2.Nc3 is weak. This is not a matter of opinion. 2.c4 is the strongest, most ambitious and most principled move. But 2.Nc3 is certainly not "bad". I don't see what you like so much about this setup, you have made it a little difficult to secure a real opening advantage. Maybe it looks visually impressive to you. Black should be very nearly equal.
Equal to what?
I believe the name 'Jobava-Priè attack' is the name that's been given to the Bf4 line. I kind of like the name, as it is after one of my favorite players :)
I believe the name 'Jobava-Priè attack' is the name that's been given to the Bf4 line. I kind of like the name, as it is after one of my favorite players :)
I would shorten it to Jobava Attack.
#whoisbad
I believe the name 'Jobava-Priè attack' is the name that's been given to the Bf4 line. I kind of like the name, as it is after one of my favorite players :)
I would shorten it to Jobava Attack.
#whoisbad
Who is bad??????
I believe the name 'Jobava-Priè attack' is the name that's been given to the Bf4 line. I kind of like the name, as it is after one of my favorite players :)
I would shorten it to Jobava Attack.
#whoisbad
Who is bad??????
#mj
2.Nc3 is weak. This is not a matter of opinion. 2.c4 is the strongest, most ambitious and most principled move. But 2.Nc3 is certainly not "bad". I don't see what you like so much about this setup, you have made it a little difficult to secure a real opening advantage. Maybe it looks visually impressive to you. Black should be very nearly equal.
Black is equal, but it is a dynamic equality. One that you're likely to know the ins and outs of more if you specialize in the line.
Sometimes I play 3. e4, and usually give great opportunities to attack kingside. Get a lot of miniatures and huge material advantages. But sometimes i think my sucess is based on the fact that my opponents feel uncorfortable in anything different than 1. e4. I've tried to improve against the computer but still not having good results. I don't know if it is good in a master-level chess.
The London system is the official opening of chess.com (or, if it isn't, should be declared so), but, as someone who's played the d4-c4-Nf3 complex from the start, I have no idea why it's so appealing - it avoids theory but exerts less direct influence over the center as c4 seeks to *immediately* gain the central pawn majority. You can get the sucker move with Nb5 followed by a fork, but does that work at the 1600 level? I would hope not! As to playing e4 quickly, I rarely have trouble shoving that move through if I really want it - KID, Benoni, QGA, Gruenfeld, QID, the Marshall defense (which is weirdly popular online), and random non-theoretical setups typically allow e4 with no problems, and you can play the gellar gambit to force it in the Slav structures. The notable acceptions are the QGD (which has a lovely Bf4 line wreaking havok on the queenside) and the Nimzo (in which f3-e4 can be played due to black's absence of the dark squared bishop).
That said, there's nothing *wrong* with that opening system....I'm just struggling to see what is particularly *right* about it.
What i like in chess is variety, if someone plays me this with white i will think hey ! something different i usually see that's cool.
But if i was playing this everygame with white i would be bored to death and quit chess soon.
I can hardly believe you will have fun playing this openeing in the long term, matter of taste i guess.
The London system is the official opening of chess.com (or, if it isn't, should be declared so), but, as someone who's played the d4-c4-Nf3 complex from the start, I have no idea why it's so appealing - it avoids theory but exerts less direct influence over the center as c4 seeks to *immediately* gain the central pawn majority. You can get the sucker move with Nb5 followed by a fork, but does that work at the 1600 level? I would hope not! As to playing e4 quickly, I rarely have trouble shoving that move through if I really want it - KID, Benoni, QGA, Gruenfeld, QID, the Marshall defense (which is weirdly popular online), and random non-theoretical setups typically allow e4 with no problems, and you can play the gellar gambit to force it in the Slav structures. The notable acceptions are the QGD (which has a lovely Bf4 line wreaking havok on the queenside) and the Nimzo (in which f3-e4 can be played due to black's absence of the dark squared bishop).
That said, there's nothing *wrong* with that opening system....I'm just struggling to see what is particularly *right* about it.
Well, Schandorff seems to think the d4-c4-Nf3 complex from the start works.
