Capturing on d5 doesn't involve a lot of theory. In other words it's easy to learn and you get a nice position... so you should do that.
I've played 1...d5 a lot in speed games and other moves (2.e5, 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3) aren't challenging.
1. e4 d5 2. e5!!?
Sort:
The move "e5?" after 1. e4 d5 breaks an opening rule.,and the best way for Black to wrest the advantage from White is to respond 1. e4 d5 2. e5? c5!. If your opponents are not responding with 2. ...c5 then you are simply playing weak players.
Uhohspaghettio1 έγραψε:
ponz111 wrote:
The move "e5?" after 1. e4 d5 breaks an opening rule.,and the best way for Black to wrest the advantage from White is to respond 1. e4 d5 2. e5? c5!. If your opponents are not responding with 2. ...c5 then you are simply playing weak players.
2. ... Bf5 says hello. d4 can then be met with c5. I don't see anything wrong with it.
2...c5 is a better move for 2 reasons:
1. makes white's d2-d4 more difficult to achieve, e.g. by adding extra forces there by ...Nc6, ...Qb6 etc, and
2. The bishop can also go to g4, pinning a knight there and so achieving more control over the KEY d4 square.
And... no, 2...Bf5 does not say hello: this is the ideal square for the g8 knight, not the bishop.
jtt96 wrote:
I never thought of that. hmmm. How could that be countered?
One possible continuation after black replies Bf5 to the original. As long as your'e willing to trade Bishops, i think it could be defendable. (especially since your opponent probably doesn't have this opening memorized)
If Black replied g4, just reply Be2.
NOTE: this is a spur of the moment input and could be flawed.
Why not 3...Bxd3 giving White doubled pawns?
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
Black has a good french with the bishop outside the pawn chain
6 Be2 could transpose into the Short System in this position.
Chessflyfisher έγραψε:
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
Black has a good french with the bishop outside the pawn chain
6 Be2 could transpose into the Short System in this position.
A whole tempo down for white (...c5 played in one go).
Still, 2...c5 is the better move.
Optimissed έγραψε:
It's an absolutely terrible move for white. It's a reversed Caro Kann, in actuality. So black has an extra move and is effectively white.
A "reversed Caro Kann", with Black's pawn at e7?
May I ask what you are smoking?
It is not a good French because positions with the c8 bishop outside the pawn chain cannot possibly be reached from the French Defence where e6 and d5 are the first two moves. It's a Caro-Kann since black will probably play c5 or has yet to play c6 .... either/or.
Optimissed έγραψε:
pfren wrote:
Optimissed έγραψε:
It's an absolutely terrible move for white. It's a reversed Caro Kann, in actuality. So black has an extra move and is effectively white.
A "reversed Caro Kann", with Black's pawn at e7?
May I ask what you are smoking?
Pfren, in the Caro-Kann, black plays c6 to support d5, which is usually played on the second move. The e7 pawn remains on e7. I did not realise that your senility, although obvious, was so advanced. I'm sorry about it btw.
Are you surely an Englishman who does not know the meaning of "reverse", or just drunk?
The English language is not as literal as many non-native speakers insist it should be. So in this context, "reversed" doesn't necessarily mean that white is playing the Caro (and black replies ....e5). It can mean that the same position is reached, with the same person to move, black is still playing the Caro but a move up, as if black were white.
I realise I must have caused some confusion and edited it. With apologies to Pfren but much as I liked him, he deserved it!!
20, but not in all variations. One or two variations at a time in depth.
Sorry, I made the mistake of using colloquial English. That's language that would be understood by a native speaker, because English English allows a lot of ambiguity. I over-reacted. Personal comments and criticism mix ok in most cases but they're a bad idea when people have lots of previous form for it.
I always make this opening playing with my friends irl. I don't know if it actually has a name and it's recognised but I call it the b**ch gambit when I play it, as it's annoying for my friends to play against (it's their words not mine) and a bit counterintuitive against what you would normal play (pawn trade).
jtt96 wrote:
I have been wondering about this opening and wondered what others thought of it. Iv'e spent a good hour just playing around with black (and white's) options after white's move 3. Let me know what you think.
Absolutely terrible for white.
I think the line is not good, but it has an interesting gambit. Against 2 ... c5 you can play a "reversed Keres defense" and later sack the e-pawn to double your opponent's pawns and make their king weaker. I do not recommend it, however it could be a fun addition to try-out. (It also has a "blessing" from the engine)
Against 2 ... Bf5 it is a more boring and more positional game, but Ne2 could be a compelling approach from a practical point of view, trying to win tempi on the bishop or even trade it for the knight. (Also not suggested, but if you really want to play this "advanced Scandinavian" it could be an idea to experiment with)
PiBaZa wrote:
I think the line is not good, but it has an interesting gambit. Against 2 ... c5 you can play a "reversed Keres defense" and later sack the e-pawn to double your opponent's pawns and make their king weaker. I do not recommend it, however it could be a fun addition to try-out. (It also has a "blessing" from the engine)
Against 2 ... Bf5 it is a more boring and more positional game, but Ne2 could be a compelling approach from a practical point of view, trying to win tempi on the bishop or even trade it for the knight. (Also not suggested, but if you really want to play this "advanced Scandinavian" it could be an idea to experiment with)
Against this line, black can take on e7 in #37 but taking on c3 is an advantage for black which is completely misassessed by the engine as almost equal.
Against 2. Bf5 it's starting to look better, as you say, after Ne2. I prefer an approach with Be3 to meet ...c5, rather than Ng3, which I think is premature. It;s an interesting idea but realistically only for fun, since white threw away the opening advantage with 2. e5. I would play it though, at 5 mins blitz. I will probably try it, although 1. ...e5 is less frequent than it was a month ago, when almost everyone was playing it.
Just take the Bishop.
Black doesn’t have to do anything in this position.
White Light Square Bishop is White’s best piece.
Black LSB is Black worst piece.
After the trade, Black position is very good.
It’s all bad for White.
In the other diagram, I would change the move order.
I wouldn’t play c5 as black to soon because White might take it and it might be there only hope to try and savage the catastrophe of their position.
You can see the difference between top example & below one.
White might try to hold on to pawn with b4 or Be3 making situation weird for Black which is unnecessary.
1. e4 d5 2. e5 is definitely playable. I would only play e5 if you prefer strategical games (this mostly transpose into a sold French or Caro), but you better know the theory (the ideas, not memorizing the moves) behind both in and out. I’ve actually played this in tournaments for years, mostly against 1400-1900 USCF, and it’s worked just as well as anything else.
I am only 2171, and so some of my opposition still falls in that range, but boy if I could get this position every game as black I would never play another move but 1...d5 again