FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Greetings everyone, I am looking to make my current repertoire sharper and more tactical. The openings that are sharp enough are in red. For the others, can you please supply some sharp lines?
-Queen's Gambit, Rubinstein Variation
-Semi-Slav: Botvinnik Variation, Moscow Variation
-Symmetrical English with Early d4
-Queen's Indian Defense
-Main Line KID with 9. Ne1
-Main Line Benoni
-Benko with 4. Qc2
-Grunfeld with 5. Qb3
Note that I play Nf3 on the first or second move to avoid early e5 breaks by white. Also, I tend to avoid e4 openings as white. I am Ok to play the Scotch, but other systems (French and Sicilian) tend to bother me.
-Sicilian, Najdorf Variation: Sozin Main Line, English Attack with e6, Be2 with e6, Poisoned Pawn Variation
-Queen's Gambit Accepted
-Caro-Kann, Main Lines except Smyslov Variation
Thanks so much!
Eek! Are you sure you want to play this kind of stuff? You'll have to spend countless hours studying the cutting edge of theory before tournaments if you want to play stuff like the Botvinnik Semi-Slav and the Poisoned Pawn, and even then you're still likely to lose to an inferior move as the positions are so wildly complex and revolve around computer lines with forced sequences rather than basic logic. It's completely your choice, but it seems a bit crazy to willingly go into this stuff when you'll have to spend 90% of your study time researching the latest theory on all these sharp lines.
Well, they certainly are complex, but I enjoy studying long and complex lines, and also like confusing my opponent. Also, if you learn the theory 20-30 moves deep, it is very easy to then focus on the middlegame/endgame plans.
Don't forget the anti-sicilians out there (since you play sicilian as black), such as the Moscow and Rossolimo. Some lines of the Bb5 sicilian can be sharp, but I think white is the side that gets to pick the variation for the most part. (Shameless link to group. )
This seems like way too much crap for anyone under 2000... And since none of the themes of the things you play are similar you won't be any good at any of them for a long while...
It just seems like a waste of time to me. 1.e4 seems a lot easier to run with to me than this. And in the sicilian you just play positions where you get to play knights sacs and you're sure to get better at them. There are so many ways to just sac a pawn against the French that it can't be hard to find something you like.
+1 to AnthonyCG.
The first question I have is: are you a naturally sharp, aggressive player? Is that the way you normally play?
Because if that's NOT you, playing sharp opening isn't going to transform you into one. The results will not be pretty, keep the children indoors and away from the windows when you try.
And if you ARE the sharp, aggressive type, these deep theoretical critical lines are the LAST thing I would recommend to you. Your opponents aren't just stumbling into these lines which go into the mid-20s on moves and beyond, they are prepared and know what is coming, what is there, and are willingly going there.
Better to play simpler chess, less popular and volatile lines, and create your own sharp situations. Your opponent can't be prepared for that.
If you're an aggressive player with a sharp tactical eye, you don't need sharp openings.
The reason I enjoy these long theoretical lines is that from there I can easily prepare middlegame plans, without worrying about other moves rarely seen as much. As for the sharpness of my play, I used to consider myself a positional player, but a great percentage of my games were drawn: the only ones I ever one were the more aggressive battles. As for d4/Nf3, I think that it offers more flexibility than openings with e4.
It actually wouldn't work that way at all.
You would know the miidlegame plans maybe, but due to the sheer number, you wouldn't be proficient in any of them. So you would be a "jack of all trades but master of none. And seeing as even GMs have problems in the opening, you're wasting your time here.
If you wanted easy middlegame plans you could just play the colle or something. And due to the long lines of this repertoire, the chances of your opponent playing a move you don't know is actually higher than if you played a low-theory one. There is no way that you can actually expect your opponents to play 20 moves deep in anything you play.
1.e4 is for the most part an attacking move. What's the point of flexibility when you're trying to run your opponent over? Flexibility is for when you don't really know what you want to do and you want to keep options open. That's for slow games where you're not trying to attack...
No attacking repertoire includes 2.Nf3 at all. The point of that is to avoid certain options. That's not an aggressive idea at all! If you want aggression this is a better idea imo:
QGD Exchange - Avoid all declined lines, play Nge2 and castle queenside. All you need to do is learn to thrust your pawns at Black's king.
