i just get out of the book theory straight away with 1 e4
MOST ANNOYING OPENINGS
Sort:
ThrillerFan wrote:
pcalugaru wrote:
Sebu13 wrote:
Which openings do you find the most annoying to play against?
For me they are:
With black:
1.d4 followed by 2.Nf3. It's annoying, because I don't know what I'm playing against. Is it a London, a Queen's Gambit, a Colle? Maybe even Catalan? Who knows?
Pretty much why I play it. lol...
1.d4 2.Nf3 I usually plan to play a Colle but I'm booked up on a lot of reversed Queens Gambit lines also. i.e. I'm actually looking to play.... Reversed QGA if Black plays an early ...d5 and ...c4 or ... or...because I play the Koltanowski var with c3, a reverse Semi-Slav lines with dxc5 holding on to the pawn and playing Bb2.. even started playing 1.d4 2. e3 and 3.Bd3 Hey... if I'm allowed to play the Stonewall Attack Bonus! but what I really expecting is to see some form of anti Stonewall move order allowing me to play a reversed Noteboom variation (or transpose into some solid version of a Chigorin or QG)
Are these theoretical? Heck no...!!! but.. gets people in my back yard where at least I will have a chance of knowing what the keck is going on .. lol
Colle only really works against Nimzo and QGD setups.
If the Bishop come outside, specifically known as the Anti-Colle, anything other than c4 and White is worse, and so 4.c4 almost has to be played, when 4...c6 puts you in a Slow Slav.
If Black does not play ...d5 or ...Nf6, but does play ...e6, the Colle still isn't very good. The whole point behind the Colle is to take advantage of his control of the kingside light squares (especially an attack on h7). So when the Bishop is behind the pawn chain AND you have a clear path to h7, the Colle is a useful weapon (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3! Or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3!).
But against other lines, it's trash.
Anti-Colle - 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Bd3? Or 3...Bg4 4.Bd3? - in both cases, the only move is 4.c4 or else White is worse.
Dutch - 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3? - this is completely ineffective. First of all, the f5-pawn stops you from eyeing h7. Against the Dutch, White's attack isn't even on the kingside.
But also, 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3?! e6, Black's Bishop is HORRID on c8. Black would love nothing more than to get that Bishop on the long diagonal. 4.Bd3?! b6!!
Instead, after 1.d4 f5 or 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5, the Colle is garbage. You want to keep that e-pawn back and play 3.g3! Even with the Knight there, after 3...Nf6 4.Bg2, 4...b6 is too dangerous, and 3...b6 is no good as Black has yet to establish control of the light squares without having played ...Nf6 yet.
Anyone that plays the Classical or Stonewall Dutch knows that first they must establish firm control of the central light squares with f5, e6, and Nf6, and then after that, if he can play it, he wants to play b6 and Bb7. If White beats him to the long diagonal, then Black must resort to a Classical or Stonewall.
So the Colle is just as ineffective vs the Dutch as it is the Anti-Colle.
Thanks for taking the time with your post!
Yes Sir... that what I do... I play the pawn to c4 transpositioning into a Queen's Gambit where prudent.
Lately, I've been plaiying an old school (pre WWII) line against the Dutch Stonewall which entail playing c4, b3 , leaving the Knight at b1 and playing Ba3, exchanging Black's DSB, neutering his attacking chances on the king side, then attacking his queenside with pawns and minor pieces. Analyzed a game by Salomon Flohr, where he used the plan. Is it theoretical? No... Yet, it's a decent (for my level) love essaying old school lines!
ThrillerFan wrote:
I still get the Exchange French sometimes today via 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3?! Nf6 6.d4 d5.
6...Be7 is less symmetrical and equally good if played properly.
The generic idea is castling, and then playing ...h6 first and then ...c5 (when white cannot use the d4-d5 and Bxh7+ trick if Black takes the pawn). Also ...h6 may help the bishop to stand comfortably at e6. Sample:
Massive discovery: You can counter Fried Liver
Defends the pawn and stops the knight.
Stops the knight without obstructing your own.
