Overrated Openings

Well, I'd have to agree with you there. As someone who has played it on both sides, I'd say that it is indeed overrated as Black can equalize easily, and does better than in the other French lines.

Personally, I find that overrated/underrated depends on the level of player as well. For example, 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 is overrated among starting players, while the Sicilian and KIA are overrated for slightly better players, and so on.

1.e4 is the most overrated. So many people play the Sicilians that it's just plain annoying. Hypermodernism has been around for about a hundred years and yet people are still afraid of it - like it's still an experiment?!?   Do you want to drive down an overcrowded freeway in bumper to bumper rush hour traffic... or do you hear faint drumbeats somewhere out there on the horizon?

Interesting counter-discussion to the "Underrated Openings" thread.

My personal opinion is that there are some trappy gambits that are quite overrated -- Smith-Morra, Blackmar-Diemer, and Albin Countergambit leap to mind.  That may be a stylistic preference, though -- I don't mind defending a little while for a pawn, especially when I don't have to defend for very long or very much.

I'm not sure how people think the Queen's Gambit is overrated.  It's not daring and sexy like a real "gambit", but it's clearly the strongest continuation after d4 d5.  In fact, if I were to pick an overrated classical opening, I might say ...d5, because of the Queen's Gambit.  Really, it scores rather poorly -- Game Explorer gives it 43% win for white, against 25% for black, with not much variation among the Orthodox QGD, Slav, or QGA.

At any rate, I'm sure this thread will provoke a lot more emotions than one asking about underrated openings.

 SO.... are we playing or not? seeing you have all the knowledge all the stats I should go down like a sack o' potatoes eh? Defend your opinion.

Yes, because an online game between a 1600 player and an unrated 15 year old is going to settle the theoretical dispute once and for all.

Go away troll.

Too small of a sample. You might as well look at San Luis 2005 and conclude that super-GMs had abandoned 1.d4 because it was so rare there. But then, the recent Kramnik-Topalov match might lead you to believe that the best players had given up on 1.e4.

I searched my database (three million games) using as criteria: Elo avg. above 2700

1.e4 e5 1552 games

1.e4 c5 1943 games

The Sicilian is more popular among super-GMs.

 Not here to settle theoretical debates over 1...c5 vs 1...e5 because I know that I am correct. I am disprove your comments about me being an amateur or you even using this against harsh word against me. So if you are willing to play then so am I infact I challenge you.

Easy defense isn't it calling me a troll...nice save now you don't look like someone scared of losing not one single game but an entire match to a kid.

I think pvmike is right that the opening phase in general is over-hyped, mainly by a lot of authors trying to sell books. Like the 1. e4 and 1.d4 books by Alburt and Dzinzi are great, but they claim that any chess player, even a beginner, should devote like 20-25% of their time to studying openings, which is absolutely ridiculous. 

And yes, thank you Ziryab for providing evidence to refute katar and ericmittens. Everyone from super GMs down to club players are running 1. c5

1. e4 and 1. d4 and the openings that result from them are not overrated, it's just that with the advent of chess engines, all the less hyped openings are really good. 

1. e4 loses a lot of its appeal because it's supposed to produce really sharp positions that give White tactical attacking advantages. But against a well-prepared player, no opening yields rapid attacks without being somewhat unsound at the highest levels of chess.

It's all about subtle strategy and being able to transfer your pieces from one half of the board to the other.

I agree about the Sicilian Najdorf.  If you're Kasparov or Fischer it's fine.  I used to play it, but nearly always with disastrous consequences.  I have wisened up and play other defenses now.

1...c5 still leads, but the margin is thinner: 1001 to 946. There were fewer players above 2700 until the past couple of years, so the recent years account for the bulk of the games.

There may be evidence of a trent towards 1...e5 among Super-GMs, perhaps due to the resurgence of popularity of the Marshall and the Petroff.

I think the Queens Gambit declined is pretty over-rated.

The Advance French and the Sicilian defense are extremely overrated.

 I dont know how you can claim the sicilian is overrated when it scores better for black than any other black opening ?

I think the Advance French scores quite well also.

Hmmm....maybe "overplayed" is a better word for the sicilian then.

It doesn't matter much until you become probably at least 1800 USCF because you are going to screw up the middlegame somewhere anyway. What good is a slight advantage when you hang a pawn or make a huge positional blunder? I like to study openings also but real chess is the middlegame. For the sake of this forum question: I play the Colle some and it won't be found in master chess so it must be overated among club players. It is popular with books,etc.

Note: I guess Fisher did not know much about chess since he played the KID and the Sicilian almost exclusively.