English Defense versus the English Opening
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
bvila19 wrote:
1.d4 b6? 2.e4! is what you are saying, Bvila19.
1.c4 b6!! is the way to go.
Unlike in the Larsen's Opening, white's extra tempo has given black a better position after 1.c4 b6 than white in 1.b3 c5, because white may play d4 and e4 so it will be easily attacked.
Let us compare after four moves:
English Defense :
1.c4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4 Bb4! and the position is equal.
Nimzo-Larsen Attack ; 1.b3 c5 :
1.b3 c5?! 2.Bb2 d5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Nf6 and white is slightly better.
Normally, white is slightly better in the opening. But instead of ...c5?!, black may consider three good moves: 1...b6!? ...e5, or ...d5, after ...b3.
But in the 1.b3 c5?! line, black has no ...e5, so less black's central pawns are pressured.
robertjames_perez wrote:
bvila19 wrote:
In my opinion, it's a good weapon for blitz, etc, but in standard, it's virtually useless. You usually get inferior versions of the nimzo or queen's indian defenses, and if playing by principle, white gets a very nice game, whilst forcing black to concede a lot from his position.
Well, it leads to dynamic equal positions. It is not useless. It is also different from those openings. ...f5. It should not lead to Indian Defenses. It leads to reversed Larsen, which is a solid opening, and even more when black plays c4 in this opening b3. So 1.c4 b6 is inverted b3 c5
Well, it is a reversed Larsen with a tempo down considering that it's being played from the black side rather than from the white side. Black also has to be careful of transposing into a line of the Owen's Defence, which is against 1.e4, which f5 can usually be met with exf5 followed by Qh5+ if allowed.
Again, just playing by principle in the opening (getting space in the center, quick mobilization of the pieces, not overextending, etc.), white can get a superior position and it will be difficult for black to prove any point from his opening experiment. That's why it's usually better to play the symmetrical English, the reversed sicilian, or even a transposition into a Slav, QGD, or even a KID position, against 1. c4.
bvila19 wrote:
Bvila19, Sorry for my d4 b6. It is what you are saying if it transposes to the Owen's.
robertjames_perez wrote:
bvila19 wrote:
In my opinion, it's a good weapon for blitz, etc, but in standard, it's virtually useless. You usually get inferior versions of the nimzo or queen's indian defenses, and if playing by principle, white gets a very nice game, whilst forcing black to concede a lot from his position.
Well, it leads to dynamic equal positions. It is not useless. It is also different from those openings. ...f5. It should not lead to Indian Defenses. It leads to reversed Larsen, which is a solid opening, and even more when black plays c4 in this opening b3. So 1.c4 b6 is inverted b3 c5
Well, it is a reversed Larsen with a tempo down considering that it's being played from the black side rather than from the white side. Black also has to be careful of transposing into a line of the Owen's Defence, which is against 1.e4, which f5 can usually be met with exf5 followed by Qh5+ if allowed.
Again, just playing by principle in the opening (getting space in the center, quick mobilization of the pieces, not overextending, etc.), white can get a superior position and it will be difficult for black to prove any point from his opening experiment. That's why it's usually better to play the symmetrical English, the reversed sicilian, or even a transposition into a Slav, QGD, or even a KID position, against 1. c4.
bvila19 wrote:
1.c4 b6 2.Nc3 Bb7 3.Nf3 e6 4.g3 Bxf3!
robertjames_perez wrote:
bvila19 wrote:
In my opinion, it's a good weapon for blitz, etc, but in standard, it's virtually useless. You usually get inferior versions of the nimzo or queen's indian defenses, and if playing by principle, white gets a very nice game, whilst forcing black to concede a lot from his position.
Well, it leads to dynamic equal positions. It is not useless. It is also different from those openings. ...f5. It should not lead to Indian Defenses. It leads to reversed Larsen, which is a solid opening, and even more when black plays c4 in this opening b3. So 1.c4 b6 is inverted b3 c5
Well, it is a reversed Larsen with a tempo down considering that it's being played from the black side rather than from the white side. Black also has to be careful of transposing into a line of the Owen's Defence, which is against 1.e4, which f5 can usually be met with exf5 followed by Qh5+ if allowed.
Again, just playing by principle in the opening (getting space in the center, quick mobilization of the pieces, not overextending, etc.), white can get a superior position and it will be difficult for black to prove any point from his opening experiment. That's why it's usually better to play the symmetrical English, the reversed sicilian, or even a transposition into a Slav, QGD, or even a KID position, against 1. c4.
bvila19 wrote:
I also had good positions from it.
robertjames_perez wrote:
bvila19 wrote:
In my opinion, it's a good weapon for blitz, etc, but in standard, it's virtually useless. You usually get inferior versions of the nimzo or queen's indian defenses, and if playing by principle, white gets a very nice game, whilst forcing black to concede a lot from his position.
Well, it leads to dynamic equal positions. It is not useless. It is also different from those openings. ...f5. It should not lead to Indian Defenses. It leads to reversed Larsen, which is a solid opening, and even more when black plays c4 in this opening b3. So 1.c4 b6 is inverted b3 c5
Well, it is a reversed Larsen with a tempo down considering that it's being played from the black side rather than from the white side. Black also has to be careful of transposing into a line of the Owen's Defence, which is against 1.e4, which f5 can usually be met with exf5 followed by Qh5+ if allowed.
Again, just playing by principle in the opening (getting space in the center, quick mobilization of the pieces, not overextending, etc.), white can get a superior position and it will be difficult for black to prove any point from his opening experiment. That's why it's usually better to play the symmetrical English, the reversed sicilian, or even a transposition into a Slav, QGD, or even a KID position, against 1. c4.
TwoMove wrote:
It is Alterman Gambit Guide Black Gambits 1. He does not want to avenge the Bd3 line, so he changed the move order from 1.c4 b6 2.d4 e6?!!?!!??!!? 3.e4! Bb7 4.Nc3?! to 2...Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4.
robertjames_perez wrote:
TwoMove wrote:
Eingorn in "A solid rep with e6" suggests this particular form of the english defense too, after 1.d4 e6 2c4 Bb4ch 3Nc3 b6. Seems quite playable. His other suggestion of 3...c5 leads to Nimzo Indian like play but anyway from more well-known theory.
2.e4! and if you are not a French Defense player, I do not recommend it.
I've played the french defense for years, but the main point was to show there was a reasonable book source for the version of english defense avoiding bd3 line.
Dec 14, 2017
0
#28
I think 1c4 b6, and 1.d4 e6 2c4 Bb4ch are fine for black. Against opponents like bvila19 which don't have any specific opening knowlege, and like "doing the unpacking" as I call it, they give nice extra options compared to Nimzo\Queens Indian positions. For example being able to play f5, or just being as flexible as possible in move order.
In my opinion, it's a good weapon for blitz, etc, but in standard, it's virtually useless. You usually get inferior versions of the nimzo or queen's indian defenses, and if playing by principle, white gets a very nice game, whilst forcing black to concede a lot from his position.
Well, it leads to dynamic equal positions. It is not useless. It is also different from those openings. ...f5. It should not lead to Indian Defenses. It leads to reversed Larsen, which is a solid opening, and even more when black plays c4 in this opening b3. So 1.c4 b6 is inverted b3 c5
But at the same token, it's not unplayable, it's just a more dubious option than most other responses to the English.