A black Repetoire for a part-timer

Can't settle on an opening for black.  Just returned to chess after decades away.  My chess.com on-line rating is just under 1500.  I'm happy with my white for 2016.  But black?  I've abandoned my dabbling with those b6-g6 stuff.  I want to return to the center.

Showing potential is 1.d4 slav + 1.e4 Scandinavian.  I want a general purpose pair that are similar in pattern of play hence slav-scan.  What other combos are around for a lower-level player that are similar to each other.  I don't have the patience to study chess like you young fellows. 

I just want to play for enjoyment & feel content with a basic black repetoire to learn & stick with plz.

You are better off going with two openings that have a similar strategy, not a similar pawn structure.

 

This is a very common, flawed idea that amateurs think will work.  It doesn't!

 

Case in point:  Take the Pirc, French, and King's Indian Defense

 

People will say that the Pirc and King's Indian are similar because Black has the same pawn structure in both openings.

 

Here's the problem with that.  BLACK has the same pawn structure.  THE BOARD DOES NOT have the same pawn structure.  Black can and often does play ...b5 in the Pirc.  Other than in Panno lines against the Fianchetto or Saemisch lines, ...b5 is almost non-existent in the King's Indian.

 

You should be playing two openings that have the same basic ideas behind them:

 

FRENCH AND KING'S INDIAN!  Both openings feature "blocked centers" in the vast majority of variations.  Yes, both have exceptions - Exchange French - Four Pawns Attack vs the King's Indian - but the vast majority of the time, the center is not just closed, but BLOCKED in both openings, and the idea is exactly the same in both.  Attack the side of the board in which your pawns point.  In the French, White's pawns point towards the Kingside, Black's the Queenside, and so White should attack Kingside and Black Queenside.  In the case of the King's Indian, White's pawns point towards the Queenside, and Black's the Kingside.  Therefore, White should go for a Queenside attack and Black a Kingside attack (look at any game in the Classical Variation and you'll notice that exact strategy over 90% of the time).

 

Other pairs of openings with similar ideas:

 

CLOSED RUY LOPEZ (7...d6, not 7...O-O) and QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED - Both feature what is called a "strong point" for Black.  It's d5 in the QGD, e5 in the Ruy Lopez.  Both feature semi-closed positions that are very strategic in nature.

 

CARO-KANN and NIMZO-INDIAN - Both feature very fluid positions.  A common theme in both is surrendering control of one square in order to gain a bind on another square - typically central squares.  Notice how, unlike say, the French, where Black almost always attacks the d4-pawn, the Caro-Kann might feature a bind by Black on e5 in one game, and a bind on e4 in another, or d4, or d5.  Within the course of the game, Black may weaken his control over d5 in order to dominate d4, just to give an example.  The same thing often happens in the Nimzo-Indian.  You surrender e4 to go for c4 or vice versa.  Neither opening has one fixed pawn structure like the French and King's Indian do.

 

SICILIAN NAJDORF OR DRAGON and GRUNFELD - Both are openings that require a heavy amount of imaginative play by Black, both require deep tactical calculation skills, and both tend to be high-risk, high-reward openings with a lower draw ratio.  The King is almost never safe in either opening.

 

 

So I would recommend looking for two openings with similar strategic ideas and goals rather than a similar pawn structure on HALF of the board!  The fact that the other half of the board's pawns are not the same makes lightyears of a difference in the position.  Saying that 2 openings are similar because Black's pawns are the same is like saying that the Green Bay Packers going against the Cleveland Browns is the same as the Green Bay Packers going against the New England Patriots because Green Bay used the same 11 players and the same defensive schemes in both games.

 

By the way, given that you sound like you are looking for something simpler and not loaded with theory, the last one is not a good idea.  The Najdorf, Dragon, and Grunfeld all require knowledge of very dense theory and a strong will with the willingness to sacrifice frequently.

I would suggest one of the other 3 pairs in your case, depending on style of play.  If you like blocked positions where play mostly takes place on the flanks, go with the French and King's Indian.  If you prefer to defend around a strong point, play the QGD and Ruy Lopez.  If you think more from a control perspective rather than an attack/defense perspective, like total domination of a key central square with few tactics (not saying there are none, just simply fewer), go Caro-Kann and Nimzo-Indian.

.....puts kettle on in readiness for an enjoyable evening of discovery.

What an good response.  Gonna enjoy following these pointers up.  Also can u tell me where the Slav fits here partner-wise & game plan?  Or should I delete it from my short-list of contenders?

