Repertoire Help: Response to 1.e4

Hi guys,

I've recently got back into chess (after about 12 years out and my otb rating at the moment is about 1800) and the only  issue I have with my opening repertoire is a repsonse to 1.e4. I have been playing the Sicilian Najdorf with decent results but the amount of theory is a bit daunting (including all the anti-Sicilians).I don't know whether to persisit with the Sicilian or move over to something with less theory (i'm aware that opening theory isn't the most important thing at my level so I'm concerned I'm waisting time with the Sicilian). I've never really spent much time studying the French or Caro-Kahn but I would imagine they are less demanding that the Sicilian. I have also been looking at the Scandinavian at the moment. 

Any thoughts/opinions are welcome!

Hope someone can help.  Been in the game over 50 years and still trying to find a response to 1e4 that fits me.  Have tried them all. 

Most analysis engines say that the best response is 1... e5, which is my choice. Hope if this helps.

I did consider the Petroff but I would need to prepare lines versus the King's Gambit (2.f4), The Vienna Game (2.Nc3) and the Bishops opening (2.Bc4). I guess I'm looking for something less theoretical so I can focus on my white repertoire and then potentially comeback to the Sicilian at a later date when I have more time. 

Ask yourself what u love most against e4 ? is it e5 , e6 , c6 , d5 . What ever your mind says first play that because i believe if we listen to our mind and heart then we always succed in life. 

Well, that depends on your playstyle. First off all, you shouldn't worry that much about offbeat openings like the King's Gambit, with a bit of knowledge and mostly good play you can usually get a decent position. Second, you shouldn't shy away from a opening you like because of the amount of theory, that being said, if you don't like to study a lot of opening theory then you shouldn't really play the Najdorf as black.

Ruy Lopez has quite a bit of theory, but as long as you know the first few moves and understand the ideas behind the opening you are well shaped until you get at least a few more elo points. Avoid the Scandinavian, it is sub-optimal at best.

1...e5 looks like a strong contender for several reasons:

1. It is possibly the soundest response to 1...e4 and although there is theory to learn, quite often you can get into a playable position with natural looking moves.
2. You don't give up as much space as with most other responses.
3. The market is full of excellent books on 1.e4 e5, for example by Marin, Brunelli, Bologan and Ntirlis.

Btw, all those Anti-Sicilians combined with the need to learn a lot of theory including many counter-intuitive moves drove me away from the Sicilian years ago. Never regretted taking up 1...e5 since then ;-)

However, if you want clear-cut plans with not too much theory you might want to look into the French (very sound) or the Scandinavian (still playable).

If you like counterattacking and memorising theory, play c5

If you like counterattacking without much theory, play e6

If you don't want cramp positions, play e5

If you like to defend and play better endings, play c6

If you used to do Caro-Kann but get mated too often, play d5

If you don't care about space, play Nf6

If you really love KID, play g6 or d6 and hope it'll transpose

If you want to lose instantly, play b5!

If you have accumulated experience with the Najdorf, it's a bit disappointing to drop it, especially as the amount of theory to play it at club level is not the same than at pro level, and Anti can be countered without knowing all the latest wrinkles.

That being said, if you look for a low maintenance alternative, then I guess the Center Counter with ...Qxd5 is a good choice.

The Vienna Game, Bishop's Opening, and Scandinavian Defense (= Center Counter) are considered suboptimal or "second rate" because they don't give the opponent enough problems, such as not attacking while developing. They'll take you to decent levels (1800-2000) but against masters you'll have trouble, from what I've heard.

Beginners where I worked were taught 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6, ideally leading to the Italian Game. It takes only a slight modification of those solid moves to get into much more complexity and dynamics, such as the Ruy Lopez or Petrov's Defense, so I would recommend double e-pawn openings since the Sicilian Defense is too theory heavy and tactically heavy for beginners. Few people play the King's Gambit in double e-pawn openings, and it's so tactical that memorization is less important, so I wouldn't worry much about defending against that opening.

The French, Caro-Kann, and maybe Pirc are good and solid, though they tend to require patience, which might not be to your taste.

What are some openings that you DO believe to be suboptimal ("because they don't give the opponent enough problems")?

  Really? Well, 1...c5 offers better chances, because Pe5 could become a target. while 1...c5 creates an unbalance right from the start. The very best.

