    • Scotch Game
  • Slower attacking game with f4
    • Vienna Gambit or
    • King’s Gambit)
  • King’s Indian Attack with g3
    • KIA with (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. g3 or
    • in the Vienna (1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3)

Which sort of player are you? Larry Evans used to say, The Crunch or the Crouch? Hopefully, one of these set-ups appeals to you more than the others: the brisk, the direct, or the more flexible?

[Sadly, the KIA lines haven’t a lot of force and are not very good lines to adopt against 1…e5.]

But the point is, how well does your chosen repertoire fit together? Once I used to play the following lines, together with the King’s Gambit:

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
Chase variation (1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Panov-Botvinnik Attack (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4)
French (1. e4 e6)
Advance Variation (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
King’s Indian Attack (1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nge2 and 5. g3, 6. Bg2)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5)
Chamaeleon Variation (1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 … 3. Nge2)

This was an awful lot to keep track of, but more importantly, it didn’t really combine well. Against the Alekhin I played fast, against the Caro I played medium, against the French and Pirc I played slow; the Panov line is main-line established theory with lots to learn and keep track of, the Chamaeleon is a new and obscure line where you have to think at the board.

Now, I’m sure a better idea, and the right idea, is to play similarly against each opening. For example, if you like gambits and play the Danish Gambit against 1…e5, try and find a gambit against the lot….

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
(1. e4 Nf6 2. Bc4 Nxe4 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qd5+)
or Blackmar-Diemer (1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 dxe4 4. f3)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Fantasie Variation (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Bc4)
French (1. e4 e6)
Variation, Milner Barry Gambit (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7 8. O-O Nxd4 9.Nxd4/9.Ng5!?)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
I don’t know any gambits for White in the Pirc but against the Modern you can try… the Monkey’s Bum! (1. e4 g6 2. Bc4 Bg7 3. Qf3 e6 4. d4 Bg7 5. Nc3 Bxd4) [An invention of Streatham Chess Club, who showed it to one member who said “Well, if that works, I’m a monkey’s bum!”]
Sicilian (1. e4 c5)
Morra Gambit: (1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 or 3. … Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. Bc4 Qc7 6. Qe2)

I don’t think the Monkey’s Bum is really any good (2…d6), but at least we’re thinking along the right lines, even if this isn’t the repertoire we settle on.

“ A 1500 player will lose a pawn anyway about every 15 moves, so you might as well invest a pawn to sharpen your tactics.“

— Tim Sawyer

Here’s a repertoire based on pawn advances and space advantages:

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
Four pawns variation (1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. f4 )
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Advance Variation (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5)
French (1. e4 e6)
Advance Variation (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 … …d6/…g6)
Three Pawns Attack (1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. c3 g6 4. f4)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5)
Big Clamp Variation (1. e4 c5 2. d3 (…) 3. f4)

Now, what sort of player are you? Whether you like lively piece attacks, slow pawn advances that you can use to force open lines or more flexible systems, there is a repertoire here for you.

Note: I simply haven’t the courage to take on a repertoire which includes the Open Sicilian , and my experience of playing the Black side of the Sicilian is that not many White club players have either! So I’ll leave those lines to you and any time you have to do your own research. I have a feeling it’s something you come to study as your chess improves. Mine has yet to improve enough…

Let’s have a look at some variations that fit together.

Piece attack

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6) (1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Main line with 7.Nh3 (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nh3)
French (1. e4 e6)
Alekhin-Chatard Attack (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
Austrian Attack (1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. f4)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5) Closed: without d4
Rossolimo Variation (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 and 3.Be2 (idea 4. c3) or 3. Bb5(+))

Slow attack with f4

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
(Irregular) (1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3.f4 (sadly, this line has no real force and is not a very good line to adopt)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
(Irregular) (1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3.f4 (a line of the Dunst opening, (1.Nc3)
French (1. e4 e6)
(Irregular) (1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3.f4 (a line of the Dunst opening, (1.Nc3)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
(1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. f4 (Austrian Attack)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5) Closed: without d4
(1. e4 c5 2. f4 (Grand Prix Attack) or
(1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 with 4. Bg2, 5. d3, 6. f4 (Closed Variation)

King’s Indian Attack

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
KIA vs. Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3.g3/Bg2 (sadly, this line has no real force and is not a very good line to adopt)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
KIA vs. Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6 2. d3 d5 3.Nd2)
French (1. e4 e6)
KIA vs. French(1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3.Nd2)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
King Fianchetto Variation(1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. Nge2 and 5. g3, 6. Bg2)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5) Closed: without d4
KIA vs. Sicilian(1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 and 3.g3)

[cool cat says:] There are some wrinkles to be ironed out of these suggestions, but I hope they set you thinking in the right way.

Playing Black and White {A}

It makes a lot of sense for your Black repertoire to be in keeping with your White one.

The easy way out is to play Black openings in reverse, of which the commonest and best of these is probably the King’s Indian Attack. But psychologically it’s not the same and practically it’s not as effective. (See remarks on the Stonewall Dutch ).

The right idea I think is to play openings which have the same ideas – either the same structure or at least the same attitude. So if you play the English with g3, a line which is structurally similar is the Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto variation of the Sicilian (1. e4 c5, 2. Nf3 g6), and against 1.d4 the same ‘square game’ can be had in the Nimzo-Indian, although this is structurally very different. There are king’s fianchetto lines in most openings, and strongpoint lines too.

Some suggestions if you are…

  1. An attacking player who plays 1. e4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Budapest Gambit, Benoni, Grunfeld
    • Against 1.e4: Open Lopez, Petroff, Sicilian Dragon (with …g6)
  2. An attacking player who plays 1. d4/2.c4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: King’s Indian, Dutch
    • Against 1.e4: French Winawer, Closed Lopez,
  3. An attacking player who plays the Colle System, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Semi-Slav Defence or Cambridge Springs (same structure as Colle)
    • Against 1.e4: Sicilian Paulsen (with …e6)
  4. A solid player who plays 1. e4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Nimzo-Indian, QGD, Tarrasch Defence, Old Indian
    • Against 1.e4: Petroff, Philidor (structure like Old Indian)
  5. A solid player who plays 1. d4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Slav, Queen’s Gambit Orthodox Defence.
    • Against 1.e4: Caro-Kann, Classical French

I would be interested to know about other’s preferences. I stuck to the same opening repertoire for the best part of ten years: English Opening with g3 as White, Sicilian and English Defence as Black – all aiming to hit at an opponent’s centre, and of course with a strong structural link between the English and Sicilian. The English Defence “feels” more like the English Opening to me than the Queen’s-side defence which is structurally most similar, the Benoni.

I think my current recommendation for myself [which must also be true for you 🙂 ], is two fold:

  1. Be prepared to play any sort of position. To be prepared to play any sort of position [if not any opening] for either colour is the ideal; you may always have strengths and weaknesses, but avoiding certain sorts of positions altogether seems unhealthy. Try them out in friendly and blitz games, and see if the rest of your game improves.
  2. Be prepared to play main lines. They are the main lines because they are the best moves, and you may be surprised to find how many players will avoid a main line ‘on principle’ – perhaps choosing a playable alternative, but often an inferior one.

I find that the combination of the two is quite liberating, at least in friendly games, and I’m sure I’m a more rounded player for it. I haven’t quite had the courage (or foolhardiness) to walk into my opponent’s main lines when titles are at stake, you are going to get my favourite defence, but it’s quite satisfying to invite the club gambiteer to play a gambit and then outplay them in their own game.