Openings against e4 that are Open (except e5)

I actually currently play the Sicilian, and I really like the ideas of a pawn storm in some of the variations. But I understand what ThrillerFan is saying; which is why I have begun to focus on the middlegames and endgame that tend to arise from these positions.

But I have decided to also explore the Petroff and Philidor Defence.

It really is a yes or no thing.  You know it or you don't.  There are not varying degrees.  If you can identify White's main weakness in the French Closed Tarrasch (d4) and Black's main weakness in the same line (e6), but you have no idea how to arrange your pieces, which side to castle to, or the key pawn breaks, do you understand the French Closed Tarrasch?  If you can add, but you cannot subtract, multiply, or divide, are you mathematically literate?  No, you are not!  Same deal with understanding openings.

How about if we take the French Defense as an example? Would you say that your understanding is the same as that of GM Fabiano Caruana? Would you say that your understanding is the same as that of a beginner?

I would say my understanding of the French is in line with Fabiano Caruana.

Here is the difference:

Whether you can execute a pawn up Queen and Knight ending or not has nothing to do with the French Defense.  Fabiano and I could each play say, the French McCutheon with 8...g6, and we both execute the typical opening moves and follow the general plans executed in a successful defense.  We both end up in say, a Queen and minor piece endgame.  At this point, the opening is irrelevant.  His endgame play is clearly superior to mine.

Also, I understand the French as well as any GM the plays the French does, but understanding and execution are not the same thing.  Again, take the McCutcheon.  We both understand Black's ideas.  Black can castle Queenside or remain in the center.  Kingside is not an option typically.  Black attacks d4 and the Queenside.  Most endgames favor Black.  However, at a critical move in the game, anybody that understands the French will know that at some random move, there are only 2 reasonable candidates, whereas someone who does not understand it will be going for other moves that make no sense.  So now again it is beyond the point of understanding the French and is now the ability to calculate.  Caruana calculates far better than me.  Move A is the right move, move B fails tactically to some deep line, and other moves make no sense.  Caruana would play move A, I would be likely to play move B and lose, and those that do not understand the ideas at all would make some moron move.

There inlies the difference.  It is not our understanding of the French that differs, it is his ability to calculate and execute endgames far better than me is why he is 2800 and I am 2000.

Do all of us either have beginner-French-understanding or GM-French-understanding? Also, is it a matter of degree if we consider understanding together with execution ability?

About how long did it take you to acquire GM-level understanding of the French?

I personally recommend playing the sicilian if you like more open or dynamic kind of positions. There are of course also a lot of anti sicilians which are not that open but most of them are not that dangerous from a theoretical viewpoint. Also playing the Sicilian offer a variety of pawn structure and plans which will increase your understanding in the longterm. 

But that is just my opinion. hope this helps!

Okay, thanks. Do you have a particular recommendation of a single Sicilian variation?

Maybe consider: https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7618.pdf

or https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7641.pdf

or https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7070.pdf

or https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7062.pdf .

Might want to also consider: http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Anti-Sicilian-76p3921.htm

I have played it for 20+ years, but probably only truly understood it for maybe the last 5 to 10.  Before that, it was just like what the bozos do and I played it via rote memory.  After enough losses where I blamed White going out of book for my losses is when my tune changed.  10 years of doing it wrong and then another couple of years to fix the problem.

Do it right from the beginning, like I have with the Taimanov Sicilian, and it usually takes me about 2 to 3 years to truly understand it.

There is also a major difference between me and someone like Caruana.  I consider myself fully knowledgable in the French, Taimanov Sicilian, Kings Indian Defense, and Queens Gambit Declined.  I have played other defenses against amateurs, but I have to many holes to say I actually have a full understanding of those openings, such as the Petroff, Nimzo-Indian, Dutch, etc.  Any normal opening, Caruana will know it, unlike amateurs, who might know 1 or 2 against d4, and the same goes for e4, if they are lucky.  Sure, my normal line of play against 1.e4 may be 1...e6 and Caruana's may be the Petroff, but the difference is, if you force the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6, and make us each play Black, he will know what he is doing despite it not being his preferred choice of defense.  I would be clueless.  Now you put me against a 1300 where opening knowledge is useless and I could beat him, but any normal 2000 player that knows the Yugoslav Attack, forget it, I am already lost!

