I know that at my current rating,the openings aren't very important
some kind of suicide opening like the latvian gambit.
Bit of a contradiction no?
I wouldn't say that.At longer time controls (30-60 min) even 1400 like me can defend properly against the latvian gambit.
What about... 1. e4 e5 (if you play e5) 2. Nf3 Nf6? (I forgot the name of the defense :/)
that's the petroff and it's usually a drawish,boring opening
I know that at my current rating,the openings aren't very important
some kind of suicide opening like the latvian gambit.
Bit of a contradiction no?
I wouldn't say that.At longer time controls (30-60 min) even 1400 like me can defend properly against the latvian gambit.
Disagree.
Why do you say that?
that's the petroff and it's usually a drawish,boring opening
How so? 
Because against somebody who knows what they are doing you simply wont have the time to work it out OTB (Over The Board)
So you think that the latvian gambit could be a good choice for me?
that's the petroff and it's usually a drawish,boring opening
How so?
It's symmetrical and black tries to avoid complications through this symmetry,creating a solid position.
that's the petroff and it's usually a drawish,boring opening
How so?
It's symmetrical and black tries to avoid complications through this symmetry,creating a solid position.
Thanks for the info xD
If you really want to avoid theory, but want to stay on the agressive side of things, you might want to try something like the Scandinavian Defense (1. e4 d5). It doesn't really require a lot of theoretical knowledge, it can lead to fairly tactical games, and it is rather more respectable than things like the Latvian Gambit. It is played a bit at master level, mostly to avoid mainline theory, though it is considered to be just a little bit dubious. Oh well. You can't have everything.
The fact is, there isn't really a defense to 1. e4 that is aggressive and tactical, requires little theoretical knowledge, AND considered to be very respectable even at master level. On the whole, it might be wiser to go with something like 1...c5 as your response to 1. e4. Sure, it requires some theoretical knowledge, but at our amateur level, it requires infinitely less theoretical knowledge than at master level. Personally, I would rather stay with fully-respected openings, even at the cost of learning a bit more theory, than trying something a bit dubious.
On the whole, I guess it really depends on where you want to go with your chess. If you are setting your sights high, then you will really want to stay with respectable openings, as playing dubious openings to avoid theory will probably come back to haunt you as you rise higher in rating. On the other hand, if you don't really intend to do much with your chess except play it for fun, and don't really intend to rise much past your current playing level, you can probably play something somewhat dubious and be none the worse for it.
A FRIEND OF MINE SAID THAT E4 IS AN ATTACKING MOVE.
I mean, after your opponent played e4, it sure to get tactical! I believe so...
So Petrov's defense is, a tactical one. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
BTW, have you tried that defense?
A FRIEND OF MINE SAID THAT E4 IS AN ATTACKING MOVE.
I mean, after your opponent played e4, it sure to get tactical! I believe so...
So Petrov's defense is, a tactical one. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
BTW, have you tried that defense?
First of all,after you opponent plays e4,you can't be sure that the game will get tactical(Karpov played e4 quite often for example).And Petrov may get tactical,but usually it is drawish and I have real problems in symmetrical positions for some reason.And yes,I've tried it a few times in the past and white kicked my a** really hard.Not my type of opening for sure.
If you really want to avoid theory, but want to stay on the agressive side of things, you might want to try something like the Scandinavian Defense (1. e4 d5). It doesn't really require a lot of theoretical knowledge, it can lead to fairly tactical games, and it is rather more respectable than things like the Latvian Gambit. It is played a bit at master level, mostly to avoid mainline theory, though it is considered to be just a little bit dubious. Oh well. You can't have everything.
The fact is, there isn't really a defense to 1. e4 that is aggressive and tactical, requires little theoretical knowledge, AND considered to be very respectable even at master level. On the whole, it might be wiser to go with something like 1...c5 as your response to 1. e4. Sure, it requires some theoretical knowledge, but at our amateur level, it requires infinitely less theoretical knowledge than at master level. Personally, I would rather stay with fully-respected openings, even at the cost of learning a bit more theory, than trying something a bit dubious.
On the whole, I guess it really depends on where you want to go with your chess. If you are setting your sights high, then you will really want to stay with respectable openings, as playing dubious openings to avoid theory will probably come back to haunt you as you rise higher in rating. On the other hand, if you don't really intend to do much with your chess except play it for fun, and don't really intend to rise much past your current playing level, you can probably play something somewhat dubious and be none the worse for it.
Thanks for your comment.I've tried the scandinavian,but with really poor results.I tried the Qd5 and also the Nf6 variation and it seems somewhat positional to me,almost the same as caro-kann.I also tried the sicilian with fair results in the past,some cool games came out of it.But I want to take the initiative during the game and even in the sicilian that may seem hard for black sometimes because he must counter-attack(at least for me !).So I guess I will try both the latvian gambit and the sicilian and the God of chess will guide me.
I would recommend e5 as a responce to e4. I would say that 90% of players under 1700 have Zero idea of how to get an advantage out of e4 e5. Black can easily equalize against ANYTHING white throws at him, execpt the Ruy lopez, which most beginners don't get into it, or if they do, they play it badly or passively.
I have an impressive win ratio against e4 with the black pieces, and I can help you outright blow white out of the water in less than 20 moves if they try anything other than the lopez. Do not look at my record here, as I quit playing here a long time ago and moved on to chesscube and ajedrezonline.
