My Discovery - Opening (Anti French)

I was working on openings that deviated from the mainlines.

These openings stops the ideas of that opening.

I found one against the sicilian : The Kopec System

Against Scotch Defence (as black): The Stenitz Variation

I had no such responses against the French Defence and I find it very difficult for me to handle pawn breaks c7-c5. I am not able to play this line. I thought to deviate from the start itself. I thought that if I played Qe2 after e4 e6, if he plays d5 then when i play exd5, he must take with his queen. I develop my knight to c3 with tempo. Then Nf3, g3, Bg2. I had never seen anyone play this line before. I looked in 365chess.com when Qe2 does exist. Unfortunately, this was played before and it was called French Defence, Chigorin Variation.

But, Black doesn't need to play d5, the most played line is 2...c5. Here white doesn't need to move his d-pawn early on. He can play Nf3,g3,Bg2 as earlier mentioned. The d-pawn and the c1 bishop can be decided after this manouever. 

It gives away White's advantage, but one can avoid the tensioned pawn center with this Anti-French variation.

Mikhail Chigorin played 50 games with this line.

It would probably help your development as a player more to play the mainlines.

You are not the discoverer of this line...Capablanca is.

I the Steinitz Variation of the Scotch may lose by force. You might want to check the latest theory theory there.

That's what i said. I wanted to be the inventor of this line. But when i looked in 365chess.com, I found that it was discovered earlier and known as Chigorin Variation

Let's play a game with Steinitz Defence with me as black

Thanks for the advice

I 've recently seen this variation of the French as white, and I would like to share it with you ! I haven't studied it, but it seems right, doesn't it ?

I don't play the Scotch with White.

Here's an engine game with this variation, played a year or 2 ago. Whaite had advantge all the way, but couldn't win in the end.

Unrated engine game:

Well maybe the 4.... Qh4 is more playable than I thought. At least it wins a pawn, so it's more sensible than the similar faux pas 2. Qh5. Still with all that running the King and Queen around the board just to survive I woudln't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It's obviously more difficult for Black than the other options, but if you like it...

White gets a tempo.

I don't agree at all.

In order to improve your chess skills, you should have a short repertory and be prepaired for a middlegame where you have to think by yourself.

Think about this, imagine you were improving your tactics and positional skills for two years. You are now a stronger player, and new opening knowledge will make you even stronger.

But let's think you did the mainline opening work first, now you reach good positions, but you always lose your chances later. You still have to train a lot for playing at that other level

Well, the difference is you're comparing a scenario where you've trained strategy/tactics with one where you haven't. I was never advocating spending much time working on the opening, you can play mainlines and focus mainly on other areas.

I just don't agree with throwing away your advantage to reach easier to play positions, just to try and get your opponent out of book. You'll eventually reach a point where this strategy just starts to get you bad positions you struggle in. In the meantime you've learn nothing about the positions in which you actually have a bit of an advantage.

I used to play this line too.  Then I grew up.

It's horrible and you will get trounced by strong players, though you may rack up some quick and easy points against patzers.

The average player can't spend 16 hours a day training. It's so utopic to learn the main lines of the openings while improving tactics, strategy and endgaming. And I think it is better to play secondary (not always worse) lines than playing the main ones without knowing them perfectly. For example, why is 1. Nc3 throwing away the start advantage?

Because after a single move black has no problem to be equal in the centre.

1.Nc3 is a great opening due to its flexibility.  It also provokes black to overextend himself.  If pieces get exchanged then white has the better endgame. 

Really? 1.Nc3 d5 (I suppose you meant this when you talk about being equal in the centre) 2. d4 (2.e4!? could break equality for ever, but well, not everyone will like it) 2...Nf6 3. Bg5 3.Nbd7 (only way to hold the "equality") 4. Qd3 followed by e2-e4

I always play 2... c5 there. (after 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4) That's one I've never looked up, it just seemed like the obvious move and it wins a lot for me. (I don't see 1. Nc3 or 1. d4 2. Nc3 very often.) White isn't doing anything in paritcular so why not take the initiative? Is there something wrong with it?