Comparing a 2000 player to a 2800 player does not mean the 2000 player has 5/7 of the skill in all aspects of the game and in all openings.  It also does not mean that the 2000 player always performs at a 2000 level.  I have not done a specific statistical analysis, but a hypothetical possibility is that I perform at a 2300 level in the French, a 2100 Level in the Kings Indian, a 1700 level against flank openings, and an 1800 level with White.  Never a true 2000 level, but put all the parts together and that is what you get.  The numbers used are random, though I will say, played in a tournament last weekend, drew an 1869 and a 1906 with White and won all 3 of my games with Black (2 Kings Indians and a French).

So what was the state of things after just one year of fixing? Would you say that your understanding was the same as that of any GM who played the French? Would you say that your understanding was the same as that of a beginner?

If I understand your question correctly, it sounds like you are asking where one is at at the half way point.  Depends.  What have you done?  What do you actually understand?  If it took you 6 months to fully understand the French Advance, meaning you know the ideas for both sides, and while it may not be your line of choice from one side or the other, you have a thorough understanding of what that side needs to do, then after 6 months you understand the Advance French, not the French Defense as a whole.  I Understand what Black and White need to do in the Winawer, Classical, McCutcheon, Burn, Rubinstein, Open Tarrasch, Closed Tarrasch, Advance, Exchange, Kings Indian Attack vs French, etc, however, by choice, I refuse to play the Tarrasch or Exchange as White, and I don't play the Burn and rarely play the Classical, Closed Tarrasch, or Rubinstein as Black.  I understand White's and Black's goals, but I choose not to play them.  I only play 3.Nc3, 3.e5, or 2.d3 as White, and 3...c5 against the Tarrasch and mostly the Winawer or McCutcheon/Steinitz against 3.Nc3.

It is just like how I said that I understand the Taimanov Sicilian, not the Sicilian Defense.  When I said the Queens Gambit Declined, I should have added Orthodox in front of that.

Here is another thing to keep in mind about an opening and a chess game.  Mastering chess requires mastering 4 core parts:

1) Understanding the Opening you play - Do you fully understand the goals and positional ideas for both sides?  This includes coming up with a cohesive plan, knowing what pieces to preserve and which to try to keep, where to attack, what defense is necessary, etc.  If someone forced the position on the board, could you play either side, even if in actuality you choose not to?

2) Position Evaluation - can you look at a position and identify who is better if the only information I give you is who is to move?

3) Calculation - can you calculate deeply?  This is also where tactics come into play.

4) Endgame Skills - How good are your endgames?

So keep in mind, when I said before that I am just as good as a GM at understanding the French, notice that is just item 1 above.  Where a GM would kick my arse is in items 2, 3, or 4.  In the Grunfeld, he would kick my arse in item 1 above because I would not be able to come up with a cohesive plan after say, the first 13 moves of the Seville Variation of the Grunfeld (that is the line of the Exchange Variation with Bxf7).

So before you question my sanity of comparing myself to Caruana when you asked that question, I only refer to item 1 above of 4 in specifically the French Defense.

Actually, I was asking about where you were after a year of fixing, but maybe we can get some idea from your answer anyway.

So, after 1 year of fixing, you did not have French-understanding that was the same as that of a beginner and you also did not have French-understanding that was the same as any GM who played the French?

Actually, this is what I was primarily wondering: Why use phrases like "truly understood" and "fully understand" and "thorough understanding" if there are not varying degrees of understanding of an opening?

This is a little bit off the subject, but, since you brought it up, I found myself wondering: Do you believe that there are not varying degrees of mathematical literacy?

And Najdorf...