For OTB my rating is 1556. I do recognize that draws can not be blamed entirely on the opening, but what I am saying is that the positions I get out of the opening are either uncomfortable or dead equal, so that is the reason for a change to the Ruy Lopez, which usually gives white a slight advantage and a better chance to play for a win, although there is more theory behind it.
Recommendation for Opening against 1...e5
Sort:
Mar 29, 2013
0
#43
KG is a very nice try under 2000 ELO. There is coming a new book from quality chess this summer I think.
If KG is not something for you (which it should be, either because you are a strong tactican, and will win with it, or because you will become a strong tactican if you play the KG), I can only say Ruy Lopez.
If you don't like the main lines (Which usually begins around move 10-15), there are 2 ways that I know.
1. Exchange variation! Sounds boring? It can be, but with either 5. 0-0 and 5. Nc3, white will have excellent chances because of his superior structure. Fisher used it to win alot of games. When I was younger, I played 5. d4!?, with the idea of exd4 Qxd4!, getting closer to the famous Exchange King and Pawn endgame (which is winning for white, learn the technic, and you will be sure that you have at least some chances). 5. d4 doesnt give anything theoretically though.
I don't recommend the delayed exchange variatino (1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nf6 3. bb5 a6 4. ba4 nf6 5. bxc6!?), since black can play 4.. b5 forcing more normal play. The idea is black often plays f6 in the main lines, which is now used by a knight.
d3-c3 variations! Maybe not as strong as the main lines, but after reading: Ruy Lopez Move by Move by Mcdonnald you will have a nice idea how to play. Even Steinitz played this. And it's very modern in current theory.
pellik wrote:
Your rating here is 1400, so that should put you somewhere in the 1200-1400 range for otb play I'd guess.
You really shouldn't be blaming getting a draw on your opening play. There are tons of opportunity to apply pressure, and your opponent will inevitably create some sort of weakness. Learn how to identify weaknesses and focus on making plans in the middle-game which will exploit those weaknesses. Just stay flexible and wait for your opponent to do something dumb. If you get a draw go study your game and see what dumb moves he made that you didn't exploit, and try again.
+1
Bill_C wrote:
royalbishop wrote:
I almost forgot Fat Albert the movie and the comic that you were a part of making it.
Taken with the Temple University Mascot. Cannot do anything for an autograph but here is an electronic signature for you.
Bill Cosby
Thanks Bill your the greatest. I am going to write to the papers about the great act that you have done for me.
A Class act that should not go unnoticed!
Here is an idea recommended to me by an IM (no, not Pfren) against the King's Gambit:
I probably screwed it up, but you get the theme...
In my opinion (and I'm far from an IM), 4) fxe5 is a mistake. The idea behind the KG is rapid development and there's no reason for white to waste his or her time taking the e5 pawn. Also don't understand, in the main variation, why white doesn't recapture on move 5.
Psalm25 wrote:
In my opinion (and I'm far from an IM), 4) fxe5 is a mistake. The idea behind the KG is rapid development and there's no reason for white to waste his or her time taking the e5 pawn. Also don't understand, in the main variation, why white doesn't recapture on move 5.
4. fxe5 and 4. d3 are in fact the best moves in the 2...Qh4+ line.
Yereslov wrote:
Here is an idea recommended to me by an IM (no, not Pfren) against the King's Gambit:
I probably screwed it up, but you get the theme...
i actually played 3.g3 Qe7 4.Nc3!? fxg3 5.hxg3 d5 6.Nxd5 in a game, and developed a monstrous initiative without queens on somehow, white should have a enough for the pawn. Of course 2..Qh4? is a poor move
What are you basing that opinion on Yereslov?
Randomemory wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Here is an idea recommended to me by an IM (no, not Pfren) against the King's Gambit:
I probably screwed it up, but you get the theme...
i actually played 3.g3 Qe7 4.Nc3!? fxg3 5.hxg3 d5 6.Nxd5 in a game, and developed a monstrous initiative without queens on somehow, white should have a enough for the pawn. Of course 2..Qh4? is a poor move
2...Qh4+ is not a poor move, my friend. It is a refutation of the gambit.
This was recommended to me by a player at the 2500+ level, and a player who has very extensive opening knowledge.
" 4.Nc3!? fxg3"
How is that possible?
Yereslov wrote:
Randomemory wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Here is an idea recommended to me by an IM (no, not Pfren) against the King's Gambit:
I probably screwed it up, but you get the theme...
i actually played 3.g3 Qe7 4.Nc3!? fxg3 5.hxg3 d5 6.Nxd5 in a game, and developed a monstrous initiative without queens on somehow, white should have a enough for the pawn. Of course 2..Qh4? is a poor move
2...Qh4+ is not a poor move, my friend. It is a refutation of the gambit.
This was recommended to me by a player at the 2500+ level, and a player who has very extensive opening knowledge.
" 4.Nc3!? fxg3"
How is that possible?
ugh, i meant nf3 exf4 i think then the notation makes sense
Saying 2)...Qh4+ is a refutation of the gambit is going a bit far (probably way more than a bit)
I'm pretty sure someone rated 2300-2500, and especially someone of his standing would not make such a bold claim without some analysis to back it up.
The idea is that this pawn formation is much better for black.
Psalm25 wrote:
Saying 2)...Qh4+ is a refutation of the gambit is going a bit far (probably way more than a bit)
Well, considering I have yet to lose a game with it, it seems to be true.
Black is not supposed to create a frontal assault immediately, but to gradually built up his advantage so that he can take advantage of white's isolated and weak king pawn.
You're saying a gambit has been refuted because you haven't lost a game by employing the alleged refutation? Are you trolling? Hard to believe you're serious. If you used 2)...Qh4+ in a King's Gambit game against a GM or IM, you would expect to win? If not, then the gambit hasn't been refuted. You just need to play stronger opponents
Psalm25 wrote:
You're saying a gambit has been refuted because you haven't lost a game by employing the alleged refutation? Are you trolling? Hard to believe you're serious. If you used 2)...Qh4+ in a King's Gambit game against a GM or IM, you would expect to win? If not, then the gambit hasn't been refuted. You just need to play stronger opponents
Pfren and Expertise87 mutually agree that he is dumb.
Expertise87, and everyone else but pfren mutually agree that he is a troll, please don't feed him.
Recommendation for Opening against 1...e5
1.d4 is probably best as after 1...e5 you win a pawn.
1.Nf3 is worth considering too.
Yereslov wrote:
I'm pretty sure someone rated 2300-2500, and especially someone of his standing would not make such a bold claim without some analysis to back it up.
The idea is that this pawn formation is much better for black.
Well, I wonder why white is winning that position then. Or is your weak rybka telling you black is winning?
I almost forgot Fat Albert the movie and the comic that you were a part of making it.