rich wrote:
I'm no longer tracking this ridiculous topic.
Even if he doesn't look at this topic again, I think the rest of us agree that there isn't anything "ridiculous" about saying that 1. Nf3 is a perfectly good opening.
Handling weak openings
Sort:
When playing Black and given a choice between 1...e5 and 1...d5, I usually play 1...e5. The idea behind this is that it'll probably be easier to make a late d-pawn advance to the fifth rank than to do the same with the e-pawn, since the d-pawn would already be supported by the queen. Therefore, even against a beginner, I would respond to 1. h4 with 1...e5. Although a beginner might fall for 1. h4 d5; 2. Rh3 Bxd3, he/she might also see the problem with 2. Rh3 and instead make a decent move, such as 2. d4. After 1. h4 e5, I would want White to follow up with 2. Rh3, as this would not contest the center, would give me a valuable target to attack (gaining tempo), and wouldn't really be developing a piece, as the rook's abilities would be all but nullified in the congestion of the early game.
An exception to my preference for 1...e5 over 1...d5 would be occur when playing against the grob (I don't even respect that opening enough to capatalize it's "g"), where 1. g4 d5 forces white to defend the g-pawn, giving Black an extra tempo.
NotKasparov> I don't even respect that opening enough to capatalize it's "g"
That's one of its advantages. Claude Bloodgood racked up many points using it, and while some of his opponents were horrible at chess, a few were fairly good. I tested it against a 2200 FIDE OTB (blitz) and he wasn't able to refute it... not that I plan to make it a mainstay of my repertoire or anything, but it's a nice surprise.
rich wrote:
Nf3 is weak I think.
Try telling that to Kramnik, who has used it in some World Championship Matches. Nf3 is flexible.
rich wrote:
I don't like using Knights first move that's why.
or you could just sotp posting the same thing 6 times in a row. no wonder you have almsot 8000 points! lol
likesforests wrote:
NotKasparov> I don't even respect that opening enough to capatalize it's "g"
That's one of its advantages. Claude Bloodgood racked up many points using it, and while some of his opponents were horrible at chess, a few were fairly good. I tested it against a 2200 FIDE OTB (blitz) and he wasn't able to refute it... not that I plan to make it a mainstay of my repertoire or anything, but it's a nice surprise.
With all due respect to the grob (notice I'm still not capitalizing it's "g"), the opening is, in my mind, a surprise attack at it's very best.
I notice you say "that's one of it's advantages." What are it's other advantages? Fianchettoing the kingside bishop at the cost of a tempo? Are Claude Bloodgood's wins with it against his fellow prison inmates the best validation of it's "decency"? It can be disputed whether the grob is really as bad as some people say it is. It can not be disputed that white has far more potent first-move alternatives.
Aug 25, 2008
0
#28
I always thought the point of 1. Nf3 was because it can transpose into very different openings, it keeps black guessing a bit longer. That doesn't mean it's a great opening, and I don't know whether it's actually better than just playing d4 straight off the bat (because I guess that black sort of has more determination of where the opening is going with 1. Nf3 than 1. d4) but it's worth knowing about, and using occasionally (maybe not all the time though) [disclaimer: in my opinion], unless you're a really good player who has time to study lots of variations, I don't know if 1. Nf3 is actually worth playing over something with less theory...
NotKasparov> With all due respect to the grob (notice I'm still not capitalizing it's "g"), the opening is, in my mind, a surprise attack at it's very best.
Right, the Grob can be a great surprise weapon.
NotKasparov> I don't even respect that opening enough to capitalize it's "g".
likesforests> That's one of its advantages.
NotKasparov> What are it's other advantages?
It's uncommon enough that many players don't know the refutation, and aren't able to work it out at blitz and maybe rapid time controls.
NotKasparov> Fianchettoing the kingside bishop at the cost of a tempo?
In most lines White gambits a pawn to speed up his development. Obviously, you're hoping your surprise weapon catches your opponent by surrpise and they don't have a good counter memorized. If they do (or find one by chance) it's not the end of the world. It's sorta like a Modern Defense Reversed.
I think my one OTB usage was a perfect opportunity: I was facing a stronger player (FIDE 2200) who knew my primary opening system well. He accepted the gambited g-pawn and the blitz game became quite sharp and tactical.
NotKasparov> It can be disputed whether the grob is really as bad as some people say it is. It can not be disputed that white has far more potent first-move alternatives.
Well of course it's not theoretically as good as e4, d4, c4, and Nf3. Neither is Bill Wall's (gasp!) 1.Nh3, but he still scores some interesting wins with it. :)
Don't let these "weak openings" get in your head is my main advice. Don't change how you play too much expecting a blunder. I used to get it in my head that if my opponent didn't opening with e4 or d4 that I was probably going to win. And I was definatelty wrong. Just don't drop your guard, and stick to the game you're strongest with, especially if your opponent is giving you center control early. :)
against any 'weak' openings, i would suggest making standard opening moves, or moves in such a way that you would gain greater control of the center and better mobility for my pieces.
Is playing f-4 good if there are no imidiate threats against it and you've already played the e-4 d-4 and c-4?
TiagoDevesa wrote:
Is playing f-4 good if there are no imidiate threats against it and you've already played the e-4 d-4 and c-4?
Not necessarily. A weak move doesn't necessarily have to be exploited immediately. A move like that would usually be positionally suspect (leaving the e1-h4 diagonal open) and probably lose at least tempo.
However, there are some openings that have variations with four pawn pushes, but those all have some way to counter the tempo and position problem.
rich wrote:
Nf3 Nc3 Nhe Na3 are all weak, as well as they don't free any other pieces. d4 e4 are the strongest openings nearly all the time.
Nf3 is not weak in fact it is the 3rd strongest opening move of all time.
It gives an english with out th e5 systems if your opponent replies 1.. nf6 otherwise a reti or a indian defence is avaliable, and nc3 is not terrible as you can get closed siclilians out of it and if you want to play vienna without the scandanavian it works as a tranposition tool
The opening i hate to play against is 1)Nf3 f6 2)e4 e5 at this point white has won but it takes a long time,this recently came up in tournement i wont show the continuation in full as i havn't finished the game and rustypipes may see but if white continues with 3)Nxe5 he stands well.
wait! Nf3 is not the "third" strongest opening! d4 e4 c4 and Nf3 are all equally solid. None of them is best \ worst. It might be YOUR 3rd best, but in general terms its just as strong
Nimzo33 wrote:
I find it funny that <Rich> is putting down 1.Nf3 when it was frequented by former world-champion Vladimir Kramnik... I don't really hear much of the trompowsky in high ranked play though. 1. Nf3 is just as good as 1.d4 and 1.e4, its a matter of taste, and if that's all rich was trying to get at (that he just doesn't "like" 1.Nf3) then there is really nothing to discuss with this "sub-topic".
As for the main topic, I don't really see a problem when an opponent plays a silly opening. They usually give you a huge center AND the time to make it rock solid. You have an advantage, that's certain, it just learning how to convert it to a win.
Yeah, before we got sidetracked, that was what we were trying to help. We were making sure that you could get that big, solid center. It's not particularly easy.