3. In my modern ICCF database, white's 2.e5 has performed an astoundingly awful 28% to black's 72% success rate. I'd say that pretty much qualifies it as a weak move, if not a stupid one as well.
The above seems worth emphasizing. It also dovetails with @Ponz's initial contention.
You can emphasize it, but it doesn't mean anything. What is very likely is that weaker players tend to play that move, and weaker players get crappy results. Correlation/causation.
@FirebrandX You're right in that it wouldn't transpose directly into a C-K advance (though it could transpose into a French Advance obviously). But if white did choose to play d4 eventually, then some analysis branches could be truncated with a nod to those variations. This is in general response to whomever said "it's good for black because he's a tempo up in a C-K advance" which isn't true. It's like saying the Panov-Botvinnik attack is good for white because he's a tempo up in the Tarrasch. They're different positions.
Ok, I misunderstood you on the Grob/e5 thing. I still think that the Grob is better than 2.e5 though.
Edit: The manner in which a typical weak player would play 2.e5 is directly as an Advance in something they already know about (French or C-K). If white applies such general principles to this position he is liable to get in hot water quickly. Consider that the French Advance is bad for white because of a single tempo. This is a generalization, but the main line is one that white just can't go into because it hangs either f2 or b2. So white has to do other stuff.
Weaker players play 2. e5 because they do not realize it is a bad move, What amazes me is I have seen class A and experts and a master play that move.
I like the anology that if White is allowed 2 first moves he would play 1. e4 and 1.d4 and may have a theoretically won game.
However if the were to choose 1. e4 and 1. e5 the position is drawish.
Reason this 2nd sequence is drawish is that White overextended and the pawn on e5 can be contested with d6.
The opening you pl play can make your bishops less valuable. For example if you play the French Defense your bishop on the White squares is a sorry piece as it is hemmed in by the pawn on e6 and the pawn on d5. Conversley for White in the French Defense the bishop on the White squares is more valuable than the bishop on the black squares.
In the end game if you have a bishop say on the white squares and almost all your pawns are also on the white squares then your bishop has less moving space and often an opposing knight will beat it.
Now the above is basic but what most players do not realize is that you can take almost any middle game or end game position and apply the same principals to evaluate your position. I have a friend who wrote an essay on the 4 kinds of bishops which is interesting. There are good and bad bishops and passive and not passage--I will try and get this posted as if players can follow the logic it would go a long way to help them play both the middle game and ending.
Hi Melvin, I only refer to White having one extra free move at the start of the game.
If White is is allowed two extra moves then he could play 1. e4 1.d4 and 1.c4 and have a theoretical win. If he were to play 1. e4 1. d4 1.e5 he would not have near the position as 1. e4 1. d4 1. c4 but with 2 extra moves rather than 1 extra move--this partially negates moving the e pawn twice.
@ponz(in reply to #102)
In my analysis I have mentioned 14...Nxf3 15.Qxf3 Nxe5 (it`s actually the first Black answer to analyse) and came to conclusion that after 16.Re1 White is obviously better. Your suggestions for Black?
And I`ve never stated that 2.e5 is "good just because a master or even gm has played a certain way". All I`ve stated is that 2.e5 is not the best White`s option, but it does not give a reason to claim Black`s advantage. So be so kind and stop using a straw man arguments.
@zborg (in reply to #97)
Hans Berliner is a former WCC Champion (it means much better CC player than Ponz) for example, but his book "The System" is generally aknowledged by strong players as full of crap (and after reading this book I can only agree).
@FirebrandX
I`m not a novice player. In fact I have higher blitz and bullet rating and not too much lower online rating (because I haven`t finished so much games) that you. So you have no reason to be so arrogant.
IMHO 2.e5 may work as surprise weapon against unprepared opponent who may become overconfident trying to refute it.
If Black would play 2...Nc6 then 2.e5 would be more popular I guess. Here is one example to illustrate Black problems.
IMHO 2.e5 may work as surprise weapon against unprepared opponent who may become overconfident trying to refute it.
Which is playing hope chess, and we all know that's generally a bad idea.
Because of... ?
Also "generally bad" does not mean that it can`t be good occasionally.
upd. I don`t think that playing rare lines to surprise your opponent matches with definition of Hope chess. http://chess.about.com/od/tipsforbeginners/a/What-Is-Hope-Chess.htm
If your opponent is a good opponent, he will be very happy to see the move 2. e5 and even if he is surprised to see the move--it will be "happy surprised"
If your opponent is a good opponent, he will be very happy to see the move 2. e5 and even if he is surprised to see the move--it will be "happy surprised"
I have given example what can happen when Black 2200+ player is so "happy surprised". Also the fact that some of your analysis (see posts #91 and #102) leads to worse position for Black speaks for itself.
A good player will never be happy until his opponent signs his loss on the scoresheet. ;)
And anyways what should black be happy about? He will still have to play around 40 moves in an imbalanced and rather unclear position and if he is good he will expect best play from his opponent. The fact a player makes use of 2. e5 doesn't mean he can't play chess and if he is in better shape he will outplay black from this position.
You cannot compare this to Traxler. Traxler is very concrete tactics. 2. e5 is just one slightly inferior move.
