This topic interests me. I feel openings are a weak part of my game and I’m looking into various openings after recently switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4 as white and to Nf6 rather than d5 in response to d4 as black. What resources online or what books do you think would help me in regard to learning and evaluating openings (Both positionally and what kind of games it leads to)?
Directed at @ThrillerFan, but willing to listen to anyone
This topic interests me. I feel openings are a weak part of my game and I’m looking into various openings after recently switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4 as white and to Nf6 rather than d5 in response to d4 as black. What resources online or what books do you think would help me in regard to learning and evaluating openings (Both positionally and what kind of games it leads to)?
Directed at @ThrillerFan, but willing to listen to anyone
You'd have to be a little more specific. Like for 1.d4 Nf6, you've got the Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian, Benoni, Benko, Grunfeld, etc.
When you've played 1.e4, what types of pawn center did you favor as White? Closed (i.e. Advance French, Winawer French), Mobile (i.e. Alekhine's Defense), Static (i.e. Exchange Caro-Kann), Open (i.e. minimum 1 open file - Petroff, Exchange French, etc), or Dynamic (i.e. Amorphous types of structures, like the Najdorf Sicilian)?
What you should play against 1.d4 depends on what types of pawn structures you prefer:
Closed - King's Indian Defense
Mobile (keep in mind, it's usually White's with the mobile pawn mass in the center, not Black, you'd be chipping away at the mobile pawn center) - Grunfeld
Static - Queen's Gambit Declined (can still be reached with 1...Nf6, 2...e6, and 3...d5)
Open - There really isn't a defense to 1.d4 that leads to the open center
Dynamic - Benoni, King's Indian lines w/c5, etc.
Depending on the opening you choose, some of them are in the Move By Move series by Everyman. If the one you choose is in that series, I'd start there. I know they wrote one on the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, and Benko. Not sure of the others.
This topic interests me. I feel openings are a weak part of my game and I’m looking into various openings after recently switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4 as white and to Nf6 rather than d5 in response to d4 as black. What resources online or what books do you think would help me in regard to learning and evaluating openings (Both positionally and what kind of games it leads to)?
Directed at @ThrillerFan, but willing to listen to anyone
My advice is to play over plenty of master games that begin with the moves you are interested in. Then you can narrow it down by focusing on the continuations that lead to positions you like.
Thanks for the answers. If it helps, I prefer to trade off pawns and open the lines or try to create pawns on half open files I can push, pass, and use to apply pressure. I don’t like tension: I can play through it, but dislike the idea that I my opponent can take the pawn anytime and force my response.
Sorry if I’m not giving you much, but I’m not very familiar with a lot of chess terminology (I called promoting a pawn “a touchdown” for most of my life”).
Thanks for the answers. If it helps, I prefer to trade off pawns and open the lines or try to create pawns on half open files I can push, pass, and use to apply pressure. I don’t like tension: I can play through it, but dislike the idea that I my opponent can take the pawn anytime and force my response.
Sorry if I’m not giving you much, but I’m not very familiar with a lot of chess terminology (I called promoting a pawn “a touchdown” for most of my life”).
Your views on Pawn tension might handicap you somewhat. Be aware that the player who initiates the trade usually loses a move by doing so. Here's an example:
Note that Black was the one who resolved the tension by capturing the opponent's Pawn. What was the result? The Black c-Pawn moved twice (c7-c5 xd4) and then disappeared from the board, taking those two moves with it. The White d-Pawn moved only once (d2-d4) and then disappeared from the board, taking that one move with it.
As a result, it wasn't just a Pawn-for-Pawn trade. It was a Black Pawn and two moves, being traded for a White Pawn and one move. By resolving the tension, Black has lost a move. You can verify this by counting the moves that are still visible on the board. White has made three visible moves (e2-e4, N-f3 -d4) while Black has made only one (d7-d6) and Black is on the move. That's a total of three vs two... Black has lost a move.