The Slav tends to be one where you surrender the center early (i.e. ...dxc4, in order to be able to play ...Bf5 without harassment on d5 and b7 at the same time).  Endgames often arise early.  The same can be said for the Queen's Gambit Accepted.

 

The closest to this is probably the Berlin Defense against the Ruy Lopez (i.e. 3...Nf6 instead of 3...a6) and go for the Endgame Variation (i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6+ dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3).

 

Another is the Petroff.  The Petroff is a little more "rich" in ideas than the Berlin, which is basically if Black can dominate g4 and get his King to c6, he's probably winning.  The Slav is a little more rich in ideas than the QGA, which tends to be very dry, especially in the lines where White doesn't play Qe2 and the Queens come off early.

 

The four openings are probably interchangable, but if someone wanted a 1-to-1 response, I'd probably pair the Petroff with the Slav and the Berlin with the QGA, but really the four of them could be paired almost any of the 4 possible ways.

U know off & on over the last say five years I've returned to chess in short spells but other stuff always interferred.  Now I finally have some time for myself so I'm ready to play as a long-term hobby.

But......... I got about a dozen books from Amazon over that time and you've managed to avoid every one of 'em.  Such is life.

Thriller: I could nitpick -- as a former KID guy, the Pirc has more in common with the KID than you let on (it's not trivial to mention the Samisch and Fianchetto lines) -- but I like the way you think and I enjoy reading your comments.

Happy New Year!

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

U know thriller i haven't much thought about themes the way u have put it.  This is all a new way of looking at chess for me.

So if u don't mind I'd like u to toss in the Modern Defense + Scandinavian Defense for u to run off a 'job description' for them & pair 'em off with  suitable partners.

** Revisiting your posts & thinking about how I see & prefer to play black - "I like the games where black builds a fortress weathers the storm & finally throws down the drawbridge & emerges for a crushing counter-attack."

So which pair best have a sit & wait - 'survive the seige' mentality?

I'd say probably the Closed Ruy/QGD probably best fits your description.  Here's how I'd describe each pair I listed above:

 

French/KID - suits the type of player that likes blocked positions where play often occurs on the wings.  Both sides may castle the same way, but typically each side is dominated by one player, and very little play occurs in the center.  The main thing you have to look out for in the center is sacrifices of a minor piece for a pawn, whether it be positional or tactical.

 

Closed Ruy/QGD - suits the type of players that is out the weather the storm.  The type of player that should play these openings are those that can tolerate a draw as Black.  Winning chances are lower than that of say, the Najdorf Sicilian, but far fewer losses as well.

 

Caro-Kann/Nimzo-Indian - suits the type of player that is very strong at positional play and can deal with a mobile center, where finding critical pawn moves that can severely alter the pawn structure is a strength of theirs.

 

Slav/Petroff - These are more suited for those that prefer to trade down to an endgame fairly early.  The former often ends up in R+Minor each endings, Q+Minor each endings, or in one line in particular, N+4P vs 7P or B+4P vs 7P.  Of course, the first two can further widdle down to a Q ending, R ending, or minor piece ending.

 

QGA/Berlin - These tend to be more "dry" than other openings.  These would best suit a player who is best at playing what many call "Technical Chess".  There is little to no creativity.  The cliche "Doing what you have to do to get the job done and nothing more" best fits these two.  Being strong at endgames also helps here like it does in the Slav and Petroff.

 

Najdorf/Grunfeld - If you enjoy dense, theory-driven chess with games often going into the 20s in book moves where lack of knowledge of these 20+ moves can often lead to fatal consequences, whether that be yourself or your opponent that makes the error.  I would never recommend these to anybody under 2000, not because a 1500 is completely incapable of playing the Najdorf, but the game ends up a complete mess as neither player knows what they are doing, and while they can then further study the Najdorf when they reach 2000, they have long-played bad habits in their game already when playing the Najdorf, and those become hard to break, so that's why I don't recommend this duo to players under 2000.

