Never ending search: what to play as White...

Nf3+b3 is perfectly respectable and Davies is a good author when it comes to slightly offbeat systems, so you can certainly follow his advice.

Hey nimzodave, It's funny because I can completely relate to what you wrote about non forcing play and transpositional opportunities. I think I play very much in the same fashion. With that being said, I'd argue 1.Nf3 is the least committal and most transpositional opening move for white. The most common response from black I've found is of course 1...d5, but I've had opponents try other things (even 1...e5). 1.Nf3 puts the pressure on black to make a commitment, to choose a defense even though you haven't given them a hint of your plans as white. Sure, it dissuades 1...e5, but besides that, it leaves black in the dark and as white, you get an idea of your opponents defenses before they know what you're up to.

c3, no, why? Very likely is c4 at some point. 

I now have it. It is very delightful, great presentation, and rather interesting from a purely positional-chess perspective (rather than from a opening-variation perspective). Really entertaining and well done.

Nigel only presents games from the 1.b3 move-order (with some very few exceptions). He states that Larsen decided that this is more flexible. i am sure he is right, but my plan is still to go 1.Nf3 and look for English options. 

Someone asked how I am doing so far with the NL... let me tell you a secret. I have some painful (embarrissingly short) losses, where I ignorded something typical... but thats the way it is in chess. I have got pretty good positions too, and I am getting the hang of it soon I think

If you wish to avoid mainlines, I do reccomend Nf3+E3-  I seem to have quite a bit of success with it.  e3 prevents black's queen pawn from advancing beyond d5 and will give white a firm grip on the d4 square after d4 is played.  After e3 is played, white has no need to worry about a response of c3 from black.  If you look at my games, you will see that I did lose a couple of games in which I used the opening- but this was not the opening's fault, it was me blundering positional advantages away due to burn out from prolonged exposure to the world of academia.

[COMMENT DELETED]

 

First off, I don't claim to be a master.  I claim to have beaten masters.  I personally am an expert (FIDE rating in the 2050s).

Secondly, the better players play on ICC, and internet ratings are garbage anyway compared to over the board ratings.  My FIDE rating is in the 2050s.  My Internet Blitz Rating is in the 1700s.

Here are three openings you might play as Black--

QID, Slav, and Schlecter Grunfeld (SG).

Just turn them around and play them from the white side--

i.e. "Larsen's Attack, London System, and reversed SG (pawns on c3 and d4, fianchetto on the King side, and Nf3).

As a result, your opening work is essentially done.  Q.E.D.

Systems you play from the black side, you turn round and use with white.  

You simply pocket the first move advantage.  And Life is Good (LG).  

As white, I like the Italian, or the London System.

I think I can comment on your situation since I seem to have travelled pretty much the same road as you have-- gave up on 1. e4 back in '84 when I realized I couldn't beat the old Super Connie with the open games -- that's what got me into the Colle in the first place.  I have played all the openings you have mentioned and had the greatest success with 1. c4; but even now, that seems to be getting harder to win with.

I prefer 1. b3 because of it's more flexible nature, but your choice can't be bad.  Although I did get annoyed with some Black replies to 1. Nf3, such as 1. ...Nc6 and 1. ...d6.

I am always searching for the opening "nirvana" -- the place where I choose my few openings and stay with them, yet I never do.  I've probably switched openings 100 to 200 times in the last twenty years!

I like the hypermodern openings with White alot, yet they seem ponderous at times.  My latest clever plan was to play 1. b3 all the time, but I can't seem to do just that because it is a bit boring-- and seems to require alot of positional knowledge, some memorization, and playing  for an even position.

I would play 1. Nf3 all the time ( I think) if everyone would cooperate and play 1. ...d5 to "help" me!

 

 

Hi, thanks for this. So, I am not alone.

I wonder if it really is such a bad idea to switch openings often. Sure, there must be some cost for it, but I believe there is also some benefit in terms of getting hands-on experience with very different kinds of positions. Hence, getting deeper positional understanding. Perhaps.

I would go into 2.d4 after 1...Nc6, and maybe (probably) even play 3.Bf4. Against 1...d6, I would consider going 2.e4 (!) to get a classical Pirc (or Modern). I kind of like those defences as Black, but I think I could imagine to play against them too. A restrained approach is hard to meet as Black.

Thanks for the other suggestions too; e.g, London is underrated I think. I very much like it against 1...d5. It is not clear to me how to best play against the indian defences, however. Maybe going into a Torre. 

Everyone is overthinking this.  Just pick an opening and play it a lot, so then we can have extra time for other areas of chess study.

Chess isnt all about opening. There is still the middlegame and endgame.

I agree. This is why I want to avoid getting commited to theory-heavy main lines. I prefer to read a middlegame book, or study endgames.

When I say I look for a reasonable opening, I mean more than just something for internet blitz. I talk about finding something that is good enough for several years, in OTB games. With some practical bite, but slightly off-beat.

I am currently playing NL, and Torre ("perfect opening as white for club players" [Silman]).

Today, it is acually Torre. I kind of like it. It can't be *that* bad, "only for club players" [someone, on internet] since I see games in the database by Yusupov, Kamsky, Spassky, Dreev, Van Wely, Salov, Timman, Piket, Larsen, Miles... (!!).