Nc3 is the most played move.Seems like white doesent wanna capture away frm the centre and just wants to develop.
Find an opening that suits my playing style well.
Sort:
But the e pawn is backward, as white the open e file helps me.
Obviously development is good... and more popular. I don't really understand why this hasn't been tried though. Maybe later in my development I'll understand it better. I was wondering if it's because you're giving black "development" ... but like I said after Bd3 at some point will black really allow a trade or spend a tempo moving it again?
waffllemaster wrote:
But the e pawn is backward, as white the open e file helps me.
Obviously development is good... and more popular. I don't really understand why this hasn't been tried though. Maybe later in my development I'll understand it better. I was wondering if it's because you're giving black "development" ... but like I said after Bd3 at some point will black really allow a trade or spend a tempo moving it again?
Personally,I like both exf5 and Nc3.In these kinda openings,doesent really matter much,Im sure both are equally good for white.Not many people expect this opening to be played,so they must have probably played the natural looking Nc3.I dunno
Actually Wafflemaster,ur right.I just checked the number of games Nc3 has been played but not the results,but after seeing the results,exf5 seems much better.Black has a ridiculous win rate after exf5
In a big database if exf5 with Nf3 has never been tried though then I'm probably not evaluating it correctly.
I'm willing to bet it's just because white's giving black a developing move... and that the bishop on f5 / the light squares aren't as bad as I think they are for some reason.
Anyway, for the pawn structure alone this looks not fun for black. Whatever white tries he should be comfortable. Are there any traps associated with the opening that make it attractive to the OP I wonder?
waffllemaster wrote:
In a big database if exf5 with Nf3 has never been tried though then I'm probably not evaluating it correctly.
I'm willing to bet it's just because white's giving black a developing move... and that the bishop on f5 / the light squares aren't as bad as I think they are for some reason.
Anyway, for the pawn structure alone this looks not fun for black. Whatever white tries he should be comfortable. Are there any traps associated with the opening that make it attractive to the OP I wonder?
There don't seem to be Any bothersome traps or such,Guess we'll have to ask the OP himself.
Likhit1 wrote:
Actually Wafflemaster,ur right.I just checked the number of games Nc3 has been played but not the results,but after seeing the results,exf5 seems much better.Black has a ridiculous win rate after exf5
Or really? In my database white scores really well (76%) after 3.exf5. But even better after 3.Nc3 (83%).
After the capture they don't seem to like 4.Nf3 as a followup though, they almost all play 4.Bd3.
waffllemaster wrote:
Likhit1 wrote:
Actually Wafflemaster,ur right.I just checked the number of games Nc3 has been played but not the results,but after seeing the results,exf5 seems much better.Black has a ridiculous win rate after exf5
Or really? In my database white scores really well (76%) after 3.exf5. But even better after 3.Nc3 (83%).
They don't seem to like 4.Nf3 as a followup though, they almost all play 4.Bd3.
I checked in the Chess.com databse,but probably urs is better.I dunno,but Id be more than happy if somebody played this against me in a tournament game.
I haven't read anything but the first post, but I would really reccomend the Veresov or the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. They're really aggressive, and just as crazy as the Fried Liver. The only difference is that if you back out, you're only down a pawn. They're also EXTREMELY open, which the defender is not expecting, since you start 1.d4.
Mar 10, 2013
0
#53
I don't think discussing the benefits of the Balogh will help the OP in the slightest.
Instead, learn how to attack. The great classic, The Art of Attack in Chess by Vladimir Vukovich, is available in many public libraries and there are many other good chess books available.
The first thing to learn is how to attack the uncastled king.
Take a look at the above game. Ask yourself what would have happened if Black had played 10...d5 instead of 10...b5. There are other questions in the text of that game for you to study.
pellik wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
pellik wrote:
What exactly about Balogh's defense is it that you like? Maybe you can achieve your goals while also playing something sound.
Black often gets to trade his f pawn for whites e pawn. If white plays 3. exf5 then Bxf5. This can be helpful later if the kingside bishop is fiennchettoed because then the two bishops control two large diagonals. The knights can then manoeuvre around wherever they work best and the queen waits around until she is needed.
It's sound, but I admit it is risky. One mistake can ruin the position entirely but if the opening is played decently black makes it to the midgame nicely
I know he doesn't have to take the pawn I never said he did. For every move by white black has a response. The king does need to castle queenside very early most of the time but I have found the bishops to be good at attacking the opponents queenside so I'll be find if they castle that way. If they castle kingside I have two pawns challenged only by pieces and their kingside pawns and I can put my rooks behind them.
As for the f pawn and e pawn trade, it usually happens at some point even if black has to take whites pawn.