Of course, that isn't the whole story... if it was, the Open Sicilian would not be so popular. In compensation for his lost move, Black now has two center Pawns against one plus a flank Pawn; and he also has the c-file available while White has the d-file. In general, flank files are more useful for direct attack, while center files are more useful for positional pressure.
I understand. I typed that fast, and didn’t explain. I don’t like tension in general, but will play through it if I can find a reason, such as what you mentioned,* to keep the tension going.
A great example is when I play the slav defense. I don’t immediately play cxd5 and will wait because I know my trade doesn’t take his d pawn (he’ll play cxd5 and then we both have d pawns). But, later, around move 7 or 8, I sometimes see dxc4. I played through the tension for a longer gain, but in general, I dislike tension.
A book line that is endorsed by Stockfish 11 to 27 ply. White has many good 9th moves including Nc3, Ng5, O-O that might be better than 9.a4.
Thanks for the answers. If it helps, I prefer to trade off pawns and open the lines or try to create pawns on half open files I can push, pass, and use to apply pressure. I don’t like tension: I can play through it, but dislike the idea that I my opponent can take the pawn anytime and force my response.
Sorry if I’m not giving you much, but I’m not very familiar with a lot of chess terminology (I called promoting a pawn “a touchdown” for most of my life”).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Tension is a major part of open games. Each side is trying to force the other to open it for them so that they can get the leg up, whether it be a trade that leads to a Rook lift and you double on the open file first, or one of many other ways.
If you hate tension, your best solution is to play more closed and blocked positions and attack on the wings. For example, the King's Indian Defense, there is rarely ever pawn Tension. See below for example:
@blueemu, I strongly defer. In spite of admitting that your moves (in your game which follows Sicilian Defense : Open, Scheveningen, Sozin, Flank Variation - 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7) are given somewhere in some books since they are playable but book moves are something else. The variation mentioned in this thread has claimed book moves till Bc5. Your prescribed 365chess.com opening explorer also says the same as found to me by Chess.Com analysis tool. Kindly navigate to https://www.365chess.com/view_opening.php?n=3080. And thanks for paying attention to this post. Thank you so much. I would love to get you as my friend. I need only those friends here who love to talk on chess. Stay home and stay safe.
This is like saying: my Playboy mentions nothing about chess so 1. e4 is out of book.
There's no one opening database which has all the book moves, and after each of those moves, that's where the lines end. There are many books dedicated to specific variations of the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. In those books, there are moves that probably go much deeper after 5..Bc5. Whether you consider them to be book moves or not is disputable, but then you are asking a different question, namely "what is to be considered a book move", and not "what is the next book move".
Probably the best answer I can give OP based on the arguments he had for others' replies, 6. O-O Nf6 transposes into a Modern Arkhangelsk according to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be on 365's list, or chess.com's list, but that Wikipedia mentions it with a name, so it's probably a valid answer.
Edit: Fundamental Chess Openings mentions it as the Neo-Arkhangelsk, which has apparently also been pointed out by a few others here.
I should also mention the following line:
This is a position that arises quite regularly after 4..Nf6 5. d3 in the Anderssen Variation. Just as with the position that you started the thread with, O-O and c3 are the two most common moves, being in line with mainstream Ruy Lopez ideas, although I'd prefer to play 7. Nc3 in combination with 6. d3, which just seems to make things as easy as you could get in a position like this with moves like Bg5, O-O + h3, Nd5 and a4 all coming and are very appealing for our position.
Isn’t this line for Black called the Archangelsk or Neo-Archangelsk or something like that?
No - You are lacking ...Nf6 and O-O
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 (5...Be7 is the main line leading to the Chigorin, Breyer, Zaitsev, Marshall, and Anti-Marshall) 6.Bb3 now:
6...Bb7 is the Archangelsk
6...Bc5 is the Neo-Archangelsk, or Moller