# Why do you play the opening you do?

• #21
AssauIt wrote:

I play 1.Nf3 because I can transpose into all kinds of systems and dont need to play positions I don't like. I can also play very safe with it.

1.e4 e5 Berlin Endgame because I like endgames and it has an especially interesting one.

Against 1.d4 my repertoire choice is a bit weird, I play the Benko,Blumenfeld and vaganian gambits. The benko is like the unexpected child of my repertoire, I was having 3 main problems with my old one which featured the QGA.

1.Playing against an early d4 in the symetrical english, the vaganian gambit solved this
2.Playing the white side of 1.nf3 d5 2.c4 d4. I now transpose into a reverse benko,blumenfeld or a Nc6 benoni variation.
3.Move order issues as black against 1.Nf3, as I wanted to play a symmeteical english but after 1..c5 I was sometimes meeting 2.e4 and I would have to play sicilian, but now 1..Nf6 works as a good waiting move..

1.c4 c5 symmetrical english with a reverse maroczy bind and vaganian gambit.

What is the vaganian gambit?

• #22

I play sicilian opening and defense.

Why? Because i'm trying to master it.

• #23

Those are mostly defences not openings.

Openings are 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 etc.

• #24
GreenLeaf14 wrote:

What is the vaganian gambit?

Also called the Kasparov gambit can be reached in the symmetrical english or by transposition when white decliend to play 3.d5 in the benoni and instead plays 3.Nf3.

• #25
netzach wrote:

Those are mostly defences not openings.

Openings are 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 etc.

No, defences and attacks and gambits and so on are all openings.
Openings encompasses both black and whites play.

• #26
AssauIt wrote:
netzach wrote:

Those are mostly defences not openings.

Openings are 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 etc.

No, defences and attacks and gambits and so on are all openings.
Openings encompasses both black and whites play.

No.

Black does not open a chess-game. White does.

Blacks responses/options are 'defences'.

Sicilian and Benoni openings simply do not exist in chess.terminology though of course those defences do.

• #27

• #28
netzach wrote:
AssauIt wrote:
netzach wrote:

Those are mostly defences not openings.

Openings are 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 etc.

No, defences and attacks and gambits and so on are all openings.
Openings encompasses both black and whites play.

No.

Black does not open a chess-game. White does.

Blacks responses/options are 'defences'.

Sicilian and Benoni openings simply do not exist in chess.terminology though of course those defences do.

They are still openings, defences and attacks are subsets of opening variations.

• #29

White opens a chess-game. Not black.

• #30
AssauIt wrote:
netzach wrote:
AssauIt wrote:
netzach wrote:

Those are mostly defences not openings.

Openings are 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 etc.

No, defences and attacks and gambits and so on are all openings.
Openings encompasses both black and whites play.

No.

Black does not open a chess-game. White does.

Blacks responses/options are 'defences'.

Sicilian and Benoni openings simply do not exist in chess.terminology though of course those defences do.

They are still openings, defences and attacks are subsets of opening variations.

Black cannot 'open' a chess-game.

Is impossible as white plays first.

Provide name, ECO, and link pls that specifies 'opening' for black. (eg: Sicilian opening)

• #31

If you are palying 1.d4 then that is indeed fact as you begin as white.

You cannot choose to 'open' sicilian-defence' with black if your white-opponent opens  1.b3 or something else.

That is why they are called 'defenses' Bladezii.

• #32
netzach wrote:

If you are palying 1.d4 then that is indeed fact as you begin as white.

You cannot choose to 'open' sicilian-defence' with black if your white-opponent opens  1.b3 or something else.

That is why they are called 'defenses' Bladezii.

'Defence' is the terminology used to denote blacks opening response to whites opening play. They are both openings. Do you consider the Kings indian attack or the Kings gambit not openings because they do not specifically say 'opening' at the end?

I hope you're trolling.

• #33

I play my choice of openings purely for fun.

• #34

Okay, here we go:

As White: 1.d4, mostly with big mainlines. Why? Because they often give me a significant edge right away, and because 1.e4 mainlines are simply too much work. More specifically:

Catalan vs the QGD and 1...Nf6 2.c4 e6. Why? Because it avoids the Nimzo, leads to an interesting strategic game, and is a nice change from the QGD exchange variation -- which though good for White, gets old after a while.

Bogo Catalan: because it is unavoidable for Catalan players who play 3.g3.

Fianchetto variation vs the Modern Benoni: Again I cannot avoid this with White after 1...Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 unless I want to play a symmetrical English, and as a Benoni player I see no reason to shy away from it with White.

