|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-29-06 | | yanez: I like the line 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 then 7.d3 and 8.0-0 |
|
| Aug-29-06 | | yanez: I also like the line 1.d3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Nf6 4.a3 |
|
Aug-29-06
 | | Domdaniel: Nice lines <yanez> but sadly real-life opponents aren't always so compliant.
I once went through a tournament opening with 1.e3 (Van't Kruijs Opening) generally transposing to an English with c4 or Nimzo-Larsen with b3. I was also, I guess, trying to show off and act weird. It worked, too: I won one game in 14 moves when my opponent got confused. But in the crunch last-round game I was met with 1.e3 g6! 2.c4 f5!, ending up in a not-great variation of the Leningrad Dutch. I'd been out-prepared, and then outplayed. I stick to 1.Nf3 now. You can still transpose to an English later, but you avoid the lines where Black plays ...e5 and ...f5. |
|
| Feb-19-09 | | FiveofSwords: I despise this opening, and its close companion, 1 nf3. These are usually played by people who have an extreme fear of actually playing chess. Black has no problems in these lines, but he is in great danger of falling asleep and losing on time. |
|
| Feb-19-09 | | unsound: <FiveofSwords> Yes, notable shrinking violets like Kasparov, Ivanchuk, and (worst of all) Tal, for example, often confirmed their reputations as cowards by playing the English. |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | FiveofSwords: <unsound> Thus the word usually.And its obviously not true that the resulting positions are always dull. They just usually are. Its up to both players to agree to make the position interesting. If i try to force the position to get interesting when im black and the other guy doesnt want to make the position interesting there just nothing I can do about it. This is more true of 1.c4 than any other 1st move in my experience |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | FHBradley: <FiveofSwords:> Do you <always> or only <usually> write nonsense? |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | Travis Bickle: <FiveofSwords> Robert Fischer employed 1.Nf3 with great success. Are you calling Bobby Fischer a coward? You're an idiot! |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | whiskeyrebel: Leonid Stein ( "Master of Risk Strategy" according to the title of a game collection of his) played 1Nf3 and 1.c4 frequently. He was a balls out attacker. It seems like "FiveofSwords" needs to learn quite a bit about the game. If your opponent plans to get you to overextend to make the game "interesting" they probably are pushing your buttons. If I knew you had this attitude about "boring" positions, that's exactly how I'd play it. |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | chessman95: <FiveofSwords> I somewhat agree with you that 1.c4 is not a great move, but there's nothing wrong with 1.Nf3. There a million openings that could be transposed to, and the only great response, 1...e5, is impossible because the knight would take it. |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | parisattack: None of the White hypermodern openings have done very well at the top levels the past decade or so - English, Reti, Nimzo-Larsen, Benko. There just isn't a top-level advocate of hypermodernism to champion them. As noted by < whiskeyrebel> Stein played the English and other hypermodern openings with very aggressive intent. |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | chessman95: I agree. I think part of the reason they haven't done very well recently is because the few GMs who play those openings only play them occasionly, so they probably don't know them inside-out as they do other openings. If somebody could regularly play hypermodern openings and actually learn how to play them correctly, then maybe we would see the statistics rise for white. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | FiveofSwords: <whiskeyrebel> Right, of course, you see, white wants black to play the game so he doesnt have to haha. Of course black can decide, if he wants, not to let his buttons get pushed and then what do you do. play for c5? I dont think any of the strongest players have made 1 c4 or 1nf3 their main move. Fisher obviously was an 1e4 player. If he played 1nf3 there was a special reason. I understand my statement was a little unfair but theres a lot of truth to it as the defensive responses to it show. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | blacksburg: <I dont think any of the strongest players have made 1 c4 or 1nf3 their main move.> kramnik played 1.Nf3 as his main move for a long time. and korchnoi played 1.c4 hundreds of times. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | blacksburg: according to the database, Kramnik has won 46% of his games as white after 1.Nf3. in comparison, Anand has won 47.3% with white after 1.e4. so i'd say that 1.Nf3 has worked out pretty well for him. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | unsound: I'm not sure <FiveofSwords>'s continued dismissiveness really merits a response. (The very act of playing 1.c4 "usually" shows a fear of playing chess, according to FOS.) However, personally I feel as though in some ways I'm "playing chess" more when I play the English than in some other openings. I switched from 1.e4--open Sicilians and the King's Gambit, which was fun, but almost always resulted in a headlong rush into a tactical melee. The point of the English, as I take it, is that it is much less committal, and its flexibility allows for a range of plans--according to the setup black chooses, it still might make most sense to attack on the kingside, but a more effective strategy might well be to apply queenside pressure, or even to operate on both wings at once--and various different configurations in the center are possible. For me, having to make early strategic decisions about what set-up best counters black's is challenging and still fun. If you don't like playing black against it--well, good. But I think you should stop pretending you know the single right way to play chess. It makes you come over as something of a jackass, which I'm sure is not accurate. