I've started playing 1.b3 and the positions you get are generally pretty simple, with a couple of exceptions. It also allows you to avoid, or favourably meet, some prepared 'systems' people like to play against everything non e4, such as the KID and dutch.
Playing 1..b6 as black would create a very simple repertoire, although admittedly the positions you generally get are not exactly that appealing, the database shows very few strong players except Nakamura using it.
In the book Play the London System the author Cyrus Lakdawala doesn't like the line that pushes the white queen from b3 to c2 to c1. He says to play 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c3. If 3...c5 4 dxc5. Kamsky, who used to play the line that pushes the white queen to c1, switched to 3 c3. Also, according to the book possible is 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4 c5 4 dxc5 playing it like a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted.
Thank you for your view points it is very instructive I might have to give this a try
2 Bf4 is the preferred move order for the pure London player (someone that doesn't also play the Colle or the Torre). As you probably know the tempo not spent on developing the white king's knight can be used on the queenside if black comes at white fast on that side with ...c5 ...Qb6 stuff. White can either use the tempo to get in Nbd2 so that ...Qb6 can be met with Rb1 in lines if black has locked his QB in with ...e6, or if the black QB isn't locked in white can go down the Qb3 ...c4 Qc2 line and black will have to use a tempo with ...g6 to get his ...Bf5 move in. After ...g6 comes white may at that point play dxc5 if he still doesn't want to deal with the line even with black having spent a tempo.
If black tries to be clever in the ...c5 lines and plays with ...Bf5 first before playing ...Qb6 white can anticipate ...Qb6 with Qb3 (a forte of the London player - anticipating what the opponent is thinking and reacting before the opponent even does it, such as h3 against a possible ....Nh5 or playing Bh2 later before the bishop is even attacked) and when black plays ...Qb6 (white Queen is already on b3) then white goes dxc5. the ...b7 pawn may be loose compelling black to play ...Qxb3 instead of ...Qxc5.
Why does Qc2 stop Bf5?
Sorry about not being clear. I was referring to when white has played Nbd2. For instance, 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 c5 3 c3 Qb6 4 Qb3 Nc6 5 Nd2 c4 6 Qc2 when Bf5 is a blunder.
I've started playing 1.b3 and the positions you get are generally pretty simple, with a couple of exceptions. It also allows you to avoid, or favourably meet, some prepared 'systems' people like to play against everything non e4, such as the KID and dutch.
Playing 1..b6 as black would create a very simple repertoire, although admittedly the positions you generally get are not exactly that appealing, the database shows very few strong players except Nakamura using it.
I've never really seen 1 b3 recommended in a thread like this, although, yeah, it makes a lot of sense. White gets to avoid theory and play chess asap, while at the same time avoiding the "one size fits all" mentality of the KIA or London.
I don't know man I don't think that is the right move order I think I get what your trying to say but yeah I don't think that move order is good unless I'm missing something?
I think 3.e3 is a better move but maybe that is just me maybe I'm missing something? any1 know or can verify?
In the top diagram it's just transposing to the line I gave.
In the bottom diagram yes 4 Nc3 is certainly a possibilty, maybe even the best move, but is it the correct move for the typical London player. In the book Chess For Tigers by GM Simon Webb wrote that when a player has a chose between a second best move and a best move he should usually choose the move that keeps the game going in his style, no matter which is the best move. Even a third best move can get the nod over a best move if the player is going to lose his way with the best move. He says it does no good to play the best move and then go astray because that best move put the player into a type of game he can't handle. 4 Nc3 is drifting from the standard London setup and possibly headed into complications. If a player feels he can deal with it then that is probably the thing to do provided he believes his analysis backs it up.
One of the points of the 2.bf4 london is white has quite a nice way to meet 2..c5 with 3.e4, reaching a revere albin counter gambit with the extra move of Bf4 which can be quite useful. From memory black can equalise, but I wouldn't want the black side OTB:
e4 would be a logical and principled move but naturally not the sort of thing a system player would ever do. ever.
I like the move but id feel fine playing black there...at least we have a real battle then and clarity of purpose.
It's probably a bit more common than one would expect. It's the recommended move in most london books including the popular 'win with the london' and 'play the london'.
Additionally, it fits the type of 'take your opponent out of their comfort zone' mentality most system players fit into. Though im sure the majority, probably 70-90% would still try to stick to their usual setup, which I think is inaccurate, maybe even a mistake.
