If I meet 1.Nf3 with 1...e6, the game will not become a Reti.
What do you play against the Reti (1.Nf3) and why?
Sort:
Here are some books that discuss ideas involving 1 Nf3:
Starting Out: The Reti by Neil McDonald (2010).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627101228/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen131.pdf
The Dynamic Reti by GM Nigel Davies (2004)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627005248/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen64.pdf
A Strategic Opening Repertoire (2nd edition) by John Donaldson & Carsten Hansen (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708085221/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review619.pdf
The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White by Larry Kaufman (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626221508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen162.pdf
and, of course, there are The King's Indian attack - Move by Move by GM Neil McDonald (2014) and Starting Out: King's Indian Attack by John Emms (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627034051/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen81.pdf
d5 cuz I can
CoolChess2006 wrote:
d5 cuz I can
Thank you. That's precisely how I want you to respond to 1. Nf3!
SmyslovFan wrote:
How many of those books discuss Black's best option against 1.Nf3?
To answer that question, wouldn't one have to know the best option?
It might be worth mentioning that white has made a few minor concessions by 1Nf3,namely he has given up on the Samisch in case of a KID and he cannot go for a Q gambit exchange with the N on e2.As regards the most reliable responses,I would think anything except 1..d5,1..Nf6 and 1..c5,strictly speaking,should be considered suboptimal.
Oct 25, 2015
0
#49
ylblai2 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
How many of those books discuss Black's best option against 1.Nf3?
To answer that question, wouldn't one have to know the best option?
My point was that all of the books you referenced cover the opening from White's perspective and none give any recommendation regarding the best line for Black.
There are some repertoire books that do give recommendations for Black against 1.Nf3, but those are usually general books that give only a few chapters to the opening.
One book, by Richard Palliser, gives Black three basic options, 1...c5, 1...d5, and 1...Nf6 with the idea of playing a King's Indian.
http://www.amazon.com/Beating-Unusual-Chess-Openings-Annoying/dp/1857444299/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
There are other books that also provide repertoire advice, but the problem for most authors is that 1.Nf3 is too amorphous to give a single good answer.
The best reply to 1.Nf3, as Palliser points out, is probably going to depend on what Black plays against 1.d4.
Neil McDonald, for instance, recommends the Modern Defense as a good weapon against 1.Nf3 and 1.d4, but in another book recommends 1...f5 against 1.Nf3.
Stefan Djuric has explained that there's no single answer to the question posed at the beginning of this thread. Each player must answer the question for himself (Chess Opening Essentials vol. 4 p. 5) http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Opening-Essentials-Stefan-Djuric/dp/9056913085/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445832864&sr=1-8&keywords=Reti+Black
I do believe that reading opening repertoire books designed for the opposite side (in this case, the White side of 1.Nf3) can be useful, but those books are not designed to answer the basic question.
I recommend checking out Palliser's book, and considering what Black plays against 1.d4. If Black plays the Queen's Gambit or Slav as Black, 1...d5 is a good consistent choice. If Black prefers King's Indians or Grunfelds, 1...Nf6 followed by g6 makes sense. Palliser spends quite a bit of space discussing a system with a pawn structure based around c5-d6-e5- and g6 to combat the Symmetrical English lines. That would be another good active choice for Grunfeld players.
1...d5 is fine for Queen's gambit players, 1...c5 is fine for Sicilian players, and 1...Nf6 is fine for flank openi8ngs players. I also think the unusual 1...b6!? is a good reply.
Oct 26, 2015
0
#51
electric_limes wrote:
It might be worth mentioning that white has made a few minor concessions by 1Nf3,namely he has given up on the Samisch in case of a KID and he cannot go for a Q gambit exchange with the N on e2.As regards the most reliable responses,I would think anything except 1..d5,1..Nf6 and 1..c5,strictly speaking,should be considered suboptimal.
But he has prevented the Budapest, woohoo
G0INGP0STAL wrote:
electric_limes wrote:
It might be worth mentioning that white has made a few minor concessions by 1Nf3,namely he has given up on the Samisch in case of a KID and he cannot go for a Q gambit exchange with the N on e2.As regards the most reliable responses,I would think anything except 1..d5,1..Nf6 and 1..c5,strictly speaking,should be considered suboptimal.
But he has prevented the Budapest, woohoo
You are not a candidate master,yet you consider the Budapest "a smoldering pile of manure".
Oct 26, 2015
0
#53
electric_limes wrote:
G0INGP0STAL wrote:
electric_limes wrote:
It might be worth mentioning that white has made a few minor concessions by 1Nf3,namely he has given up on the Samisch in case of a KID and he cannot go for a Q gambit exchange with the N on e2.As regards the most reliable responses,I would think anything except 1..d5,1..Nf6 and 1..c5,strictly speaking,should be considered suboptimal.
But he has prevented the Budapest, woohoo
You are not a candidate master,yet you consider the Budapest "a smoldering pile of manure".
A. I'm a correspondence expert who has played in the qualifiers for the US Championship
B. The above does not matter. If somebody 1000 points lower than me said, I used to experiment with the Latvian Gambit, but have since come to the conclusion that it is a smoldering pile of manure, I would praise them for their enlightenment.