Stops the bishop from even coming in the first place.
Apr 26, 2025
0
#26
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
Apr 26, 2025
0
#28
crazedrat1000 wrote:
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
The London and the Queen's Gambit made me stop playing d5. I'm a 1 ... Nf6 player now.
Logando2805 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
The London and the Queen's Gambit made me stop playing d5. I'm a 1 ... Nf6 player now. I have never been a d4 fan, always e4
Apr 26, 2025
0
#30
wrote:
Sebu13 wrote:
Which openings do you find the most annoying to play against?
For me they are:
With black:
1.d4 followed by 2.Nf3. It's annoying, because I don't know what I'm playing against. Is it a London, a Queen's Gambit, a Colle? Maybe even Catalan? Who knows?
French Exchange. Everybody insists on this opening if I try to play the French. It's very boring to play this boring opening over and over again.
Four Knights Scotch. Super solid, super boring. I don't know what to do against this.
King's Indian Attack. Very slow and solid. It's hard to say what the opponent is planning when they play this.
With white:
Czech Pirc. Pushing pawns one step at a time shouldn't be a good opening, but somehow this gets the job done.
Philidor Defense. Passive but rock solid.
Scandi with 2...Nf6. Quite rare, but it feels like every time someone plays this, they are well prepared.
Clearly you play off of ADHD Emotions and not any true knowledge of the game. Anyone with knowledge of the game would THANK White for playing the Exchange Variation against the French.
In roughly the last 100 times I have faced the exchange French over the board, I have 4 losses, yes FOUR! This is to go with about 65 to 70 wins and the rest draws - all with Black.
I still get the Exchange French sometimes today via 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3?! Nf6 6.d4 d5.
You're acting like finding an opening annoying is an objective thing. It isn't. Finding the positions out of an opening boring is a perfectly logical reason to not like it if you're looking for an exciting game.
wrote:
The only one that can be SLIGHTLY annoying is the English Opening.
Wow, you're obviously playing off of your emotions, and lack true knowledge of the game. Anyone with knowledge of the game would thank white for playing the English Opening.
I very often score wins or draws over the board against higher rated players when my opponents play the English Opening. I have a good winrate against it too:
Since I perform well against it, that must mean that anyone who finds this opening annoying is unknowledgeable about the game!
Apr 26, 2025
0
#31
Logando2805 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
The London and the Queen's Gambit made me stop playing d5. I'm a 1 ... Nf6 player now.
It's something I carefully considered doing, but I'm just a huge fan of the Slav and the QGA. So instead I'm playing the Krause variation against 2. Nf3. More risky but not boring and London isn't possible there. The accelerated London remains an issue (by issue I mean it's boring), as do a few other lines... I'm still not completely thrilled with these lines but I can't forego the Slav on account of them.
Apr 26, 2025
0
#32
Mazetoskylo wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
I still get the Exchange French sometimes today via 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3?! Nf6 6.d4 d5.
6...Be7 is less symmetrical and equally good if played properly.
The generic idea is castling, and then playing ...h6 first and then ...c5 (when white cannot use the d4-d5 and Bxh7+ trick if Black takes the pawn). Also ...h6 may help the bishop to stand comfortably at e6. Sample:
No Thanks! I want my Bishop active on d6, not passive on e7, if White is going to be a clown and play the Exchange French!
someone want play caro kan
Apr 26, 2025
0
#34
crazedrat1000 wrote:
It's something I carefully considered doing, but I'm just a huge fan of the Slav and the QGA. So instead I'm playing the Krause variation against 2. Nf3. More risky but not boring and London isn't possible there. The accelerated London remains an issue (by issue I mean it's boring), as do a few other lines... I'm still not completely thrilled with these lines but I can't forego the Slav on account of them.
I'm not a d5 player, so I'm probably missing something. I'm surprised to hear that the accelerated London, 2. Bf4, gives you more trouble than the regular, 2. Nf3. Is a the line 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 really that different than the Krause variation, 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5?