Personally back when I played a london/trompowsky/torre collection, I liked to use all the vaganian, spassky, morris gambit etc ideas in these systems as they really caught people out.
e4 would be a logical and principled move but naturally not the sort of thing a system player would ever do. ever.
I like the move but id feel fine playing black there...at least we have a real battle then and clarity of purpose.
It's probably a bit more common than one would expect. It's the recommended move in most london books including the popular 'win with the london' and 'play the london'.
Additionally, it fits the type of 'take your opponent out of their comfort zone' mentality most system players fit into. Though im sure the majority, probably 70-90% would still try to stick to their usual setup, which I think is inaccurate, maybe even a mistake.
Personally back when I played a london/trompowsky/torre collection, I liked to use all the vaganian, spassky, morris gambit etc ideas in these systems as they really caught people out.
In Play the London the author says he usually plays 3 e4 but it's fine to not play it if it doesn't suit you. In Win with the London System the authors say it's risky and complicated but good preparation should make it worth it, though they also add that they can't promise good results with it. It's not what the typical London player is looking for or will handle well. I tried it in a game and got blown off the board by a lower rated player.
I guess it depends on the players philosophy. Obviously most london players simply want to take their opponents out of prep into a position they know better. However, I always held the opinion that the sharper the position I'm in that I know better than my opponent, the more my knowledge is worth.
I scored quite well with the 3.e4 line, but I think the authors of win with the london system pretty much nailed it. It does require prep, so you can't just throw it out on the board. I think if you're familiar with it's lines,though, you will score much more heavily than attempting a standard london system after 2..c5.
Off topic, but to show I'm not against trying to play out of style, I'm about to begin playing a combination of Alterman's Gambit Guide repertoire (three books - one white repertoire book and two black repertoire books) and Davies' Gambiteer books (one book for white, one book for black). I didn't like all of Davies' repertoire nor all of Alterman's but by combining both author's selections and weeding out the ones I don't want to play I came up with a gambit repertoire I'd like to try out. This might be a mistake because it's not quite 'me', but as someone pointed out in this thread one can also take into account what opponents don't want to face and on the club level most players hate to defend and don't defend well.
I think there is much good and credible information here for players of various levels. However, I wonder if anyone has ever approached this from a more mathematical perspective. It seems to me that there are some opening moves which more limit black's viable options. If it is winning for white, with many options especially, I would recommend that opening.
I like the Ruy Lopez but, I end up playing versions of the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Philidor, etc. I don't mind so much playing these positions and getting familiar with the themes, when I have the initiative. I am still looking into changing to an opening with white that I described above though.
Trying to pick "an opening" with black is nearly impossible. I have been meddling with a system of openings with black that transpose to one another. The positions of the French, Caro-Kann, Semi-Slav, French Sicilian, Modern and Old Sicilian and a lesser played novelty of the Caro-Kann, that can be transposed to from the French (1.e4 c6 2.d4 e6,1.e4 e6 2.d4 c6, have their appeal but, sometimes I feel like I would rather open up the position more with black. However, white seems to usually be a space hog.
Off topic, but to show I'm not against trying to play out of style, I'm about to begin playing a combination of Alterman's Gambit Guide repertoire (three books - one white repertoire book and two black repertoire books) and Davies' Gambiteer books (one book for white, one book for black). I didn't like all of Davies' repertoire nor all of Alterman's but by combining both author's selections and weeding out the ones I don't want to play I came up with a gambit repertoire I'd like to try out. This might be a mistake because it's not quite 'me', but as someone pointed out in this thread one can also take into account what opponents don't want to face and on the club level most players hate to defend and don't defend well.
You're going to have to make sure that you know what can be depended on when pulling stuff from both series, as there are times when both authors lose their objectivity, and there are also times when you need to look deeper into options when the authors don't go far enough. For example, you'll need to look more into theory when looking into Alterman's Traxler and Frankenstein-Dracula and Davies' Caro Kann Fantasy. Additionally, some things that they recommend can't be depended upon in the long run, such as the Wing Gambits. There are definitely elements that are very useful, though (for example, I use Davies suggestion of the Alekhine Saemisch Attack, 3.Nc3, as my main anti-Alekhine weapon, and Alterman's Hector Gambit is definitely worth a look), but make sure to find stuff that can still work even if your opponent knows how to deal with it.