Compare it to London System, Colle Attack, Zuckertort Attack, KIA, Bird, CK-Exchange with 4. Ne5, 2. b3 against the Sicilian, French with 2. f4, 3. d5 against the Budapest Gambit, Ponziani, 4-Knights with 4. a3 and other mere Amateur side-lines you encounter on club-level play.
If your opponent is a good opponent, he will be very happy to see the move 2. e5 and even if he is surprised to see the move--it will be "happy surprised"
I have given example what can happen when Black 2200+ player is so "happy surprised".
It's still hope chess. I've already shown the ICCF statistics where white's performance after 2.e5 was a mere 28%. That shows the move is weak no matter which way you slice it. The move shouldn't cause any sort of 'surprise' to an opponent except a pleasant one of equality right off the bat.
Now you can go on about one player losing to another against it, but that's a matter of what happens when a person wins in spite of the opening, not because of the opening. When it all comes down to it, the move is objectively weak. Not tactically, but strategically. A player of your skill should know the difference.
It`s not my problem if you are unable to read definition of "hope chess".
You base your assumption on statistics and at the same time admit that the result may be also in spite of opening. It makes your argument invalid.
Here you can see opening statistics and see how many idiotic conclusions you can make based on your logic. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm
It`s not my problem if you are unable to read definition of "hope chess".
You base your assumption on statistics and at the same time admit that the result may be also in spite of opening. It makes your argument invalid.
Here you can see opening statistics and see how many idiotic conclusions you can make based on your logic. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm
Hope Chess, plus contentious posts, plus putting on heirs because of your blitz rating, plus massive data dump in the link above, plus more pinheaded syllogistic determinism, plus no respect for your elders. @Pacific, you've got it all. 
@Pacific, you're trolling this thread, despite your (apparent) best intentions. Please make a note of it. We are not your enemy. Please snap out of your funk.
Too many "blitz experts" have picked fights with higher ranked players, only to be "outed" and banned later for using engines. Hope that doesn't apply to you.
But this life and death struggle over opening (INDIVIDUAL MOVES) remains baffling. The move 2) e5 probably "stinks," but there are at least 40 more move to make, and anything can happen. So WTF.
And when it comes to reading books by CC Champions, I greatly prefer Gennady Nesis, Tactical Chess Exchanges, and Exchanging to Win in the Endgame. Because I prefer blasting all the pieces off the board and rolling my opponent in the endgame, after studying John Nunn's books and tomes, of course.
Lighten Up. So much talent in this thread, but entirely too much frission. Lots of good ideas can be found in this thread. Start reading between the lines, and stop finding personal affronts. Then we can all laugh about it.
It`s not my problem if you are unable to read definition of "hope chess".
You base your assumption on statistics and at the same time admit that the result may be also in spite of opening. It makes your argument invalid.
Here you can see opening statistics and see how many idiotic conclusions you can make based on your logic. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm
Hope Chess, plus contentious posts, plus putting on heirs because of your blitz rating, plus massive data dump in the link above, plus more pinheaded syllogistic determinism, plus no respect for your elders. @Pacific, you've got it all.
@Pacific, you're trolling this thread, despite your (apparent) best intentions. Please make a note of it. We are not your enemy. Please snap out of your funk.
Too many "blitz experts" have picked fights with higher ranked players, only to be "outed" and banned later for using engines. Hope that doesn't apply to you.
But this life and death struggle over opening (INDIVIDUAL MOVES) remains baffling. The move 2) e5 probably "stinks," but there are at least 40 more move to make, and anything can happen. So WTF.
And when it comes to reading books by CC Champions, I greatly prefer Gennady Nesis, Tactical Chess Exchanges, and Exchanging to Win in the Endgame. Because I prefer blasting all the pieces off the board and rolling my opponent in the endgame, after studying John Nunn's books and tomes, of course.
Lighten Up. So much talent in this thread, but entirely too much frission. Lots of good ideas can be found in this thread. Start reading between the lines, and stop finding personal affronts. Then we can all laugh about it.
Take your own advice and "lighten up". That will help you to avoid your worthless ad hominem arguments and unbased cheating insinuations.
My rating was mentioned in reply to arrogant remark, calling me "novice player" despite of fact that even my online rating is not much lower than his, with only 11 games finished.
upd. Took a look at your forum posts. Shouldn`t have bother to respond forum trolls like you.
And everything you read is construed as an attack upon your personage.
As a result, you're at the center of rather small universe. Get over it, @Pacific.
Black is a tempo up in a fairly well understood line of the caro-kann, which is sufficient for equality. It's pretty well known and understood already.
Black also has the option of just transposing into a favorable french advance, which is also about equal.
Why is this thread going on for five pages?
Because often times novice players will form an opinion about an offbeat move as being 'perfectly playable' and refuse to believe the strategy behind opening formations makes a given move 'weak' based purely on the strategical merits of it. They think opening play is nothing but concrete tactical memorization, so if a given move is rare and doesn't fall for a forced tactic, then it must be sound and playable. An analogy about an ardent belief in such moves is that the light bulb hasn't been turned on yet.
+10, a compelling proposition. Thanks for the insight, @FirebrandX.