I don't know the g6 panov's theoretical value, but I do know that grandmasters still play it. It can't be that terrible.
Also, people would rather play the position after e5 as white than the panov, which also says something about it.
Transpositional Openings
Sort:
chesslies wrote:
@ iamdeafzed: As a chess player is is good to know your repertoire and where the transpositions to occur, especially since most of us don't have the time or inclination to be able to study it all. If you find that you have to play so many different positions that you have to learn more than you need to if you made simple switches and tweaks to certain parts of what you play you avoid that and avoid learning more than you need, which helps to minimize study as much as it can. And again I never said any where in here that you wont have to learn the lines and the theory.That doesn't need to be stated since if you decide to pick up any line, whether it be the open sicilian, Bb5 sicilian, Alapin, or closed, you are still going to need to know theory. The amount of it is different depending on the opening. And most books taht i read about repertoires tell you to try to be as harmonious as you can so you don't have to learn extra useless infromation that can be better for tactics or positional study. And I never said this was my repertoire. All I said was i was doing some thinking about a repertoire that alot of transposition, not my openings. Mine are much different. I just gave it as an idea to think about. I think you are putting to much of what you play instead of just actually thinking about how the openings work together. So I would never play anything else as a universal system, even though i know many that are there and have played some when i get bored of openings, because all I did was just bse it around e4, which again just take it as the idea by thinking through how it works. And "seemingly coming" up with my own ideas? How has any chess player below GM ever come up with their own ideas? Most, if not all, are taken from GM books, which is what I have done. I took what every book that I have read about openings and what they comment with and their reasoning and comments. So I just put it altogether from what GM books had said. Never claimed this to be my own. Even said before that I got 3 ideas from Sam Collins book.
Clearly you don't take criticism very well. Which begs the question of why you bothered posting the repertoire in the first place, if you're just going to be defensive and reactionary every time someone criticizes you over it.
And if you weren't seriously considering using said repertoire, why would you have bothered to make a forum post about it in the first place? For fun? Maybe, but that seems less plausible than the obvious alternative. And if so, then you're being dishonest with yourself (and to me) by trying to imply that you aren't. I don't have a problem with someone having a different opinion than me. Heck knows I'm no bastion of unending knowledge and wisdom. But I do expect others to treat me with respect by, for example, not insulting my intelligence. Which making a post about a repertoire and then claiming it's only something to think about and that you never were seriously considering implementing it ever, does. I'm sure you haven't done this sort of thing on purpose, but it is in some way irritating...exhibits a certain lack of emotional maturity on your part, to be honest.
And when I said "coming up with your own ideas", I meant in regards to your repertoire. Obviously your repertoire lines here were devised by others, but ultimately it's up to the individual player to create his own repertoire. You can pick and choose which lines by which people you'd like to embrace and which ones to avoid. That's what I meant by "your own ideas". I'm sorry that wasn't clear.
Best of luck with your chess endeavors and should you decide to implement the above repertoire, feel free to comment on how it works out for you. I'd be interested to know.
I do take critism well, (ok maybe not all the time) it just seemed like people were attacking by saying I was wrong without realizing what I was talking about. It almost seemed like they were just reading it without thinking about what I was intending. It almost looked like criticism for the sake of criticism without anything constructive behind it. If you want to criticize that I am more than happy taking it but it just needs to be on something that is useful to the post. And I was just writing this to give ideas for those just starting or having a hard time making one and a repertoire that won't be super heavy in theory but still give good positional grounding in many different style of positions. I don't play this myself personally, although from time to time I will play one of the opening mentioned above along with my regular openings to do something new or just bored. I am sorry if I had hurt your feelings or said something that was uncalled for. I whole-heartedly apologize. And is that Ed O'neil in your pic? If so, is it from Married with Children?
Aug 26, 2013
0
#25
Chesslies, I have to agree with the others. We saw what you were saying, and responded accordingly, and you twist our responses to think we are attacking you.
I responded to you 3 months ago, and all you talk about is how you said "possible" transpositions. Yes, anything is "Possible". I've even seen a player play 1.d4, and end up in a Morra Gambit thru the old move order for the Benoni (1.d4 c5 2.e4).
However, "Possible" and "Reality" are two different things. People that play the Alekhine don't play the Alekhine so they can end up in a Vienna. Regardless as to whether 2...d5 or 2...e5 is theoretically better, the true Alekhine player is going to play 2...d5 99.99% of the time.
As others have said, what good is the occasional transposition if you have to know the other lines anyway.
I play a repertoire with many transpositions, but that doesn't mean I try to pigeon-hole myself to one or two openings. On top of that, I even have a second option in most cases.
For example, as White, I play both 1.d4 and 1.Nf3.
When I play 1.d4, I traditionally play the Trompowsky against 1...Nf6, the Dangerfield Attack against 1...f5, and against 1...d5, I play 2.Nf3 and continue to proceed with my 1.Nf3 Repertoire.