Why do people keep calling this a London system? It's not. This is fine for white, not worse than equal, so unless you are going for a FIDE title, it's fine. Funny to see all of the club players recommend playing 27 book moves of the Slav and then end up with an equal position. This opening reminds me of the Chigorin defense where white can hardly avoid wetting his pants in excitement because the c-pawn is blocked, but there is no real advantage once you do the analysis as IM Watson and GM Morozevich did.
1 d4, followed by Nc3 and Bf4 is Mark's Opening.
It is indeed a good opening. Well, you can't play it against grandmasters, but it is a good alternative as long as the opponent is not prepared. My coach calls it the Jobava Line, but I think it has different names.
Basically, after Bf5, you play f3 and then g4, h4, Bd3 and Nh3 or Nge2
After g6, you play Qd2 and attack the kingside with Bh6, f3, g4 etc.
After anything else, you play e3, Bd3, Nf3 or Nge2 and 0-0
However, it is difficult to play if the opponent plays Bf5 instead of Nf6. In opposite to 1. e4 e5 2. Sf3, black doesn't have to play the knight to protect the pawn.
WOW. SOMEONE PREDICTED THE JOBAVA 7 YEARS AGO.
I BET RAPPORT RED THIS AND GOT INSPIRED TO PLAY IT.
It is indeed a good opening. Well, you can't play it against grandmasters, but it is a good alternative as long as the opponent is not prepared. My coach calls it the Jobava Line, but I think it has different names.
Basically, after Bf5, you play f3 and then g4, h4, Bd3 and Nh3 or Nge2
After g6, you play Qd2 and attack the kingside with Bh6, f3, g4 etc.
After anything else, you play e3, Bd3, Nf3 or Nge2 and 0-0
However, it is difficult to play if the opponent plays Bf5 instead of Nf6. In opposite to 1. e4 e5 2. Sf3, black doesn't have to play the knight to protect the pawn.
Tell that to Rapport.
And did you mean 2.Nf3?
It is indeed a good opening. Well, you can't play it against grandmasters, <snip>.
I believe that GM Mark Hebden has used this line successfully against other GMs, as well as a useful weapon to demolish tournament tail-enders.
It is indeed a good opening. Well, you can't play it against grandmasters, <snip>.
I believe that GM Mark Hebden has used this line successfully against other GMs, as well as a useful weapon to demolish tournament tail-enders.
Jobava crushes 2600+ grandmasters with it
It is possible to win with any opening while playing against players who blindly follow the book and do not know thw basic principles underlying the opening moves.
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 is a perfectly playable line - only it lacks the advantages that 2.c4 gives. Black faces fewer problems to attain equality.
[The following are taken from Game Explorer]
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 (broadly classified Veresov Attack)
2...Nf6 (mainlline; also possible are 2...f5 Dutch System, 2...Bf5 Alburt Defense, 2...c5 Irish Gambit, 2...Bg4 Anti-Veresov line)
3.Bg5 (Richter-Veresov Attack) Nbd7 4.Nf3 g6/h6 etc
3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 (Blackmar-Diemar Gambit) (4.Bg5 Bf5)
3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Bg6
3.Nf3 g6/e6/Bf5/c6/c5
3.f3 (Veresov Opening, Richter Attack) Bf5/c5
The above are all fully playable lines.
Right, yes it is playable 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 . It did met it as black only with 3.e4!? the Blackmar Diemer gambit. 3.Bg5 or 3.Bf4 are played less but are surely possible. You have to take all openings serious. after 3...dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 is good and also 5...g6 is playable for black. after 6.h3 you take Bxf3 7.Qxf3 and c6 . You can play e6 Nbd7 Be7 with black and go for 0-0-0.
It is indeed a good opening. Well, you can't play it against grandmasters, <snip>.
I believe that GM Mark Hebden has used this line successfully against other GMs, as well as a useful weapon to demolish tournament tail-enders.
Well, it is not as good as other openings. And I think my coach calls it Jobava, because they are friends 
2.Nc3 is weak. This is not a matter of opinion. 2.c4 is the strongest, most ambitious and most principled move. But 2.Nc3 is certainly not "bad". I don't see what you like so much about this setup, you have made it a little difficult to secure a real opening advantage. Maybe it looks visually impressive to you. Black should be very nearly equal.