15291 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
If you play 1. e4, you will eventually get to play the Evans Gambit. It doesn't get any sharper than that.
Yes, but though I enjoy sharp play, I want the theoretical upper hand. I like to be attacked when I have the advantage.
If black accepts, white has about a 50% win ratio. All that d-pawn squirminess is uncalled for in someone who wants to drive home the win. It seems that someone is just a little afraid of a fight.
Ok, here's a good question: Why is it that whenever I ask something in the forums people question me instead of answering?
Also, I have already told you I am Ok with playing e4 so long as my opponent plays e5, but I don't want to play against the Sicilian.
The whole question is ridiculous. You don't want to play vs. the Sicilian, but the Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian, Queen's Indian, Benoni...are all dandy. You want something sharp but you want to be in the theoretical driver's seat. This isn't possible. If you want to cut down on your opponent's counterplay, you will get very static positions. If you play "sharp" lines, you will not be entirely in control. If such a magic repetoire existed, everyone would already be playing it and chess would be boring.
it seems unbelievabe to me that someone willing to create a sharp repertoire doesn't play 1.e4 for fear of 1...c5 (which should instead be what his attacking-oriented hearth loves to see), but i guess that it's a matter of tastes.
In my view you are trying to solve a problem in the wrong way; adopting a sharp opening repertoire is not going to make your games notably sharper, as long as your middlegame play is the same. Instead Studying middlegame attacking plans (there are plenty of good books on the subject out there) would reach the goal even if your repertoire doesn't change. that said, you can study this stuff if you want to, just be aware that it's not a particularly effective way to reach your main goal, and not at all a cost-effective way to improve your chess.
Regarting the "answering questions with questions" part, you will notice that the most productive discussions are those where people interacts with you instead of just listing answers.
Will everyone please notice I said SHARPER, not attacking. I am looking for theoretically solid lines that have many tactical possibilities. I am not, however, looking for all-or-nothing attacks on the king.
I think there is a disconnect. What is theoretically solid for GMs is not so solid for amateur players. The standard level of technical knowledge required to hold an endgame or a level middlegame position at the GM level is something we as amateurs do not have. Once you realize that basically any mainline opening is "OK" you can play a lot of things that are fun. My only caveat is that there should not be an easy and well known refutation. Sorry to offend those that love the elephant or other simplistic gambits sure., you can obtain a few points from players that dont know what to do but what happens when you run out of victims? Your smart opponents will do some quick study and learn from their "loss" while those players that insist on playing bad openings will continue to lose both games and the chance to learn something that they can build upon.
Any opening has sharp lines even the caro kann has lines that create an imbalance (the Nf6 lines and after Nxf6 capturing with the g pawn for example) If your looking for perfect systems that will always give you something sharp dont exist since you have an opponent that might not want to participate in your attempts to sharpen the position.
My advice if you want "sharp" pick openings like the Benoni/Benko/King's Indian and a sicilian against e4. As White play e4 and you should get a sharp line sooner or later if you play something like a scotch gambit (although a fast ..d5 by black kinda takes the fun out of most gambit lines)
Because you are asking the wrong questions, and players who are a lot better than you are taking the time to explain to you why it's the wrong question.
If you're goal is to have fun, and to you fun is studying openings, then study away. If you want to be a better chess player, then stop being argumentative and listen to what the people better than you are telling you!
Personally, I love to study openings, and I spend a few hours a day on chess, but there's no way I'd have time for the repertoire you are suggesting for yourself. Moreover, I can't figure out what those openings have to do with each other. It seems to me that a good opening repertoire is first and foremost simple. I don't mean simple in the sense that the openings themselves aren't complicated, but rather simple in the sense that they are compatible and easily studied together.
Your openings seem to me to be very different, and your repertoire seems anything but simple. All that complexity will certainly make you hard to prepare for, but how well could you possibly know the lines?
All that complexity will certainly make you hard to prepare for, but how well could you possibly know the lines?
Within thirty five years at most, one can master this repertoire to perfection with just nine hours' work per day.
oK first you seem to be confused on what you want. It sounds like you want to play something safe that leaves you with all the chances for tactical opportunities while giving your opponent no chances ... I know it sounds a bit odd once I put it in writing but thats what it sounds like you want.
To make it easier for you,.. pick a type of pawn you prefer and play openings around that. Do you want to play for an imbalanced pawn structure you get from sicilians or a more stable balanced one such as e4 e5 openings (d4 d5 as well) My advice is to learn to play both.
the second thing you should do is to be honest about the amount of time you have to study. Do you have the energy, time and ability to memorize long lines of theory that will be required of some openings as you improve. ALL openings will require a degree of study as you improve, you can not escape it but you can play openings that are more forgiving of small errors (the sicilian dragon is not one of them) My advice is to take a book of games such as the old but still relevent winning withxxx series or the more recent starting out with xxxxx and play the opening for 6-12 months and rotate them out .. learn, explore and have fun. as your base knowledge improves you will find something that fits you.
i cannot take this guy for serious...his opening repertoire doesnt fit together as well. He wants to play sharp, but with no risk and please no attacking lines...he can memorize every side line till move 30....good joke!
While it's only part of a repertoire, that sounds like the QGD exchange variation.
Cant tell if your serious.
Chessisgood, congratulations on picking an ambitious repertoire : it will certainly help you improve.
There is one part of the repertoire I don't understand : you mention Queen's Gambit and Catalan as white, yet nothing against the Slav proper ?! Does it mean you want to play the Catalan against slav-structures ?
Also, the Ben-Oni MML can't be forced through an early Nf3 move-order - Black has the option to play an early a6/Bg4 system
Thanks for the help! Against the Slav I tend to play main lines with a4. Forgot to mention that, as I really have only faced the Chebanenko. With the Benoni, I am now playing the Nd2 line, and it is working pretty well.
i have heard that the dragon variation of the sicilian is a sharper variation than the najdorf (my opinion and some books that i have read). this is probably becuase i play the accelerated and hyper-accelerated dragon on a daily basis.
I tried the Dragon for some time, but ran into serious problems against the Yugoslav Attack.
could you show that benoni line.
Here is the Benoni line I was talking about:
"Reykjavik Open, Round 5 | Commentary by FM Ingvar Johannesson & Fiona Steil-Antoni"
Τhe game against my coach...
by thegeneral14 a few minutes ago
Please, dont underestimate me
by LuftWaffles a few minutes ago
e3, K2, a3 - What is this crazy opening called?
by Benzodiazepine a few minutes ago
Creating traps vs positional play
by Yaroslavl 3 minutes ago
1st Unofficial Chess.com DeathMatch
by royalbishop 3 minutes ago
World champion ship candidate masters' tournament winner this year?
by Jrmld 4 minutes ago
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
by AlCzervik 4 minutes ago
Who can beat Carlsen?
by Jrmld 5 minutes ago
Does Magnus Carlsen have an account on this website?
by ProfessorProfesesen 5 minutes ago
The Strongest Chess Tournament Ever Played
by royalbishop 8 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!