Agreed. The best approach when the books diverge is to pick the more "durable" line (i.e. Smith-Morra over Wing Gambit, Evans over Danish and such)
Off topic, but to show I'm not against trying to play out of style, I'm about to begin playing a combination of Alterman's Gambit Guide repertoire (three books - one white repertoire book and two black repertoire books) and Davies' Gambiteer books (one book for white, one book for black). I didn't like all of Davies' repertoire nor all of Alterman's but by combining both author's selections and weeding out the ones I don't want to play I came up with a gambit repertoire I'd like to try out. This might be a mistake because it's not quite 'me', but as someone pointed out in this thread one can also take into account what opponents don't want to face and on the club level most players hate to defend and don't defend well.
You're going to have to make sure that you know what can be depended on when pulling stuff from both series, as there are times when both authors lose their objectivity, and there are also times when you need to look deeper into options when the authors don't go far enough. For example, you'll need to look more into theory when looking into Alterman's Traxler and Frankenstein-Dracula and Davies' Caro Kann Fantasy. Additionally, some things that they recommend can't be depended upon in the long run, such as the Wing Gambits. There are definitely elements that are very useful, though (for example, I use Davies suggestion of the Alekhine Saemisch Attack, 3.Nc3, as my main anti-Alekhine weapon, and Alterman's Hector Gambit is definitely worth a look), but make sure to find stuff that can still work even if your opponent knows how to deal with it.
Thanks. Yeah I'm going to do that. I completely rejected Alterman's Traxler Counterattack (in the Two Knights defense) against 4 Ng5. I don't know what he was thinking, it's way too wild. Instead I'm going to play 4...d5 and use a separate book on the Two Knights defense. I have books on the Caro Kann so I have additional help on the Fantasy variation (which I chose over Alterman's Panov).
I think there is much good and credible information here for players of various levels. However, I wonder if anyone has ever approached this from a more mathematical perspective. It seems to me that there are some opening moves which more limit black's viable options. If it is winning for white, with many options especially, I would recommend that opening.
I like the Ruy Lopez but, I end up playing versions of the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Philidor, etc. I don't mind so much playing these positions and getting familiar with the themes, when I have the initiative. I am still looking into changing to an opening with white that I described above though.
Trying to pick "an opening" with black is nearly impossible. I have been meddling with a system of openings with black that transpose to one another. The positions of the French, Caro-Kann, Semi-Slav, French Sicilian, Modern and Old Sicilian and a lesser played novelty of the Caro-Kann, that can be transposed to from the French (1.e4 c6 2.d4 e6,1.e4 e6 2.d4 c6, have their appeal but, sometimes I feel like I would rather open up the position more with black. However, white seems to usually be a space hog.
I do have a Mathematical perspective which is why I have been telling the OP of this forum if he plans to play the KIA he should consider 1.e4 vs 1.Nf3 becuase mathematically it cuts down blacks line responses in half which means that is less you have to study/know. Against 1. Nf3 black can probably play a 8-12 lines that are pretty good if you play 1.e4 you cut those responses in half 4-6 and than because alot of 1.e4 players play mainly 4 lines you can even study against those 4 lines and score fairly well over all.
I also try to have a Statistical perspective in some lines. I try to play some lines that give high percentage scores human wise with out engines. Because if other humans score high in certain lines the chances are that you can be in that majority again this is not a way to win this is only a percentile but Hey my logic is if the percentage is in my favor than why not go down that road?
I even use statistic's to show what people move. For example alot of human players play 1.e4.....2. Nf3 which is the equivlant to 1.d4.... 2.c4 I play the Clarendon Court an unsound opening that gives bad percentages but I bank on the fact that the human statistics of 1.d4..... 2. c4 are heavely played which in that line playing c4 is not that good for white white has better moves let me put it that way.
So yes when your math teachers get all frustrated with you not learning and than say the line "One day this is going to help you" they are talking about when you play a chess game lol.
I wish I would have understood earlier on, how I was going to fall in love with statistical mathematics, at this stage of my life. However, I think I needed to learn and do other things to appreciate it, then gain the desire to learn and apply it.
I had considered while Fischer and the computers agree that 1.e4 is best from the perspective of sheer advantage. I question whether 1. d4 has an inherent tangible advantage from the perspective that it limits black's viable choices. It may not give as good of an advantage in terms of on a per move or "in game " basis but, if it shortens the learning curve, it can improve your play by default, as opposed to simply playing the best move according to Houdini 4....
I have a good friend who believes in only playing the board, never the opponent. And he doesn't believe in playing to one's own style (easy for him to say, he has a universal style), he believes in the best move, period.
I on the other hand see value in including the opponent in one's calculations, and I see value in playing to one's own style. In the book Chess for Tigers the author says that even if you know nothing about your opponent you might be able to pick up on clues.