When I play 1.Nf3, play 2.c4 against 1...Nf6 which can end up in an English, Queen's Gambit/Catalan, or Maroczy Bind. Against 1...d5, I respond 2.d4 and head into a Queen's Gambit/Catalan. Even within, they can transpose. For example, 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Qc2 is the exact same position as 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Qc2 e6 5.g3 Be7 6.Bg2 O-O 7.O-O, resulting in a Closed Catalan. However, to think that even 10% of Slavs that I face would transpose to a Catalan would be crazy, and so I still must know all the main responses to the 4.Qc2 Slav, like 4...dxc4 or 4...g6 (intending ...Bf5) being the main two responses. Factor in the Semi-Slav hybrids with 4...e6 and 5...dxc4, which is different from the 4.Qc2 Slav because of the early 4...e6 5.g3 pushes, and different from the Catalan in that Qc2 and c6 aren't usually played immediately in the Closed Catalan. The inclusion of c6 makes taking on c4 critical, whereas in the normal Open Catalan, recapturing on c4 immediately isn't a necessity, and in some lines, White outright gambits the pawn.
So no matter how you cut it, you have a lot of studying to do, and in some ways, playing heavily transpositional openings can also backfire if you don't understand the minute differences in positions when a single move is added, like differentiating the Catalan Proper, Slav Proper, and Semi-Slav Hybrids. Just because the pawn structure "looks similar" means absolutely nothing!
If you want to avoid excess amounts of theory, and want to take the lazy man's route to 1700 or 1800 and plateau there, play something stupid like the London System or any other "I don't care what Black does, I'm playing this and this and this and this for my first four moves" system.
My best performace was playing a Modern Defense (with both colors), in a 5 round local tournament of Game in 10/0. Against 4 Experts, I had two draws and two wins, and I lost to a National Master and former State Champ.
No more theory or "transposistions" were involved than what I already knew from learning the Modern Defense. Very Simple.
And my 50+ opening books (purchased earlier, when I worried about those pesky "transpositions") continue to collect dust on my bookshelf. I can always return to them later, when my middlegame and endgame play becomes stronger.
So, consider playing the Hippo (or any all-purpose-system) from both sides, if you are so inclined, and enjoy the game instead.
Saves you tons of study time, and lots of keystrokes too. 
May 20, 2024
0
#27
ThrillerFan wrote:
Also, the number of times that you'll transpose is minimal:
Sicilian: 2.c3 d5 and 2.c3 Nf6 are both FAR more popular than 2...e6, which still doesn't guarantee a French transposition.
1...d6 and 1...g6: Uhm, they very rarely transpose to one another.
I play 1...d6, but NOT the Pirc! I play Pribyl/Philidor/Wade/No Name Defenses, namely 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 and now 4.f4 Qa5, 4.Nf3 Bg4, or Philidor setups against most other lines. This is NOTHING like the Pirc Austrian Attack.
I also play 1...g6, and the Modern, where the Knight sits back on g8, and often gets developed to e7 or h6, is VERY DIFFERENT than the Pirc.
1...Nc6 and 1...Nf6: You will just about never see a transposition here. 1...Nc6 will be answered with 2...d6 or 2...Nf6. 1...Nf6 will be answered with 2...d5.
Back to the drawing board for you!
While I do see some problems in the OPs repertoire this post is actually full of nonsense.
1) In both the Pirc and Modern the Austrian attack is reached by playing blacks most common moves.
Let's just break this down.
1. e4 d6 - Pirc defense
2. d4 Nf6 - played 71% of the time
3. Nc3 g6 - played 60% of the time
4. f4 Bg7 - Austrian attack, played 96% of the time. Overall this position is reached 40% of the time
1. e4 g6 - Modern defense
2. d4 Bg7 - played 89% of the time
3. Nc3 d6 - played 62% of the time
4. f4 Nf6 - Austrain attack, played 44% of the time, most common move. Overall this position is reached 24% of the time
Other less common move orders transpose too...
1. e4 g6 - Modern defense
2. d4 d6 - played 7% of the time, 2nd most common move
3. Nc3 Bg7 - 78% of the time
4. f4 Nf6 - Austrian attack, played 43% of the time. Overall this position is reached 2.3% of the time
1. e4 d6 - Pirc defense
2. d4 g6 - played 14% of the time, 2nd most popular move
3. Nc3 Bg7 - played 78% of the time
4. f4 Nf6 - Austrian attack, played 43% of the time. Overall this position is reached 4.6% of the time.
So the Pirc will reach the Austrian attack ~45% of the time, and the Modern will reach the Austrian attack ~26% of the time.
You claimed these "very rarely transpose". Very rarely - 26% is very rare? No.
And there's a significant percentage of people playing random garbage moves in these openings but you wouldn't study those anyway.
2) The point on the alapin is fair, I don't think it's worth playing the alapin to hope for a french, that will be rare.
3) But your points on the Nimzowitsch / Alekhine are nonsense, too. You claimed these will transpose "just about never"
1. e4 Nc6 2. Nc3 e5 - Vienna Game, Max Lange Defense - e5 is played 26% of the time
1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 - Vienna Game, Falkbeer Variation - e5 is played 22% of the time
Apparently 26% and 22% are "just about never"
If you're going to be arrogant then know what you're talking about.
Oh, ok. I haven't really heard those openings called that way. And I thought you meant something on the thread, other than my name lol