 

There are, of course, other possible pairs of openings.  I prefer a solid foundation with flexibility.  For example, in the Taimanov Sicilian, depending on what White does, Black may develop his Bishop to b4, c5, d6, or e7, and which is best depends on what White does.  This flexibility makes it tough for White to find a specific line that gets him an advantage.  The same can be said about the Old Indian Defense.  Black can take the classic approach with ...Re8/...Bf8, the aggressive approach with an early ...e4, or the more imaginative approach with ...Qe8/...Bd8/...Qe7/...Ba5(or ...Bb6 or ...Bc7).  Both the Taimanov and Old Indian have a safer king than say the Najdorf and Grunfeld, are a little less theory-driven, but are also a little less dry than say, the QGA and Berlin.  Hence why I play the Taimanov and Old Indian.  Its flexibility.  If the French and King's Indian are like a brick wall, and the Najdorf and Grunfeld are like a swat team battle with random gunfire, the Taimanov and Old Indian are like rubber bands!  If you wanted a rigid pawn structure every time, with the same idea each time, this pair would not be recommended.

There are many players, myself included, who go for the French/Dutch combo as Black, especially the French and Dutch Stonewall.

Both tend to locked pawn positions and difficulties developing the bishop on c8. If you can work with tight, asymmetrical positions which lead to fighting chess, they are a good choice. Moskalenko today and Botvinnik in the past used the French/Dutch.

The French is trickier to play with more theory, but neither defense is as dense as the Sicilian, Gruenfeld, KID complexes.

Plus having the French in your back pocket means you can play 1.d4 e6 and avoid some White anti-Dutch lines -- 2.e4 and 2.Bg5.

The only downside to your theory is that he or she would need to realize that you can't play a Dutch Stonewall against all lines.  Stonewall players must be willing to play the Classical as well or else suffer dearly:

1.d4 f5 (or 1...e6 and 2...f5) 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5?? is HORRIBLE.  5.Bf4, 6.e3, and 7.Bd3 is +/- minimum

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 d5? is again bad because of 5.Nh3!  Better is 4...c6! and if 5.Nh3, go for the classical with 5...d6.  Otherwise, he must make another commital move before you commit to ...d5.

 

Rule of thumb is this:

1) If White can still play Bf4 AND Bd3 with no commitment to weaknesses (i.e. g3), the Stonewall is outright horrible!

2) If White goes Bf4 on your very early, only play ...Bd6 if you can still recapture on d6 with the c-pawn.  If the c-pawn is advanced, and you'd have to take back with your Queen, it's a horrible move.  Play ...d6 instead of ...d5 and go with the Classical setup.

3) After specifically 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3, always play 4...Bb4 and you get an improved/accelerated version of the "Dutch Variation" of the Nimzo-Indian Defense

4) Wait as long as you can to commit to a Stonewall until White has developed his Kingside Knight.  If White has fianchettoed his Bishop, and the Knight goes to f3, go Stonewall.  h3, Classical.

5) Don't play the stonewall if the stonewall isn't necessary.  If White doesn't take over the long diagonal early with g3, don't play a Stonewall, fianchetto the Queen's Bishop!  For example:  1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 (You must solidify control of d5 via e6 and Nf6 before trying to fianchetto the Bishop) 4.e3 b6!  The Stonewall should be a last resort to White taking over the long diagonal first, not a primary weapon.

6) Don't play ...c6 until White has played c4.  After 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 (Now you have the green light to play the Stonewall) 4...d5 5.O-O Bd6! and now if 6.c4, then 6...c6.  Otherwise, hold the pawn back.  c6 could be a square to put the Knight on instead in certain lines, and you can afford to trade on d6 still as you can take with the pawn and control e5.

 

So while many do play the French and Stonewall in conjunction, they are not going "Auto-Stonewall" after 1.d4.  Depending on what White does, a Stonewall player needs to also be willing to play the Classical, Accelerated Nimzo, and Modern Lines (...b6 and ...Bb7 when white doesn't contest the diagonal with c4 pushed, not talking anti-Dutch lines like the 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5, 2.e4, or 2.g4 lines).

jamtinkan,

 

The thing to remember is the chess you experience is very much a function of your rating.  Pertaining to the Dutch / French combo by playing 1… e6 in response to either 1 d4 or 1 e4 I have always ended up playing either the French or the Dutch.  I play the Classical Dutch. Since a number of players will play 1e4 in response to 1… e6 after playing 1 e4, I end up playing a lot more French than Dutch. 

 

Perhaps one day I will have to deal with all the complications mentioned by ThrillerFan, but by then I will probably be ready to lean a more complicated response to 1 d4. 

 

As for the Scandinavian it is an easy opening to learn and leads mostly to sharp play, therefor it is ideal for us amateurs who need to develop our tactics and not spend too much time studying openings. 

Thriller: Geez, I was just saying that the French and Dutch could work together -- as indeed they do for many players. I wasn't mapping out every possible contingency.