I have sat at the board and noticed how neatly a 250 point higher rated opponent arranged my captured pieces on the side of his board, and from that I figured it was probably a good idea to mess up the position on the board somewhat. Keep the positions too neat and organised he was probably going to grind me down. Sure enough he begin to burn much time and misplayed the position. Not that it is a sure fire way to beat a higher rated opponent, of course not, but it might help, it was worth a shot in my opinion.
I wish I would have understood earlier on, how I was going to fall in love with statistical mathematics, at this stage of my life. However, I think I needed to learn and do other things to appreicate it and gain the desire to learn and apply it.
I had considered while Fischer and the computers agree that 1.e4 is best from the perspective of sheer advantage. I question whether 1. d4 has an inherent tangible advantage from the perspective that it limits black's viable choices. It may not give as good of an advantage in terms of on a per move or "in game " basis but, if it shortens the learning curve, it can improve your play by default, as opposed to simply playing the best move according to Houdini 4.
I don't think the reason they chose 1.e4 vs 1.d4 is due to Mathematic's or Statistic's. You could agrue that the Statistics for 1.e4 are greater than 1.d4;however, I do not believe that is the source of why they actually do it. I believe it has to do with tactical vs positional. Generally the lines that arise out of 1.e4 are more open in nature which are more tactical. **Disclaimer you can have lines in 1.e4 that are positional and I'm not saying an absolute law that there always open it is just compared to 1.d4 they generally are more open** The lines that arise out of 1.d4 are more closed in nature which are more positional **Disclaimer you can have lines in 1.d4 that are tactical and I'm not saying an absolute law that there always closed it is just compared to 1.e4 they generally are more closed**
I think it comes down to a matter of preferance between what a person picks I personally have played both. When you think about it it does make sense though lol You see alot of high level players tell beginners to study tactics tactics tactics lol and play 1.e4 you don't see them say study tactics and play 1.d4 lol have you ever wondered why? I believe it is becuase of this factor
@fireflashghost
lol Well we can say that there will be an infinity/infinity of games over our life time.
I think you are missing the angle I am seeing this from, to a degree. I will agree with your point that picking the first move of your opening, based on it's engine analyses advantage, for the basis of your wins is basically ludicrous, especially below the GM level. However, when I look at the game explorer and I see that there are 8 lines commonly played by masters against 1.e4 and only 6 commonly played by them against 1. d4, that also backs up what my intuition tells me, when I have it played against me and I decide to look at the board and simply calculate the best reply, without blindly playing ...1. d5 because, I know I intend to play the Slav.
It could be argued that 6 viable replies still leaves for a ton of lines to potentially learn but, it seems to me from a simple mathematical stand point, after doing quite a bit of engine analysis of completed games, having two less replies to the opening move, cuts down on the amount of nodes, exponentially. Hence, it should shorten the learning curve substantially. Whether it is better for any given player's style is moot but, it seems to me that if you want to move up the ranks faster, even though it could be a long term detriment, that is a way to do it.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis put on quickly climbing the ranks at a young age in chess. I think this could be due to in part, by the potential of others taking an interest in you and sponsoring you, wanting to coach you, etc. While I can't ignore your ideas, I can't ignore the potential merit of mine either.
I think you are missing the angle I am seeing this from, to a degree. I will agree with your point that picking the first move of your opening, based on it's engine analyses advantage, for the basis of your wins is basically ludicrous, especially below the GM level. However, when I look at the game explorer and I see that there are 8 lines commonly played by masters against 1.e4 and only 6 commonly played by them against 1. d4, that also backs up what my intuition tells me, when I have it played against me and I decide to look at the board and simply calculate the best reply, without blindly playing ...1. d5 because, I know I intend to play the Slav.
It could be argued that 6 viable replies still leaves for a ton of lines to potentially learn but, it seems to me from a simple mathematical stand point, after doing quite a bit of engine analysis of completed games, having two less replies to the opening move, cuts down on the amount of nodes, exponentially. Hence, it should shorten the learning curve substantially. Whether it is better for any given player's style is moot but, it seems to me that if you want to move up the ranks faster, even though it could be a long term detriment, that is a way to do it.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis put on quickly climbing the ranks at a young age in chess. I think this could be due to in part, by the potential of others taking an interest in you and sponsoring you, wanting to coach you, etc. While I can't ignore your ideas, I can't ignore the potential merit of mine either.