I hate the London and the caro kann
Logando2805 wrote:
I'm not a d5 player, so I'm probably missing something. I'm surprised to hear that the accelerated London, 2. Bf4, gives you more trouble than the regular, 2. Nf3. Is a the line 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 really that different than the Krause variation, 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5?
Interesting:
Part of what is going on is
1.. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 has good stats for Black However... IMO.... Only If .... White continues with standard play with the likes of the London (accelerated or not) or the Colle etc
Why not.... 3. dxc5!? Entering into a reversed QGA with a move in hand for White (IMO this "move at hand" is important... I believe modern Chess engines I don't evaluate these "Reverse Openings: like a human would...
or
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.dxc5 e5 5.b4!±
and 4...e6 5.a3 Bxc5 6.c4 = Stockfish 17 says the position is equal... knowing QGA theory I'm questioning that with having the move.
Then we have ... 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.c3 Nf6 5.dxc5 e6 6.b4
I believe White can improve his/her stats if they are willing to deviate into a reverse form of a Queens Gambit.
Defiantly questions the logic of playing an early c5 which is usually meant as some form of Anti D-Pawn line...
Apr 26, 2025
0
#37
exceptionalfork wrote:
The Queen's Gambit structure is difficult for me in general, but this line is a standout issue. 4. Qc2 supports an eventual e5, after which I seem to always get cramped or uncomfortable positions.
Play 4...d5, this permanently puts a stop to e4 ideas. If you've never looked at this line you might expect it to resemble the QGD but this is not the case at all. In the main line 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 you can go into very sharp territory with 5...h6 (or 5...c5, which transposes) but there's also what I play which is 5...O-O, kind of underexplored territory that leads to interesting and complex positions.
Apr 26, 2025
0
#38
crazedrat1000 wrote:
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
I am personally thrilled to see 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 because I like playing the 2...c6 line so much. Unfortunately I don't have anything I like against 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4. My idea at the moment is to play the battery line, where you play Bd6, Qc7 and try to get a quick e5 in. I think this is pretty good for Black (it's in the Hanging Pawns "why I stopped playing the London" video) but it is definitely boring.
Apr 26, 2025
0
#39
Logando2805 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
It's something I carefully considered doing, but I'm just a huge fan of the Slav and the QGA. So instead I'm playing the Krause variation against 2. Nf3. More risky but not boring and London isn't possible there. The accelerated London remains an issue (by issue I mean it's boring), as do a few other lines... I'm still not completely thrilled with these lines but I can't forego the Slav on account of them.
I'm not a d5 player, so I'm probably missing something. I'm surprised to hear that the accelerated London, 2. Bf4, gives you more trouble than the regular, 2. Nf3. Is a the line 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 really that different than the Krause variation, 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5?
It's a completely different line.
The London is just terrible against the Krause due to the early cxd4. In the Steinitz white doesn't have to play 3. Nf3 and usually doesn't.
In the Krause Black has an objective edge and white doesn't get his easy London setup, great for black.
Accelerated is not a problem in terms of objective strength, but in terms of boredom.
This is not possible in the Accelerated Steinitz:
Apr 26, 2025
0
#40
Strayaningen wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
I am personally thrilled to see 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 because I like playing the 2...c6 line so much. Unfortunately I don't have anything I like against 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4. My idea at the moment is to play the battery line, where you play Bd6, Qc7 and try to get a quick e5 in. I think this is pretty good for Black (it's in the Hanging Pawns "why I stopped playing the London" video) but it is definitely boring.
Yeah I do like that Nf6 > c6 line vs the accelerated. If I played the CK then 1. d5 c6 2. Nf3 Nf6 could be an option I suppose. That way I could still transition into the slav after 2. c4. But I don't play the Ck. Maybe it'd be worth learning as an off weapon though.
Why do you play e6? Are you trying to transpose w/ something?
I'd probably play c5 instead of e6 if I played 1... Nf6. London is no longer possible here. Some Benoni-like positions can arise but they're all improved over the mainline Benonis. None of these lines are boring, though.
To deal with the Zukertort in a non-boring manner tolerating a bit of incohesion may be necessary.
?