Semi Slav/Slav -Find a way to sac your g-pawn...
QID - Play that d5 thingy Kasparov used to play and sac a pawn.
KID - h3+g4 Prevent any and all thematic action in this opening and your opponent will probably be lost.
Benoni - Flick knife or Knight Tour - Who cares if Black has chances? It's easier for you to play than him and he'll probably choke if he can't get in b5 anyway. Call his bluff.
Benko - Just avoid it. A huge waste at club level; While your opponent is ready for all those magical tactics with the knights you just sidestep the thing and still have options to be aggressive.
Grunfeld - 5.Qb3 is ok.
1.d4 e5 - Your opponent wants to fight. Man up and take the pawn. You want aggressive battles right? Same for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5;
Easy and WAAAAAAY less work than that stuff you were pushin...
Vs. 1.e4 Najdorf or Caro Kann. Pick one and be done with it. I'd go with Caro Kann and play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6. You barely need to memorize anything.
Vs. 1.d4 QGA
Vs. 1.c4 play 1...e6 and 2...d5 and see what happens.
In all these openings you're just pawn rushing and you don't need to spend all night memorizing crap.
Another point--although I do like long theoretical lines, it won't hurt my feelings if my opponent blunders on move 12.
its not so much that they will blunder, its that in the botvinnik which ill use as an example as i know it. they play the 3rd best move which isnt a blunder, but gives equality, problem is because you dont know the line, they get a better position from it since you cant punish the move.
I've been studying sidelines like this a fair bit too.
In all honesty, chessisgood will probably get excellent results if he really applies himself and memorizes all the lines for this stuff, even though I don't think he'll learn anything from it or develop as a player when he's following 30 moves of Kasparov/Rybka analysis. The key point here is that everyone thinks that everyone else memorizes tons of theory and doesn't just try to get a normal position and play chess, so then the people who actually DO memorize tons and tons of theory end up winning convincingly if people play into their theoretical lines.
IMO if you want to play sharper positions look at what players did a century ago. Play positions where the plans are similar and are connected by structure. everything gets "sharp" at some point the question is when does it get critical and how much time are you willing to invest in learning long theoretical lines. KI and Najdorf are massive theory wise. Any sicilian is good if you want sharp play.
Avoid tricky crap openings that have a simple line for white to learn to 'refute' 1. d4 e5 is crap sorry to those that love the tricks its just a fancy 4 move mate thought process. Play classical systems and build from there. simple and clean.... focus on learning simple middlegame plans and mastering very basic endgames by sight (from someone who coaches the top team in the state, top players nationally and locally)
you can play this repertoire if you work a lot on it; and maybe even get decent results. However the improvement/effort ratio would be ridicously low. A 10 games match chessisgood1 (studyed this repertoire for hundreds of hours to master it) vs chessisgood2 (devoted the same amount of time to chess, studying less ambitious stuff and using the remaining time on middlegames, endgames and commented games) would probably end something like 3-7.
If you want to keep Catalan but play some sharper lines, ne5 is a good choice.
Its not as sharp as the botvinnik or poisoned pawn, but its definately more tactical than other lines.
Thanks for posting this also could I ask where you learned this line from I've been looking to spice up my catalan play.
Personally I wouldn't bother- learning all that stuff to a level I should consider satisfactory would take me over half a decade. Maybe I'm lazy, dunno...
There were certainly some good openings back then, but one must be careful. A lot have been discredited recently. e.g. Benoni without h3.
And then you face the Englund Gambit, Blackmar-Diemer, Elephant-Gambit and your preparation is for the trash can.
Its useless for an amateur player to learn lines with 20 or 30 moves, when you have no plan of tactics and strategy...the book says +- and you dont know why and your first "own" move is a mistake.
Well, you must realize that I plan to learn the ideas as well as the openings.
If you play 1. e4, you will eventually get to play the Evans Gambit. It doesn't get any sharper than that.
Yes, but though I enjoy sharp play, I want the theoretical upper hand. I like to be attacked when I have the advantage.