JOD1989 wrote:

I did consider the Petroff but I would need to prepare lines versus the King's Gambit (2.f4), The Vienna Game (2.Nc3) and the Bishops opening (2.Bc4). I guess I'm looking for something less theoretical so I can focus on my white repertoire and then potentially comeback to the Sicilian at a later date when I have more time. 

Its not really Much to learn unless you go all in and take the fpawn in the kings gambit following up with g5g4

After playing the Dragon sicilian for most of my chess life I switched over to a mixture of the Sniper and Nc6 intending either e5 or d5 depending on mood vs e4. I find that my oposition knows the positions less and I am not constantly in fear of some novelty or other, I have a feel for the positions and like the fact that I know the plans and can think for myself rather than playing a seemingly ok move only to find that someone refuted it in the latest tournament! I still get active, interesting positions and my + score has gone up since

If it isn't a question of "giv"ing "the opponent enough problems" (Sqod's  language), what is it that DOES determine whether or not an opening is suboptimal?

The Squod quote didn't deny that The Vienna Game, Bishop's Opening, and Scandinavian Defense were worth considering. YOUR previous comment DID say that you believed that they were not suboptimal.

I hope that I am correct in taking this to indicate that you think the London and Colle actually are suboptimal. What about things like the Center Game, Ponziani, Danish Gambit, and King's Gambit?

Does this mean you believe that London (and perhaps the Colle) qualify as "worth considering"? How about Center, Danish, and King's Gambit? Am I correct that you believe all of them to be "suboptimal"? And what, if any, correction would you make to Squod's language ("don't give the opponent enough problems") in connection with "suboptimal"?

Do you see the Squod "suboptimal" comment as attempting to identify openings that do not fit your notion of being in "teir 1"?

Do you see the Squod "suboptimal" comment as denying the existence of plenty of variety of good openings?

You contradicted Squod's "suboptimal" comment. Then you seemed to express disapproval of his method of classifying an opening as "suboptimal", and, after that, I haven't seen you use the word at all. I HAVE seen a string of comments using various characterizations ("worth considering", "weak", "teir 1", "bad", etc.) without, as far as I can tell, indicating anything about your disagreement with Squod's "suboptimal" comment.

London system is a perfectly good way to open a game, Carlsen played it recently also, Colle is also solid and a good way to start, especially the Zukertort but the anti colle systems can be a pain. 

  The point is that there are no shortcuts to avoiding theory. By learning, understanding more complex systems and ideas one develops as a chess player. Pointing to strong players's choices of opening systems who already have that understanding, can be misleading.

  Playing 2f4 creates insurmontable problems on the king's flank. In the romantic era where excitement was ruling, this is ok, but in the era of computers the King's Gambit is simply too reckless. The point is not to actually threaten something on move two(!), but to develop while increasing pressure without creating unnecessary weakness. After, say,  2...Nc6 3Bb5 also isn't a threat to Pe5, but the pressure is building and after Re1 the threat is real. Initiative usually results in threats and later on in attacks, some unstoppable.

   For over 100 years, 2Nf3 has been the only serious attempt to obtain an opening advantage for the white side.

About 6 days ago, you stated your belief in a direct contradiction of what Squod actually WROTE using the word "suboptimal". For the last 45 hours, I have seen a bunch of stuff where you avoided using the word. Here, you go on about "the impication" of objective inferiority. DO you currently object to the truth of what Squod actually wrote?

There are some natural questions raised by your use of "objectively inferior". Why is the word, "objectively" there? Is there some other sort of "inferior" that you wish to ignore? Do you consider any of "center game the danish ... the kings gambit ... the london or colle" to be "objectively inferior"?

In what Squod actually wrote, do you see anything about "the often mentioned 'point' to nf3"?

In what Squod actually wrote, do you see anything about "nf3" being "a major threat"?

I imagine the concerns of many players are somewhat reflected by the relative amounts of space given to 2 Bc4, 2 Nc3, and 2 Nf3 in such works as the recent two-volume set by Bologan on 1 e4 e5.

In what Squod actually wrote, do you see anything about 2 Nc3 and 2 Bc4 being in the same category as 2 a3?

In what Squod actually wrote, do you see advice to plan to "wing it" as Black after 1 e4 e5 2 f4, 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3, and 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4?

What about putting an opening in the "suboptimal" category because preparation requires LESS theory-study than the Ruy Lopez?