Best opening for white

Sort:
Mainline_Novelty

The only alternative to the QGD is Hypermodern stuff? What about the Slav, QGA, Nimzo, etc.? And dismissing KID, Grunfeld, etc. as "potentially suicidal" is also sorta ridiculous, especially given the topical-ness of the Grunfeld at Super-GM level lately. And I wouldn't necessarily say the KG or Scotch are "more dangerous for White". Or that the Berlin is "foolproof". etc, etc. etc.

toiyabe
watcha wrote:

My opinion about best possible first move by white can be summarized this way:

1.) Apart from e4 and d4 all other moves are inferior. There is nothing that you can achieve with other moves that can not be achieved by e4 or d4, but you risk certain disadvantages by moves other than d4 or e4.

2.) Though e4 looks more sharp and dangerous in reality black has ample resources to equalize. Very dangerous looking and agressive lines in e4 openings like the Kings Gambit or Scotch Game are in reality more dangerous to white than black. Even the Ruy-Lopez, which is truly a solid line can be equalized by the Berlin defense in a foolproof way.

3.) Objectively speaking the positional 1. d4 is the most powerful move that white can make because it guarantees lasting spatial advantage which black will find hard to break. The best for black is to accept the spatial disadvantage with some Queens Gambit Declined formation because the alternative is to engage in potentially suicidal hypermodern maneuvres. All in all white has more lasting chances to break black's resistance and at least a comfortable draw is not in jeopardy with this system. While in the sharp e4 system things can very quickly and very easily turn against white.

1)1.Nf3 and 1.c4 provide transpositional opportunities to white and allow him to control the opening moreso than if he(or she) plays e4 or d4.  Nf3 and c4 are NOT objectively inferior

2)2700+ players might whole-heartedly disagree with you here....if equality was foolproof against the Ruy than 1.e4 would cease to be played.  

TitanCG

At the Sinquefield cup Nakamura and Carlsen recently used the KID and Dutch respectively. Kamsky used some kind of London and Aronian played ...Nh5 which looked weird but worked out anyway. Idunno but all this talk about "best openings" seems a bit trivial.

Andre_Harding
Mainline_Novelty wrote:

The only alternative to the QGD is Hypermodern stuff? What about the Slav, QGA, Nimzo, etc.? And dismissing KID, Grunfeld, etc. as "potentially suicidal" is also sorta ridiculous, especially given the topical-ness of the Grunfeld at Super-GM level lately. And I wouldn't necessarily say the KG or Scotch are "more dangerous for White". Or that the Berlin is "foolproof". etc, etc. etc.

White doesn't choose the Slav, QGA, or Nimzo.

Regarding the KID and Grunfeld, they are "potentially suicidal." Accidents occur in these openings all the time. True, devotees also can land their share of punches, but watcha's basic point is well-taken: the QG complex is solid, while the Indian defenses are risky. At least riskier than the QG. That's a fair statement.

KG and Scotch are more than playable, but they're not as strong as the Ruy Lopez, period.

The Berlin is not "foolproof," but it's closer to it than any other opening today, including the Petroff and the Nimzo-Indian, I would say.

watcha

Thank you all for your comments. Some of your criticism boils down the issue of 'belief' which can not be 'debated'. Whether e4 or d4 is the best opening move is ultimately a question of belief. You can also argue for example that the Nimzo-Indian is stable (which is more or less true but it can result in an theoretically equal yet very uncomfortable position for black to play, in addition you can not guarantee that a knight will appear on c3 to be pinned, so your efforts aimed at that may be in vain).

But the remark by Fixing_A_Hole stating that there are other opening moves besides e4 and d4 that are their equals can be debated on more solid ground. Yes, 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 are 'flexible' as they can transpose into some opening that would otherwise have been involved 1. d4 or 1. e4. But as I mentioned there is a risk to that: black can reach systems which would have been impossible had white played 1. d4 or 1. e4. And if black grabs the opportunity (namely responds by 1. ... d5 to 1. Nf6 and 1. ... e5 to 1. c4) white is now playing against the strongest possible opening by white albeit with reverted colors (and a tempo up). Is that what white wanted? I honestly doubt.

Just imagine the following game:

I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best play by black. But now white is in the ridiculous position that its center is attacked from the flank and can not any longer respond with d5 (as would have been possible with 1. d4 c5 2. d5). This example shows that white risks giving black opportunities that it would never have had white played 1. d4 or 1. e4 on the first move.

TitanCG

2...c5 is fine. White plays 3.c4 and now: 

3...e6 4.cd ed 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 is the Tarrasch.  

3...cd 4.cd Nf6 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3

3...dc 4.e3 is a QGA

3...Nf6 4.cd Nxd5 5.Nc3 e6 is a semi-Tarrasch. 