Accept + g3/Bg2 vs Benko Gambit: I cannot remember the name of this line, but it is quite challenging for Benko players and keeps a lot of pieces on the board early on, which reduces the chances of me ending up in one of those horrible endings where I have an extra pawn but Black has all the pressure.

Mainline with 5.a4/6.Ne5 vs the Slav: because it gives great chances for an edge and is interesting.

5.Bg5 vs the Semi-Slav, heading for the Botvinnik variation or Anti-Moscow Gambit (unless Black chickens out): strong principled play by White, theoretically challenging for Black, and fun games make 5.Bg5 worth the effort it takes to learn. I just wish I got to play it more often.

5.c5 vs the Chebanenko Slav: because it is recommended in the repertoire book I use. Not sure how much I like it, but I still seem to do alright.

Mainline with cxd5/g3/Bg2 vs the Tarrasch: a strong and logical way to play against Black's IQP.

Russian System vs the Grunfeld: gives White a nice stable/strong center, and good chances for an attack in the center or kingside. Also less work than the exchange variation and just as good as far as I am concerned.

Samisch vs the KID: Great attacking chances on the kingside in many lines, but also a nice space advantage in the center. It is also nice because it challenges Black while avoiding the massive kingside attacks that come about in some of the Mar de Plata lines.

Set-up with c4/d5/e4/f3/Be3/Qd2/0-0-0/g4 etc. vs the Old Indian: because it is simple and good and often offers similar play to the Samisch KID. I also often use this type of set-up against the Czech Benoni and other closed systems where White has a big space advantage.

2.Bg5 vs the Dutch: A strong opening that gives Black many chances to go wrong. I don't mind the mainlines against the Leningrad and Classical but prefer to avoid the Stonewall when I can, and this is a great way to do it.

3.e4 vs the QGA: Strong, principled and fits with my theme of grabbing center space. Enough said.

So that is basically it for White, I left out some minor systems I know, but I really don't care.

On to Black (I play a lot of different openings with Black, unlike White where I am concise):

Vs. 1.e4:

Sicilian Najdorf: Great theoretically, great for playing for a win, fun, and played consistently by the best players in chess history. The only downside is the large body of theory, but at club level I usually get away with half-assing it.

Sicilian Sveshnikov: Leads to fascinating positions which are great fun to analyze. Is also pretty bad-ass because it is still hard for White to prove a tangible edge despite the fact that Black violates so many strategic principles. I don't play it a lot though because it is tough to play well in some lines, and in others it seems like White often has the choice to simplify into some drawn ending if he wants to. So this is one of the few openings that I have probably spent more time learning than actually playing.

Caro-Kann: Solid and reliable, yet can still be aggressive in some lines. It is more forgiving than the Sicilian most of the time, so is nice to have for when I don't want a really sharp game, or when I don't feel like trying to remember a bunch of Sicilian theory.

French: I basically only play this because I find the Winawer such an interesting line to play/study. Unfortunately I get the exchange variation way too often, so I have more-or-less stopped playing this altogether for now.

Against 1.d4:

Modern Benoni: Fun, sharp, and relatively low theory. I do very well with this opening too, especially in blitz, so it is a tough when to give up!

Slav: Still quite new to this, but it is a nice contrast to the sharp Modern Benoni. The mainlines are interesting for both sides, though the exchange variation is kind of annoying (not as much as the French exchange though). I also like that I can use similar set-ups against 1.Nf3 and the English, which isn't really true of the Modern Benoni.

Leningrad Dutch: I played this a lot in the past and am slowly taking it up again. It is a great when you need to avoid a draw with Black, or when you don't want to give White many chances to kill off the game. It is fun too, and at club level I see no reason why something similar but more theoretical, such as the KID, should be preferred. Oh, and it has a cool name as well!

Against 1.c4 I play 1...c6 with a Slav in mind.

Against 1.Nf3 I play 1...d5 also with a Slav in mind.

So yeah that is pretty much it, I am not going to bother posting what I play against the Grob and whatnot because I don't really know for sure, and because I don't really care to spend any more time on this long posting.

• #35

Netzach's drunk again

• #36

My repertoire is a secret like victoria's

• #37

For white i play the queen's gambit and the Evans gambit. For black I play the Old Sicilian and the smith Morra gambit,sometimes 1...d6

• #38
Nicholas2002GM wrote:

For white i play the queen's gambit and the Evans gambit. For black I play the Old Sicilian and the smith Morra gambit,sometimes 1...d6

I see why you are a GM, you are the first person in history to successfully dictate the Smith Morra gambit as Black

• #39

230thompson, I only have a fide rating of 1123

or

Online Now