I don't think I'm that far off I get what your saying your saying their are 8 replys to 1.e4 compared to like 6 against 1.d4 mathmatically you are right their are 2 lines less to worry about but at the same time I can give you an example that demonstrates what I'm saying
Example what if a person named "A" gave you 8 apples than a person named "B" gave you 6 apples you would say mathmatically person "A" gave you more apples; however, on observation of the 8 apples you notice 4 of them have worms that are uneatable which would than cut down the apples to 4 making "B" a better option.
Same can be applyed here how bad are those extra 2 lines are you facing 4 strong lines 4 weak lines with 1.e4 and than playing 6 strong lines vs 1.d4?? Not trying to make an agruement or anything I'm just trying to give you some insight and I'm curious maybe I should change to 1.d4 lol.
I considered looking one more move ahead and even posting the data before making my previous statement. However, when I look at the top replies to 1. e4 :
| 1...c5 | 318,043 |
|
|||
| 1...e5 | 149,775 |
|
|||
| 1...e6 | 90,544 |
|
|||
| 1...c6 | 49,504 |
|
|||
| 1...d6 | 28,668 |
|
|||
| 1...g6 | 23,351 |
|
|||
| 1...Nf6 | 16,851 |
|
|||
| 1...d5 | 15,771 |
|
It appears to me that they can all be played at a high chessic level and are played regularly at a high level. Even the last one on the list scores very high in the computer analyses I have ran to 30 plies. 1. Nf6 was played by Alekhine and he won a world championship using it. It can't be too bad, especially for non titled players. All of the rest of those are regularly played and many lead to complex positions far beyond my understanding at the highest levels of chess. I omitted the Nimzowitsch Defense, which not only scores well when played by masters but, was utilized by a GM at the highest levels of play and I am sure it can be used by titled players still, if they chose.
Sicilian, Slav, Ruy, French... even if you're a professional it would be very difficult to "master" even one of these. There are single variations that are deserving of entire books... series of books even.
Similarly rated opponents will know a similar amount, so don't worry about it. Don't worry about what's popular either. (And definitely ignore the tenth of pawn evals on an engine, which even the engine itself disagrees with). Play what makes sense, and play what gives you good results.
I'd recommend starting with the symmetrical openings (e5 against e4, d5 against d4). Lots of masters recommend the same, because you really learn both strategy and tactics best that way, as you are contesting the center, developing your pieces naturally. And you don't need to memorize much, because general principles apply nicely to those openings. You'd be playing lots of Spanish, Italian, King's Gambit, and Queen's Gambit, and I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with the main ideas of each of these openings.
The problem with this is that you're probably walking right into someone's book lines. However, if the main idea is to improve (as it is for me), then that doesn't matter, and you'll learn much better how to handle the openings and early middlegames on strategic principles, and get a good 'feel' for lots of important positions. In open games (1.e4 e5) you'll usually get a good tactical workout too. That's my current "repertoire", anyway.
Would you elaborate on that? Which of those openings are you using for White and which for Black. Also, please tell me which you are using when you open as White with e4 and with d4 etc., or if you are Black and White opens with e4 or d4 etc. Thanks.
As white, I always play e4, and against 1...e5 I play 2. Nc3, usually followed up with 3.f4. This takes most people out of their preparation, and its a fun, tactical game with a solid strategical idea of building a pawn center.
I've been playing main lines against the Sicilian and the French, and this is the problematic part I pointed to above. But I actually don't mind playing into Sicilian and French players' playbooks, because I'm really learning how to play well against these openings. What's really important is to get familiar with the ideas, not with variations. French as white: hold d4, light bishop is huge, be on the lookout of Bxh7+ sacrifices. With the Sicilian, it's more complicated, but generally I castle queenside and try to break through on the kingside. This is what Sicilian players want, but it's great training for both sides.
As black, I play d5 against d4, and I accept the queen's 'gambit', which has several virtues: 1) not many QG players know what they're doing after 2.dxc4. 2) Sometimes I can even hang on to the extra pawn. 3) It's a solid opening if you know the central ideas, and gives you lots of practice in the strategy of playing against an isolated queen pawn.
I meet e4 with e5 and after 2. Nf3 I play Nc6. Of course you'll see King's Gambits, Viennas, Danish, whatever. I won't go into details of what I play, because it varies. Just follow opening principles (development, central control, and king safety) and be tactically aware in an open game. You'll start to become familiar with many important opening lines, and not just a few pet ones of your own.
This plan might not score you the best results immediately, but your chess skill will benefit!
@Robert0905: That looks like the KIA. Yes, I have tried it and it saves a lot of time memorizing. I like it. I just can't get Black to keep his pieces still while I develop.