Oct 26, 2015
0
#54
As a correspondence expert, you should probably have recognized the difference in quality between the Latvian, which is close to losing in CC and the Budapest which is a bit passive but almost impossible to break down in CC.
I play 1..d5 since I am happy with QG style positions. Must say that when I first came against 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 I played dxc4 as I was just starting to learn the QGA. Now realise that 2..d4 is better. 1.Nf3 blocks the f pawn so many f3 or f4 setups become useless.
I play 1...f5, transpose into some kind of dutch defense. I am happy with it because with nf3 being played, white can't play some sort of reverse from's gambit.
G0INGP0STAL wrote:
electric_limes wrote:
G0INGP0STAL wrote:
electric_limes wrote:
It might be worth mentioning that white has made a few minor concessions by 1Nf3,namely he has given up on the Samisch in case of a KID and he cannot go for a Q gambit exchange with the N on e2.As regards the most reliable responses,I would think anything except 1..d5,1..Nf6 and 1..c5,strictly speaking,should be considered suboptimal.
But he has prevented the Budapest, woohoo
You are not a candidate master,yet you consider the Budapest "a smoldering pile of manure".
A. I'm a correspondence expert who has played in the qualifiers for the US Championship
B. The above does not matter. If somebody 1000 points lower than me said, I used to experiment with the Latvian Gambit, but have since come to the conclusion that it is a smoldering pile of manure, I would praise them for their enlightenment.
A correspondence expert? In other words - You don't really belong in this discussion. Big difference between a FIDE 90+30 OTB and you digging through a database to find your next move.
Correspondence expert. Lol. You say it like you didn't just make that up on the fly. Like it's an actual thing. Unreal.
SmyslovFan wrote (about 13 hours ago):
My point was that all of the books you referenced cover the opening from White's perspective and none give any recommendation regarding the best line for Black.
There are some repertoire books that do give recommendations for Black against 1.Nf3, but those are usually general books that give only a few chapters to the opening.
One book, by Richard Palliser, gives Black three basic options, ...
I already suggested the Palliser book in my post #44, about 37 hours ago. I thought it might be of some interest to look at the books that 1 Nf3 players might be reading. You seem to agree that "reading opening repertoire books designed for the opposite side (in this case, the White side of 1.Nf3) can be useful".
I have read all of your posts, and it is my pleasure, as someone who plays the Reti almost exclusively, to set the record straight. First of all the Reti is not uncommittal. See, most players play either 1.d4 or 1.e4 and play and know the traditional defenses to each. When I play 1.Nf3 I know I do not need to contend with any open king pawn games (GOOD!!), No Queen Gambit games (even better) and will not face The Benko, Nimzo, French, Sicilian, Pirc, Benoni, or Caro-Khan. Black is off line. Now, black can transpose into an English ( and if I allow it the K.I.D), but every Reti player knows that and is prepared to play the English at anytime, but he'd rather not. If white really wanted the English, he would have just played 1.c4 in the first place. I have played over 1000 Reti games and probably as many English games, and I can hardly remember if I ever opened with 1.c4! What the Reti player wants is either 1..d5, 1..e6, 1..c6, 1..Nc6, 1.Nf6, 1..g6, or 1..f5. What he doesn't want is 1..c5 or 1..b6. See, I want the Reti, not the English and I'd rather not trade light bishops. White can also transpose into a reversed Grunfeld, or the incredibly flexible K.I.A. If you really want to see how the Reti should be played at the highest level, check out games by GM Daniel Hausrath and GM Teimour Radjabov.
stDvy wrote:
I have read all of your posts, and it is my pleasure, as someone who plays the Reti almost exclusively, to set the record straight. First of all the Reti is not uncommittal. See, most players play either 1.d4 or 1.e4 and play and know the traditional defenses to each. When I play 1.Nf3 I know I do not need to contend with any open king pawn games (GOOD!!), No Queen Gambit games (even better) and will not face The Benko, Nimzo, French, Sicilian, Pirc, Benoni, or Caro-Khan. Black is off line. Now, black can transpose into an English ( and if I allow it the K.I.D), but every Reti player knows that and is prepared to play the English at anytime, but he'd rather not. If white really wanted the English, he would have just played 1.c4 in the first place. I have played over 1000 Reti games and probably as many English games, and I can hardly remember if I ever opened with 1.c4! What the Reti player wants is either 1..d5, 1..e6, 1..c6, 1..Nc6, 1.Nf6, 1..g6, or 1..f5. What he doesn't want is 1..c5 or 1..b6. See, I want the Reti, not the English and I'd rather not trade light bishops. White can also transpose into a reversed Grunfeld, or the incredibly flexible K.I.A. If you really want to see how the Reti should be played at the highest level, check out games by GM Daniel Hausrath and GM Teimour Radjabov.
I disagree.
I do not believe 1.Nf3 players are so scared of seeing 1...c5 or 1...b6.
1...c5 and 1...b6 are playable moves of course.
However, I believe 1...d5 is more demanding.
1...d5 is Classical Chess at its finest.
I do sometimes play hypermodernly with lines similar to the Gruenfeld from time to time against 1.Nf3
However, I always start with 1...d5 than see how the position transpires.
1...g5 The hideous Beta-Weidenhagen-Gambit
After move one White is out of book...i scored pretty well with this crap