A 1...e5 Repetoire - Dynamic Antidotes to Annoying Moves

Hello all,

I've gone through different opening for all my life, and never found one that seems perfect for me (that is, in response to e4.) I've tried 1...e6, 1...Nf6, 1...d5, 1...d6, and recently even 1...c5. In tournaments I mostly play 1...d5, but I'm starting to get a bit bored of the Scandinavian (Qa5). I've tried the gambit variation 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 but 3.d4 is really annoying in this case.

So, I thought to myself, what haven't I tried? Well, answer is 1...e5 (the most "principled" reply). Anyway, before giving it a go with 1...e5, I am trying to think of dynamic antidotes to each main variation of 1...e5. Please offer suggestions in the comments, this would be so much appreicated.

With this being said, here are my proposed defenses to each main opening.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 - The King's Gambit

My Defense: 2...d5 (The Falkbeer Counter-Gambit).

Reasons: The King's Gambit is an aggresive opening and imo a great one too. This is my favorite opening to play as white, but the thing about the FCG is that it puts the ball back in white's court, by making such an aggresive move and countergambiting a pawn.

Question: Should I play this countergambit? Please remember that I am an aggresive and dynamic player when stating whether or not I should play this opening (as black).

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 - The Scotch Game

My Defense: 4...Qh4!?

Reasons: The Scotch Game might seem a tad bit annoying for black, but I feel that 4...Qh4 is an unusual move online or OTB (this is just my guess pls correct me if I am wrong) but it is played the second most frequently in chess.com's Game Explorer, so it can't be all bad.

Question: How dynamic is 4...Qh4? Is it defensive or aggresive? What are its merits?

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 - The Italian Game

My Defense: 3...Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? - The Traxler

Reasons: I feel like the Traxler is a little bit exaggerated to be bad for black. I say this because Stockfish seems to think that, at worst, black is behind 1.50. Furthermore, this is assuming white plays Kf1 is response to the Bxf2 sacrifice. Stockfish unbelievably says the black equalizes (and the lines it gives hints towards the fact the black has the initiative) with 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2. Also, if 5.Bxf7+, black apparently has a 0.80 advantage. However, in the case of 5.Nxf7 Bxf2 6.Kf1, it seems that black's disadvantage is 1.27, not the best thing in the world.

Note that if white does not play the critical test of 3...Nf6 - that is, if he does not play 4.Ng5 - then I will respond with simple development.

Question: What are the merits of the Traxler Counter-Attack? Is it sound, or almost sound, or good enough to play OTB? Please keep in mind that I like all relatively sound gambits (KG, Smith-Morra, Tennison Gambit) but do not like unsound ones (Latvian Gambit, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit).

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 - The Ruy Lopez

My Defense: 3...f5 (Schliemann) or 3...Nd4 (Bird Defense).

Reasons: One of the main reasons I am considering playing 1...e5 is to face the Ruy Lopez. My reasons for playing the Schliemann is that it is almost like a reversed KGD which I have considerable experience in, and it is also a fun line (I would presume). However, I believe that the main drawback on the Schliemann is the considerable amount of theory that must be learnt to play it properly.

My reasons for playing the Bird Defense are threefold. One, the Bird Defense from my understanding is quite an uncommon defense and Ruy Lopezers are unlikely to have seen it (I think). My second reason is that it is very similar to the Reversed Rossolimo in the English Opening which I enjoy playing:

My third reason is that I believe that the Bird Defense requires little theoretical knowledge to correctly play.

Questions: Is the Schliemann theoretically heavy? What are its merits, and is the Schliemann a dynamic opening? Is the Bird defense theoretically light? What are its merits, and is the Bird Defense a dynamic opening?

Thank you, dear reader, for taking the time to read this post. It is very much appreciated. Please help me out and leave your comment below. Thanks again! :)

The problem with your theory is that you can't force anything to be dynamic.  It takes two to tango.

I've played almost every opening there is in existence, at least from one side or the other.  Openings that have a reputation for being one way can easily end up the opposite:

Latvian Gambit - If White plays correctly, this should leads to a favorable endgame for White (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5! Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3! exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 intending 9...Qg4)

Slav Defense - I've had some of my most wild games from the Black side of the Slav, especially if White plays the 5.e4 line, despite the Slav being known as one of the most solid and boring defenses to 1.d4

I've been in slow King's Gambits, wild Torre Attacks, etc.

Sorry dude, but you can't force dynamic play in any opening.

Thanks ThrillerFan,

I appreciate your input. However, I am curious to know the validity of my opening choices. How are they, objectively (and subjectively speaking)? I think we could agree some opening are just more dynamic than others in general (King's Gambit for instance though KGD turns positional), but it could probs be stated that King's Gambit is usually more dynamic then Torre Attack. Right? I know there are many exceptions to each opening though.

So, what is your opinion on the validity of my suggested repetoire?

Forget about the Traxler and the 4...Qh4 Scotch. Both are unsound.

The "dynamic" variation of the Jaenisch (4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5) is almost unsound, while 5...Nf6! is a quite sound pawn gambit, which leads to a technical, rather quiet middlegame.

@Keighley it is a clear 0.80 disadvantage for black in the Bxf7+ Traxler as a matter of fact. Thanks for your comment though. What is your opinion on the Schliemann or Bird ... which is better? Also, how is Qh4 dubious? Why is it dubious?

@themortar Why do you recommend g6 instead of Qh4?

@the Frontyard Profressor: Thanks!

Thanks pfren! What is unsound about the Qh4 Scotch? I see that it is played quite often, so I'm just curious ... also, what opening does the Jaenisch come out of? Thanks for your input! :)

I like c6.

Pretty much the whole idea is wrong. Black wins a pawn, and falls into a miserable, almost unplayable position. And no, it's not played often- much less than the sound moves, namely 4...Nf6, 4...Bc5, 4...Bb4+ and 4...Qf6.

The Jaenisch is how the Russians are naming the Schliemann.

@Tasmanian : I think your choices are consistent with your objective to try and get dynamic positions.

@pfren: I see. Thanks.

@hicet: Ok, that's good.

@Keighley: Actually, I play all of the 1.c4 _ 2.g3 (English) mainlines. I've been trying to avoid mainlines mainly to cut back on theory, partly against my own will. Because I like learning theory but people say not to learn theory. But is the Bird or Schliemann bad?

Ok. Is it easy for black to go wrong in the schliemann? And why are you not convinced the Bird's good? Just curious ... I know next to nothing about both lines.

All you need to learn the Jaenisch at an acceptable level is GMMelik's series of videos for chess.com (nine of them).

@ FrontyardProfessor: I will let you guess, sir.

If you don't believe me, then, errr, I could not care less.

Keep on wondering, that's a great thing to do.

Forget about "Dynamic" forget about "Tactical" forget about "Positional"

The opening serves one...that is 1... purpose.  To get to a playable middlegame.  Find an opening youre comfortable with.  Its the opening, its not rocket science.  Its the easiest part of the game to play.

you can get a comfortable endgame from the opening aswell =D

Thanks for all of your contributions!

I see you haven't looked into 1...Nc6

It's more than that, but yes- the general concept is drawing a pawn down, opposite colored bishop heavy endgame. The 5...d5 line also results with best play to a pawn-down endgame, but there the defence is considerably more difficult.

No. The last good sources on the Jaenisch were certain chapters in two repertoire books, by Ivan Sokolov and Sabino Brunello. Both published a few years ago.