Mainly because there isn't much reason to go into an opening like the blackmar diemer or french when you can get an easy advantage against the scandinavian.
Getting Away From Caro-Kahn and French
Sort:
Aug 30, 2010
0
#3
It's funny that people think they are getting Caro-Kann players out of their element when they offer this pawn.
Black gets pretty much the same position as in the main lines, he's just up a pawn. I don't know that it's winning or anything, but it's not pleasant to play for white, especially when they always play the same exact attacking plan.
Aug 30, 2010
0
#4
After reading the smackdown that James Rizzitano gave to the Blackmar-Diemer in his book How to Beat d4 (a QGA system), I wouldn't try the BDG ever!
I've played the Caro a lot, and never had trouble with the BDG.
Aug 31, 2010
0
#6
To be totally fair to the BDG, I think that for me I win against it because the people who play it aren't too strong. So there may be selection bias.
If I take someone rated my strength, it obviously would be much harder.
I've had very good results against BDG players who are rated around my level and a little higher. This suggests to me that the opening requires a lot more tactical ability and positional knowledge than other openings need for one to be successful. I’ve had similar successes with Scandinavian players who usually struggle against the loss of tempo and don’t see why one wouldn’t want to take the Scandinavian head on.
Although, if you wish to devote yourself to the BDG, then why not transpose? You will get more experience. There are a lot of proponents against BDG who argue that the loss of a pawn and weakening the Kingside should be theoretically fatal but the opening is not without few passionate advocates as well and I seem to recall seeing a game where Kramnik beat Anand using the BDG (but this should be verified). Surely this shows that the opening can be utilised at the very top end although I suspect students of the BDG have a very long hard road ahead of them.
As an anti French, I quite enjoy playing the Reti Gambit: 1. e4, e6 2. b3, d5 3. Bb2, dxe4 (check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w53jqnNrOo0). There are a lot sharp lines in the French that French players will know so I quite like the Reti Gambit for sidestepping all that while leading to some interesting positions and catching them out of book early on. Another way to sidestep the sharper lines of the French is to play: 1. e4, e6, 2. Nf3 simply developing a piece …and then you can either exchange off or advance the e pawn without having to defend a classical centre. I find this often confuses French players and you quickly end up out of book, avoiding the sharper lines of the Winawer or blocking in the light squared Bishop in the Tarrasch.
Against the Caro-Kann, I quite like playing the Panov Attack, excepting an isolated pawn for rapid development. In both openings I seem to fair well against similarly rated players while avoiding having to learn too much theory to keep up. Anyway, I’m only rated around 1500 so I should probably now go wash my mouth out now with some tactics!
bensbookshelves wrote:
I've had very good results against BDG players who are rated around my level and a little higher. This suggests to me that the opening requires a lot more tactical ability and positional knowledge than other openings need for one to be successful. I’ve had similar successes with Scandinavian players who usually struggle against the loss of tempo and don’t see why one wouldn’t want to take the Scandinavian head on.
This might just be because I'm tired, but could you explain this?
Tricklev wrote:
bensbookshelves wrote:
I've had very good results against BDG players who are rated around my level and a little higher. This suggests to me that the opening requires a lot more tactical ability and positional knowledge than other openings need for one to be successful. I’ve had similar successes with Scandinavian players who usually struggle against the loss of tempo and don’t see why one wouldn’t want to take the Scandinavian head on.
This might just be because I'm tired, but could you explain this?
Apologies if I seemed a bit too esoteric. What I meant to convey is that I believe some openings need a lot more work than other openings to be any good at them and that the BDG seems to be an example of this (at least in the games I've played, players rated 1400 - 1700). The tactical posibilities and positional elements that you may need to know (without falling back on general knolledge) is going to be greater in some openings. For instance 1.d4 is generally considered a safer way of opening the game ...you may be able to make a mistake and live a mistake with 1.e4 tends to be fatal.
Against the french you have to watch out for Qh4+ since the diagonal is already open for the queen.
Estragon wrote:
bensbookshelves wrote:
As an anti French, I quite enjoy playing the Reti Gambit: 1. e4, e6 2. b3, d5 3. Bb2, dxe4 (check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w53jqnNrOo0). There are a lot sharp lines in the French that French players will know so I quite like the Reti Gambit for sidestepping all that while leading to some interesting positions and catching them out of book early on. Another way to sidestep the sharper lines of the French is to play: 1. e4, e6, 2. Nf3 simply developing a piece …and then you can either exchange off or advance the e pawn without having to defend a classical centre. I find this often confuses French players and you quickly end up out of book, avoiding the sharper lines of the Winawer or blocking in the light squared Bishop in the Tarrasch.