It's not as simple to beat as you think. Once again, your arrogance is shining through. I don't care if you are more experienced than I am, there is no reason to be arrogant. Im asking for help not insults
Not really,White doesent even have to take the pawn.He can play Nc3 et and just develop while all you've done is open up your kingside and created permanent weaknesses.Certainly not a try to equalise.It is risky and even unsound but if u play it against beginners,they might get intimidated and make decisive mistakes thats true but not an opening to play at tournaments.
Ok, so here's the criteria I'm looking at-
1. You like an imbalanced pawn structure.
2. You like your bishops to coordinate and put pressure on the queen side.
3. You like clear attacking chess.
Well, 1 and 3 are easy to pair together, but finding positions where attacking chess and an early fianchetto go together consistantly is not so easy. I'd make 2 a lesser priority (it's nice if you can, but don't discount other deployments of the bishops), so that just leaves structure imbalance and attacking chess.
For the white pieces I imagine you've already considered King's Gambit, so I'll assume you have some reason for disliking those positions. Another fantastic attacking chess idea is the Reti. Many of the ideas will be over your head (they're over my head, I'm not a tactical genius), but it does generate incredible attacks fairly regularly. Look up The Modern Reti by Delchev. Granted there are some lines which will be calm (even the KG has some slow and positional lines), but overall you can expect to see lots of opposite castling and big attacks.
For the black pieces maybe try either a Kan sicilian (imbalance, good pressure against queen side) or a Dragon (black races to take control). Against d4 you could give the Benoni a try.
Now as a disclaimer I'm not suggesting that these openings are appropriate for your level, or that spending the time to learn them will help your chess at all. I'm just trying to help you find whatever it is you're looking for in the forum here.
Number two is not 100% accurate though I admit it seems that way. I like to have my bishops active on the longer diagonals, often not fianchettoed. I do like to co-ordinate them but I also like to have them attacking different places if it is better for my position. I do, however, like very mush to have two bishops and as a result, an open board.
Ok I'll look at the blackmar-deimer gambit, the veresov and the reti.
Thank you to you kind people actually offering me the help I asked for.
As for playing as black against 1. d4, I play the old benoni.
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
As for playing as black against 1. d4, I play the old benoni.
Might i suggest the Benko gambit?U get the initiative and it is fun to play,you just need to know the ideas very well or you will get into trouble.
I love the idea of the reti (especially the modern reti by delchev) but what if Black plays 1. ... Nf6 or 1. ... Nc6 in response to 1. Nf3 ?
I like the Blackmar-deimer gambit accepted but not many players at my level ever play 1. ... d5 in response to 1. d4. The variations where the gambit is declined don't appeal to me greatly, but I would consider playing it a few times in recreational games to give it a fair chance.
The veresov I don't particularly like, but knowing that such a line has proved to be effective in the past could be useful knowledge.
So I doubt I will be playing the reti or the blackmar-deimer anytime soon though I like white's position in each of them.
Likhit1 wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
As for playing as black against 1. d4, I play the old benoni.
Might i suggest the Benko gambit?U get the initiative and it is fun to play,you just need to know the ideas very well or you will get into trouble.
It looks interesting. I might play it at school tomorrow to see if I like it. At the moment, I'm still leaning towards the old benoni (it has another name I think but I can't remember such a name) The old benoni is 1. d4 c5 and if whte takes the pawn, black takes back with the bishop or white is caught in a trap. It can be simple or complex, dependiing on which side plays what moves.
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
Likhit1 wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
As for playing as black against 1. d4, I play the old benoni.
Might i suggest the Benko gambit?U get the initiative and it is fun to play,you just need to know the ideas very well or you will get into trouble.
It looks interesting. I might play it at school tomorrow to see if I like it. At the moment, I'm still leaning towards the old benoni (it has another name I think but I can't remember such a name) The old benoni is 1. d4 c5 and if whte takes the pawn, black takes back with the bishop or white is caught in a trap. It can be simple or complex, dependiing on which side plays what moves.
Ive played the modern benoni for some time and dont really like it much cuz it is hard to handle,if white gets in a4 ur b5 break is tough and it is very hard to develop the queen's knight and bishop well.
My first thought is to just play exf5 with Nf3 and I've won control over e5 for the foreseeable future. If you want to place a pawn in the center not only does d5 constitute a waste of time (taking 2 moves to get there) but you'll also have the backward e pawn. Also how will you develop your dark square bishop? g6 is ugly (another pawn move, and loosening even more knigside squares) So then e6? But in 3 moves you've already accepted a cramped position with passive development? And the bishop on f5 looks nice, but will black really trade it in the case of Bd3? If not he loses a tempo, and if he does the light squares (e6 in particular) would be pretty loose.
But when I look in my (admittedly old) database I don't see this being played... so I wonder if my idea is not so good. I tried it against my computer and am happy with my positions, but of course the computer isn't so good in openings so I'm not sure (I didn't give it forever to think and I didn't try many different lines).
I wonder if my approach is bad? I actually think it's a simple and strong solution.