Yah yeah I know "Openings are irrelevant below 2000" - but they're fun.... like collecting stickers or supporting a football team.
Oh. Good to know, since my current OTB rating is 2001.
A very well booked-up Grunfeld player or even Nimzo player is an annoyance to face.
I do not like to play against the budapest gambit, so after 1...Nf6 I play 2.Nf3, I also play the same way after 1...d5 to avoid playing against the albin counter gambit
I do not like to play against the budapest gambit, so after 1...Nf6 I play 2.Nf3, I also play the same way after 1...d5 to avoid playing against the albin counter gambit
Don't be scared of those openings. Particularly the Albin, which is pretty bad and you have a selection of ways to get a clear advantage.
I get annoyed by Lasker's defence. Hard for white to win because the position is simplified.
Why not play the exchange variation, the exchange seems to be what annoys many who play the QGD as black. Bf4, instead of Bg5, is also rather annoying for black.
Personally, I think the Albin is better than the Budapest.
The Albin is barely playable. 5.a3 and black is screwed.
I get annoyed by Lasker's defence. Hard for white to win because the position is simplified.
Why not play the exchange variation, the exchange seems to be what annoys many who play the QGD as black. Bf4 is also rather annoying for black.
Exactly. There is no reason to play into the Lasker QGD in 2018, many more ways to press for advantage that are even less theoretical, its a win-win.
I play 1.e4 and 1.d4, but when I'm playing 1.d4, I'd say the most "intimidating" opening for ME to face is generally a booked up Grunfeld player. Lots of deep theory that can be forcing and hard to find dynamic deviations. Second for me would be competent Semi-Slav players. As far as the Nimzo, I quite enjoy playing the white side of it.
this line is so often played accidentally for black and not executed correctly for white
For me, the Baltic Defense is cringeworthy. It's cringeworthy because Capa and other greats berated the Baltic as simply wrong, yet it scores quite well, even against very strong opposition. Nepo, Moro, and other independent thinkers have demonstrated that it's quite playable, even against +2750 opposition.
So, Capa was wrong. The Baltic Defense isn't as bad as it should be.
I get annoyed by Lasker's defence. Hard for white to win because the position is simplified.
Why not play the exchange variation, the exchange seems to be what annoys many who play the QGD as black. Bf4 is also rather annoying for black.
Exactly. There is no reason to play into the Lasker QGD in 2018, many more ways to press for advantage that are even less theoretical, its a win-win.
Eh, you can take on f6 when they go h6, firstly, and secondly there is still play in the Lasker and black's position is tough to play for a win. If you aren't much worse than the player with black (and a much higher-rated opponent probably wouldn't play the Lasker against you anyhow), the only way you can lose as white is by overpressing.
I was very interested in playing the Baltic at one time. But after 3 Qb3 the only decent move seems to be 3...e5 and things become too convoluted for me, not what I have in mind when playing the Baltic.
I don't play d4 much but when someone plays KID.
I feel like headbutting them.
I was very interested in playing the Baltic at one time. But after 3 Qb3 the only decent move seems to be 3...e5 and things become too convoluted for me, not what I have in mind when playing the Baltic.
What do you have in mind when playing the Baltic then?
Today Musssss man nur gut spielen.....
Mit andere Worte in real time modus und es Egal welche Opening Nach 1.E4 ODER 1.a3 oder noch etwas EXTRAVAGANTES>>>>>>
MUSSSSSSSSSS MAN EINFACH GUT SPIELEN ODER NOCH besser, schneller als Gegner......
I was very interested in playing the Baltic at one time. But after 3 Qb3 the only decent move seems to be 3...e5 and things become too convoluted for me, not what I have in mind when playing the Baltic.
What do you have in mind when playing the Baltic then?
I'm a believer in the book Chess For Tigers. Despite what the title might sound like, it is about playing to one's own style, against the opponent's style if possible. I like clarity in my games as much as possible. For instance, I play the London System as white and if there comes a time when I probably should aim for a kingside attack it is going to have to be rather clear or otherwise I'm not going to do so. In games in which I have tried to attack because the position seemed to 'call for it' I almost always wind up in trouble. In the Baltic After 3 Qb3 I can hardly make sense of what is going on, it goes against the grain of what I like, and against what I have an aptitude for understanding fairly well. I actually don't mind the type positions after 3 cxd5 in which white has the two bishops to pressure black with, even though it can be said there is likely only two results for black then (a loss or a draw). I felt I could study it well and probably hold the draws. But after I came across 3 Qb3 and looked at the positions resulting from it I did not like what I saw and eventually gave up on the Baltic
.
Thanks for all your replies. Just what I was looking for!
I am studying for a Masters currently but that'll be done in a few weeks. After that, I hope that I can put some more time into chess again. I don't play on chess.com much still but I like the community so come for the forum and articles.
Anyway.
Personally, I always feel uncomfortable vs. the London system. I know it's not an initially pressing system - but it seems to me that everyone who plays it has a fairly deep knowledge of the opening. This is not the first opening you come to when you're learning, and you can bet that most of the people playing it have a decent idea of how to exploit mistakes in their oppoenents early replies. That is just my experience.
I was thinking of picking up casual study of the Grunfeld, investing some time in the theory and just picking it up as a pet opening. I told someone this at my club and he said "Ooooo, The Grunfeld - VERY theoretical" in a kind of condescending manner. Put me off a bit, haha.
Things that made me cringe were the things that whilst not outright losing, are somewhat obscure and that I’d never got round to ever looking at: Snake Benoni. Czech Benoni. Old Indian. Blumenfeld. Two Knights Tango. The list could go on...
Life’s too short for some things...
That is one reason why some of us use the London, cuts out so much.
Things that made me cringe were the things that whilst not outright losing, are somewhat obscure and that I’d never got round to ever looking at: Snake Benoni. Czech Benoni. Old Indian. Blumenfeld. Two Knights Tango. The list could go on...
Life’s too short for some things...
The nice thing about the Benonis is that I can just avoid them and transpose to a Symmetrical English. The Two Knights' Tango also conveniently transposes to a Catalan or similar.
What has really been bothering me recently is the Dutch Defense. While it is supposed to be risky, it takes the game into positions that I wasn't particularly looking to play with 1.d4. Particularly it's not obvious to me how to crack the Stonewall, especially if black uses move-orders to avoid the b3-Ba3 idea.
Yah yeah I know "Openings are irrelevant below 2000" - but they're fun.... like collecting stickers or supporting a football team.