Against the Caro-Kann, I quite like playing the Panov Attack, excepting an isolated pawn for rapid development. In both openings I seem to fair well against similarly rated players while avoiding having to learn too much theory to keep up. Anyway, I’m only rated around 1500 so I should probably now go wash my mouth out now with some tactics!
Neither 2 b3 nor 2 Nf3 is going to worry a French player, he knows he is equal already. There's a reason White contests the classical pawn chain in most French lines - it is his best chance for advantage. I haven't played the French as my main line in nearly 20 years, so I don't mind telling you the line French players hate to see most is the Steinitz Advance line in the Classical - but White must risk the Winawer to get the chance to play that. Serious White players will play 2 d4 and 3 Nc3 - if you want a French player to respect you, that's the way.
As a C-K player for the last 20 years, I have to say the devotion to the Panov among the chess masses is puzzling. It is the least challenging scheme we see, but we see it fairly often, so it won't surprise us at all. If you want a challenging but seldom-played line vs the C-K, try the Two Knights Attack or Nigel Short's 2 Ne2. Both are pretty tricky, objectively sound, and offer an unprepared Black multiple chances to go wrong early.
Or just play the main lines, which don't offer White much, but do give him some small but persistent edge in most variations.
Thanks Estragon, it's good to hear the comments of a much stronger player. I've found that I've been much more successful avoiding the French mainline. I feel this is because I've avoided the types of positions my opponents are familar with -forcing them to come up with their own ideas. I tend to focus less on gaining an opening advantage, more on general opening principles and am happy to enter the middle game on an equal footing. I suspect that at my level, the time spent on learning all the sharp lines of the French would be better spent on tactics, endgames or positional chess but I'd be interested to read what you think. Do you think I should just bite the bullet and start playing the mainline French?
You should know quite a bit of theory and know the position well if you're planning to play 3.Nc3 since there's the classical variation and the Winawer and Rubinstein/burn variation.
Lines in the winawer can get pretty sharp and are usually always complicated.
For example you have the Portisch/Hook variation(6...Qa5 7.Bd2 Qa4), the main line with Ne7, the Armenian variation (5...Ba5) and the 6...Qc7 variation.
checkmateisnear wrote:
You should know quite a bit of theory and know the position well if you're planning to play 3.Nc3 since there's the classical variation and the Winawer and Rubinstein/burn variation.
Lines in the winawer can get pretty sharp and are usually always complicated.
For example you have the Portisch/Hook variation(6...Qa5 7.Bd2 Qa5), the main line with Ne7, the Armenian variation (5...Ba5) and the 6...Qc7 variation.
Thanks Checkmateisnear, from what you've said I'm thinking I'll leave 3. Nc3 alone for now. I'm quite content to play for equality rather than take on all that theory and I probably shouldn't be getting into that much opening theory at my level, yes/no?
I think that much easy get advantage in scandinavian main lines than in BDG
Sep 3, 2010
0
#15
Estragon wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
To be totally fair to the BDG, I think that for me I win against it because the people who play it aren't too strong. So there may be selection bias.
If I take someone rated my strength, it obviously would be much harder.
Sure, but they won't play it against you! Perhaps it is also selection bias in another form . . .
BDG offers chances for a lot of quick, pretty wins against people who don't know what they are doing when they face it. Results decline rapidly against unfazed opponents.
This is exactly why I don't recommend playing gimmick openings if you are a serious chessplayer. It will put an artificial ceiling on your chess level.
Playing them "once in a while" is ok, and good. Let's face it, a pawn isn't that much, and so it's not like you're losing right away. It's good to have experience playing those types of positions though, if only to know how to beat it when you play the other side. :-)
Oh, and the BDG is much better than the Englund Gambit. 1.d4 e5?
Maybe it shouldn't be a "?" but a "?!" or a "??!"
Sep 3, 2010
0
#17
I think based on the definition of '?' it qualifies. But sure, if it's a "real" opening you can put the '??!' if you want.
There was a thread awhile back which talked about what is the worst position for black after all the possible combinations of "white moves, black moves, white moves". If I remember correctly, these were up there:
1.e4 f5 2.exf5
1.h4 g5 2.hxg5
1.Nf3 e5 2.Nxe5
1.e4 b5 2.Bxb5
But I think that the Englund must be in the conversation.
I've been playing those a lot lately when I am at a tournament and was wondering if I could just transpose that to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as I already do with the Scandinavian