Black could play all these things after 1.d4 and 2.c4 if he wanted.

pogo85

i think  flank opening is the best for e4 bcuz it confuses peepsz1 

try a4,a3,b4,b3 etc n00b or 1 h4zc40rz u

watcha

Here is a game played in the true spirit of the 1. Nf3 opening. Everything is played according to theory and neither side makes any obvious tactical mistake. Yet it turns out that white is the side who is walking on thin ice and has to fight on their heels to maintain at least a draw. This is a typical example of openings in which white delays pushing pawns in the center being inferior.

toiyabe

How does posting one game in which someone lost while playing 1. Nf3 prove anything?  And just because 1...d5 is the classical response to 1.Nf3 and 1...e5 to 1.c4 doesn't mean that black has any sort of advantage or even equality.  All your reasoning was used by chess players before WW2, if you were even close to being correct than super-GM's would never play the English or Reti, but that is not even close to being true(they play 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 constantly).  

watcha

The game I posted was actually a draw ( it says 1/2-1/2 in the heading ). This was intentional: I don't want to prove that 1. Nf3 loses or anything. It just gives black unnecessary chances. You have to limit black's possibilities right on move 1. as much as you can.

You refer to GM-s playing such openings. True, but if you look at the game explorer they play it four to five times less frequently than e4/d4 openings (may be just to mix up their game). I have looked into this at a site where the game explorer can be filtered according to rating. And the pattern is the same between 2200+ and 2700+ players. This is a huge margin. This can not be by chance.

lm19_gb11

the vienna game

toiyabe

My bad, didn't notice it was a draw.  Anyways, I still don't understand why you think those moves give black unnecessary chances...it could be argued that you give black more/better chances by playing e4 or d4 as these moves play into the majority of a chessplayers preparation when playing black.  Nf3 and c4 still offer more control for white.  1...d5 against Nf3 allows the white player to transpose to QG lines whenever he wants or continue down Reti/English/KIA lines if he wants, there are no extra chances here for black.  The move 1...e5 against 1.c4 is hardly a refutation as well, as black gives up control of the d5 square and plays into main idea of the English(controlling light squares/d5 primarily).  

Agree to disagree I guess.  

Andre_Harding
abeyer wrote:

crr7_gb11 escribió:

the vienna game

The Vienna game , it looks harmless but has its poison, for me is better than scotch

The Vienna is "trickier," but the Scotch is more dangerous to Black in an objective sense--and it has tricks as well.

Of course the Ruy is the best of all!

Cosmicaly_Religious

Well, most of you people said Ruy Lopez... Some others tries to confuse me with all these dangerously used openings which makes me wonder: The opponent can play something else easily that can lead me the wrong way.

RetiFan

"Best opening" changes according to what you're trying to accomplish.

If you say "King's safety first!", then you should probably play Nf3, g3, Bg2, O-O.

"Center control and space advantage", hmmm then e4 or d4.

"Tempo advantage", choose a gambit! For example, 1. d4 d5 2. e4!?

"I wanna WIN", if you wanna win, there is not just one opening. WHY? Because you want to win your opponent. You must look at his/her games and try to understand his weaknesses, and choose an opening suitable to exploit those...

Choosing an opening is a very hard process, and in high level noone is sticking at one "best opening", WHY? Because if you do that, you become "predictable". I hope this helps you a little bit, I know I'm not giving a definite answer.

toiyabe

I think the best opening for white objectively, with accurate play on both sides, is the Bg5 Najdorf.  I don't think there is a more aggressive opening that is still sound, or at least AS sound as the Open sicilian from white's perspective.  

toiyabe
abeyer wrote:
Andre_Harding escribió:
abeyer wrote:

crr7_gb11 escribió:

the vienna game

The Vienna game , it looks harmless but has its poison, for me is better than scotch

The Vienna is "trickier," but the Scotch is more dangerous to Black in an objective sense--and it has tricks as well.

Of course the Ruy is the best of all!

I think that Scotch is harmless, this year my play againds scotch is 100% as black in seven games

What line do you play against the scotch?

macer75

I suggest the Gucci Piano variation of the Italian Opening.

KaG_Moon

best opening:

for white it is 1.Nf3

for black it is 1...d6 (against 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3)

 

However, there is no advantage to achieve if the other side plays correctly. It is just, that 1.Nf3 (as white) or 1...d6 (as black) are very flexible moves. Dependend on what the opponent does you can then implement a strong plan against it. 

Seemingly having a big choice against these 2 moves leads to people trying to get into "their" opening - and that leads to inferior set ups.

 

Example:

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5? - there you have it. This black player wants to go into the gruenfeld indian. However:

4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Qb3 Nxc3? 6.Qxc3 ...and it makes a difference that the d4 pawn was not played. Now the queen is on the long diagonal a1/h8 and black has hardly anything better than 6...f7-f6.

In case  black sees that but moved already 3...d5 he is still worse:

5...Nb6 and this knight is placed a bit bad. Now white can occupy the center and have the a-pawn ready to push up and take the Nb6 as target.

O.k., that was just one example of flexibly playing against the opening the other likes to get "into".

Other example:

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 - you may guess that this player usually loves his sicilian in 1.e4 openings.

So we give him that - however, with a maroczy bind system in which he has trouble to equalize. 

3.d4 cxd4 4.Nd4

...dont rush to play to quick e2-e4 unless you can. Build the usual Maroczy bind. Black has trouble, ask sicilian players!

 

Now for black

1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8

It is strictly not a bad opening for white, however, black knows it well (better), and if white plays not accuarately, he is soon under water.

watcha

KaG_Moon:

In your examples black invariably answers 1. Nf3 with 1. ... Nf6. There exist other legal moves in the position other than Nf6. If black plays 1. ... d5 for example it now has access to resources that would have been unreachable had white played 1. d4. Please come forward with exactly what advantage white has after 1. Nf3 d5 compared to possible positions reached after 1. d4.