Ohoh.  I'm being exposed.  That's why I am playing the Scandi.  I've only been back into chess afters many years for a couple of weeks.  I grabbed The London for the same reason.  With the London - you hit the ground running.  No training wheels required.  At least up to Ne5 anyways.

Thriller gives good advice but its a big jump. For now I'm going to pay attention to my 2 black openings and evaluate them over the next few weeks with what Thriller has been talking about.

On a side-note, I'm down in the high 1400s ratings & I see 1.d4 is 50/50 with 1.e4 for 1st move, if not more popular. 

In the a6 slav 1.d4 d5 2c4 c6 3Nf3 Nf6 4Nc3 a6 black aims to solve the white squared bishop without giving up the centre with d5xc4. Can answer Qb3 with b5, or Ra7 in some circumstances. The aim is similar to the london, especially in the non critical lines. Of course as black a tempo or two down need to know one or two concrete lines, but minimal for a black opening.

ThrillerFan wrote: ipcress12 wrote: There are many players, myself included, who go for the French/Dutch combo as Black, especially the French and Dutch Stonewall.Both tend to locked pawn positions and difficulties developing the bishop on c8. If you can work with tight, asymmetrical positions which lead to fighting chess, they are a good choice. Moskalenko today and Botvinnik in the past used the French/Dutch.The French is trickier to play with more theory, but neither defense is as dense as the Sicilian, Gruenfeld, KID complexes.Plus having the French in your back pocket means you can play 1.d4 e6 and avoid some White anti-Dutch lines -- 2.e4 and 2.Bg5.The only downside to your theory is that he or she would need to realize that you can't play a Dutch Stonewall against all lines.  Stonewall players must be willing to play the Classical as well or else suffer dearly:1.d4 f5 (or 1...e6 and 2...f5) 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5?? is HORRIBLE.  5.Bf4, 6.e3, and 7.Bd3 is +/- minimum1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 d5? is again bad because of 5.Nh3!  Better is 4...c6! and if 5.Nh3, go for the classical with 5...d6.  Otherwise, he must make another commital move before you commit to ...d5. Rule of thumb is this:1) If White can still play Bf4 AND Bd3 with no commitment to weaknesses (i.e. g3), the Stonewall is outright horrible!2) If White goes Bf4 on your very early, only play ...Bd6 if you can still recapture on d6 with the c-pawn.  If the c-pawn is advanced, and you'd have to take back with your Queen, it's a horrible move.  Play ...d6 instead of ...d5 and go with the Classical setup.3) After specifically 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3, always play 4...Bb4 and you get an improved/accelerated version of the "Dutch Variation" of the Nimzo-Indian Defense4) Wait as long as you can to commit to a Stonewall until White has developed his Kingside Knight.  If White has fianchettoed his Bishop, and the Knight goes to f3, go Stonewall.  h3, Classical.5) Don't play the stonewall if the stonewall isn't necessary.  If White doesn't take over the long diagonal early with g3, don't play a Stonewall, fianchetto the Queen's Bishop!  For example:  1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 (You must solidify control of d5 via e6 and Nf6 before trying to fianchetto the Bishop) 4.e3 b6!  The Stonewall should be a last resort to White taking over the long diagonal first, not a primary weapon.6) Don't play ...c6 until White has played c4.  After 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 (Now you have the green light to play the Stonewall) 4...d5 5.O-O Bd6! and now if 6.c4, then 6...c6.  Otherwise, hold the pawn back.  c6 could be a square to put the Knight on instead in certain lines, and you can afford to trade on d6 still as you can take with the pawn and control e5. So while many do play the French and Stonewall in conjunction, they are not going "Auto-Stonewall" after 1.d4.  Depending on what White does, a Stonewall player needs to also be willing to play the Classical, Accelerated Nimzo, and Modern Lines (...b6 and ...Bb7 when white doesn't contest the diagonal with c4 pushed, not talking anti-Dutch lines like the 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5, 2.e4, or 2.g4 lines).

Slav + French

Of course there are other lines of the Slav where black just plays e6 and not dxc4.

I really like the idea of picking openings that have a similar strategic theme. What would be a good defense to 1.d4 to pair with the Open Spanish or Schliemann Gambit? I feel comfortable playing the Open Games as both colors and I like positions that are a bit more open. I also like having a little more space. With the Schliemann or Open Spanish Black usually has a pawn or two in the center. Is there anything similar in the queen's pawn openings?

Take a look at the Tarrasch Defense to the Queen's Gambit and see if you like it. 

For black I use Sicilian for e4 and d4 Nf6