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | KingG: I'm not going to bother trying to defend the English(an opening I don't play, but I do play 1.d4 and the Sicilian, which are obviously not unrelated) against <FiveofSwords>'s nonsense, but I do want to point out something he posted on Sicilian, Alapin (B22). <ive always played the alapin, and studied a huge amount of theory on it. In the main lines black has a couple of ways to equalize, but I dont think any other sicilian is different in this respect. It has potential to get very tactical, but white keeps a huge amount of control in the position so the tactics tend to be rather one-sided. Black will have a very, very difficult time playing aggresively versus this opening, and usually gets punished if he tries. Theres a tremendous number of interesting possibilities to deviate from the 'main lines' for both sides so you rarely wind up playing the exact same 1st 10 moves or something. Another nice thing about this is that plenty of harmless looking logical moves black can play could quickly put him in a terrible position if white knows the way.> How exactly is this any different from the English, apart from the fact that it's more difficult to equalise in the English than in the Alapin? Personally I think the Alapin is the more 'cowardly' of the two openings, and contains far less strategic depth. |
|
| Mar-08-09 | | FiveofSwords: <kingG> honestly, I lose a lot to the english and just hate it. It just makes me angry. I think theres a big difference between the english and the alapin however. mostly, its quite obvious what white's idea is in the alapin...its very direct. white just wants to guaruntee a long term control of the center by a move that sortof attempt to nullify the idea of 1..c5. In the english, its really not clear at all what white is actually doing. He's sortof abandoning the center except for one square, d5...and his pressure is like something that creeps up on you and you never see it coming unless you are very vigilant about move order nuances and know how to play your opening vs the english. But anyway I disagree that the alapin is easier to equalize against. The strategy in the alapin is rather more direct and simple than the english, and if white is playing it to win, like i do, then its really not cowardly at all..I almost always sacrifice a pawn in the alapin in fact for a very sharp and dangerous position. maybe you play people who play the alapin to draw so never see this sort of stuff. Anyway i certainly never see it in the english either heh. |
|
| Mar-08-09 | | FiveofSwords: basically the reason i have such a emotional reaction to the english is because I really play black to win, always, no matter who the opponent is. If i see the english or 1nf3 it just crushes my spirit, cause what on earth are you supposed to do against that heh. So I wind up having to play cowardly moves just so I dont lose. can't stand this. |
|
Mar-09-09
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: <FiveofSwords>, I played nothing but 1.c4 toward the end of my career, but I loved playing *against* it as much as I loved using it! There are lots of ways for Black to play for the win against it. Like gambits? Play 1.c4,c5; 2.Nf3,Nf6; 3.d4,cxd4; 4.Nxd4,e5!?; 5.Nb5,d5. Like the KID? Simply play the main line. Never hate an opening; that's a great way to keep losing to it. Also, consider something an IM once told me. If there is an opening that you absolutely hate to face--start playing it yourself! I got to play a lot of sacrificial attacks with the English, so why not you? |
|
| Mar-20-09 | | FiveofSwords: i dont like the KID tho (I really cannot play cramped, closed or nearly closed equal material positions well at all. one thing all my openings do is absolutely not allow those sorts of positions.) and I would never expect to see 3.d4...if the guy is ok with playing 3 d4 in that position then they are probably going to play the english in some way im happy with in any of the other lines. What i hate is when they refuse to allow any sort of contact in the position at all until they have gotten all their bits directed. |
|
| Mar-20-09 | | chessman95: <i dont like the KID tho (I really cannot play cramped, closed or nearly closed equal material positions well at all. one thing all my openings do is absolutely not allow those sorts of positions.)> I hate the KID as well. It just 'gives' white the center and there are those annoying variations against it like the Four Pawns Attack. I find it a bit of a shocker however that you say you don't like closed positions. The Alapin Sicilian doesn't do much to <absolutely not allow those sorts of positions.> |
|
| Mar-20-09 | | blacksburg: i think it's important to point this out - if you hate your opponent's opening, then he has chosen wisely. |
|
| Mar-21-09 | | chessman95: Or maybe you've just chosen unwisely. I've stopped playing many openings over the years simply because of responses I don't like. |
|
| Mar-21-09 | | refutor: i think <AnEnglishman>'s advice of <if there is an opening that you absolutely hate to face--start playing it yourself> is good advice. even if you get beaten on the "other side" of it, the experience may give you some ideas on how to crush it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