I can help you crush white if he tries:
The kings gambit, the scotch game and gambits, if he plays passively with an early d3, the four knights, the 3 knights, the Vienna game (with 3 f4 and 3 Bc4), the 2.Qh5 attack, the center game, the ponziani, plus various cheap traps like the Lopes gambit, and various Qd2, Nh3 and Bg5 ideas which CAN quickly crush an inexperienced black player. I even got you covered in the Portuguese opening!
Unfortunatly against the Ruy I like to defend it by playing the Berlin wall, which sometimes works out brilliantly, sometimes crushes you quickly. Also, the Berlin is a slow game where you won't have ANY sharp attacking lines against white, but if he tries to avoid the main lines you can emerge with no problems.
Once you master the open games 1.e4 e5, you can quickly turn the tables on white if he tries anything other than the Ruy. And it's a lot easier than you think. Best of all, I don't just teach "theory", I teach the IDEAS which help you find the right moves. White's biggest mistake in e4-e5 openings is allowing black to get a successfull d5 break in. If he allows it (and most weak players do), I can teach you how to quickly detroy white.
I agree with ya. I prefer a more counterattacking plan as black. I play the Marshall Gambit against the Ruy Lopez. I hardly ever study theory on some of the uncommon tries.
Ya forgot the Italian! That is a most dangerous opening that the black player must know.
Have you ever tried Alekhine's Defense? I think if you learned that one reasonably well, you'd be much more likely than your opponent to know what you're doing with it.
^ actually the Italian is not too bad, and I don't cover it because I don't play it (or teach it). After Bc4, comes Nf6! heading into the two knights.
I like to counter attack, and the Italian just peters out to a draw if both sides play it right. Since the main lines are pretty straight fowards, it's rather boring and dull to me.
You really aren't strong enough to say these things about openings. At 1800 you can't say an opening peters out to a draw, and you cannot say only the ruy offers a chance for an advantage, even Kasparov disagrees.
I would recommend e5 as a responce to e4. I would say that 90% of players under 1700 have Zero idea of how to get an advantage out of e4 e5. Black can easily equalize against ANYTHING white throws at him, execpt the Ruy lopez, which most beginners don't get into it, or if they do, they play it badly or passively.
I have an impressive win ratio against e4 with the black pieces, and I can help you outright blow white out of the water in less than 20 moves if they try anything other than the lopez. Do not look at my record here, as I quit playing here a long time ago and moved on to chesscube and ajedrezonline.
I can help you crush white if he tries:
The kings gambit, the scotch game and gambits, if he plays passively with an early d3, the four knights, the 3 knights, the Vienna game (with 3 f4 and 3 Bc4), the 2.Qh5 attack, the center game, the ponziani, plus various cheap traps like the Lopes gambit, and various Qd2, Nh3 and Bg5 ideas which CAN quickly crush an inexperienced black player. I even got you covered in the Portuguese opening!
Unfortunatly against the Ruy I like to defend it by playing the Berlin wall, which sometimes works out brilliantly, sometimes crushes you quickly. Also, the Berlin is a slow game where you won't have ANY sharp attacking lines against white, but if he tries to avoid the main lines you can emerge with no problems.
Once you master the open games 1.e4 e5, you can quickly turn the tables on white if he tries anything other than the Ruy. And it's a lot easier than you think. Best of all, I don't just teach "theory", I teach the IDEAS which help you find the right moves. White's biggest mistake in e4-e5 openings is allowing black to get a successfull d5 break in. If he allows it (and most weak players do), I can teach you how to quickly detroy white.
I would really like to understand some basic ideas about e5 openings.How should I proceed?
^ actually the Italian is not too bad, and I don't cover it because I don't play it (or teach it). After Bc4, comes Nf6! heading into the two knights.
I like to counter attack, and the Italian just peters out to a draw if both sides play it right. Since the main lines are pretty straight fowards, it's rather boring and dull to me.
Couldn't that be said of many openings?
4.Ng5 is certainly not drawish unless you decide to enter the Traxler. The Italian should be a very dynamic game.
4.d4 on the other hand is drawish IF both sides oblige.
4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 is easily a draw. It is a shame though as 5...Bc5 is the Max Lange which was the toast of Europe a century ago.
4.d4 exd4 5.e5 is a very difficult strategic game. One side is trying to block the position while the other is trying to open it up. It shouldn't be a drawish position unless played incorrectly.
If you played against me, you would be heading into the heart of the Two Knights Defence.
Against the Ruy Lopez you should play the Shliemann (3..f5). If Rosequeen can crush the mainline Scotch game, he knows more than the grandmasters. I certainly don't know a way to equalize against it. I know a line that gives me active piece play but Black's poor pawn structure is tough to hold against a strong player who knows what he is doing.
Have you ever tried Alekhine's Defense? I think if you learned that one reasonably well, you'd be much more likely than your opponent to know what you're doing with it.
I doubt I am experienced enough to play hypermodern ideas.Although I play KID against 1.d4,I understood it with the help of a friend.But Alekhine seems too complicated.
I know that at my current rating,the openings aren't very important,but when I play black against 1.e4,I almost always lose.As white I play e4,usually my games going in the king's gambit or morra gambit and the games get really agressive and tactical.As black,against 1.d4,I play the king's indian defense and the games again get tactical.I want to find an opening that suits my style of play,agressive,tactical,but at the same time not with a lot of theory like the sicilian or some kind of suicide opening like the latvian gambit.