Learning to play the black side of 1.e4 e5 - a complicated guiocco piano

Tell me any improvements!

thanks

I don't get the comment to 4... a6 that white should play 5. Nxe5. How is white supposed to continue if black simply recaptures 5... Nxe5 when he is a piece up and also threatening the c4 bishop.

However, I agree that 4... a6? is probably a mistake since fast development is usually top priority in these positions - therefore 4... Nf6 is normal. After 4... a6? one interesting possibility for white could be 5. d4!? sacrificing a pawn to further speed up his development. Since white is better developped already and black is two moves away from castling, it makes sence for white to open up the position like this.

@ shakaali:

after 5. Nxe5! Nxe5 6. d4! white regains the piece. The point was that after white castled, black can not interpose with 5...Bxf2+ because after 6. Rxf2, white has just benefitted from the exchanges.

I merely suggest that an alternate move order, one starting with ..d6 then ..a6 is more accurate (should black insist on this setup)

4. ...a6 is waaaay too slow in an open game where black is still unable to castle. It seems to call out for 5. d4, which opens control of g5 for the Knight and puts the Bishop in play. Against a much weaker player, maybe even 6. c3 could be considered. One way or another, black should be toast after a6.

If you want to get a good intro to open games, you can get the cheap Dover reprint book Morphy's Games of Chess, which covers the golden age of rapid development and daring sacs. Double king-pawn games can be really sharp and exciting...sometimes not in a good way.

Your fear of being black in the Two-Knights defense (3...Nf6) is unfounded. True, you do sacrifice a pawn after 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 (the most common continuation) black starts the counterpunch with 8...h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Bd6 11. d4 exd3 12. Nxd3 0-0... and so on. There are plenty of deviations and footnotes in between, but for his crummy pawn, Black gets plenty of open lines (b, d & e files) and a Bishop pair aimed at White's King side.

For all his bother, White has almost no development and has to scramble to not get swamped. Most analyses of this say that Black has compensation for the material.

Also, if you are wary of being Black in the Two Knights, you had better come up with a reply to the Evans Gambit (3. ... Bc5 4. b4). I don't want to scare you away from the Open Games, but a combination of study and practice should give you some good experience in these positions and more confidence in them.

just to clear up some confusion

oops :)

while the traxler certainly looks REALLY fun, isn't it supposed to be unsound?

Maybe if your idea of fun is to spend hours of your time looking over reams of variations in a tactical mess.

As an above post mentioned 3..Nf6 is the move, if you don't really know the theory. Black gains the initiative for a pawn and his game is way easier to play than whites. Because 3..Bc5 runs into both 4. b4 and 4. d4 which are again both tactical messes.

but which variation is ok for black, the pawn sacrifice with ..Na5 or ..Nd5? I thought both really are refuted.

Yeah Nxd5 isn't good, and Na5 has also been refuted according to some GM's, but at the sub rybka level it's completely playable.

The Traxler is good for an active game for Black with lots of room for White to screw up. White has to take with the Bishop and then back out right away. Black gets pressure on the K-side.

As for all this about the Na5 lines being busted, I hope not, because I've lost quite a few postal games as White against it. Wouldn't I feel silly!   

I've never heard that the Na5 line in the two knights defence is refuted. Who claims that?

Hard to know where to begin...

Just because the opening moves 1. e4 e5 are symmetrical, it doesn't mean that the resulting positions are logical and symmetrical. Very often they are anything but. The White gets a little bit more laxity to decide what kind of game he/she prefers though. 3. ...Nf6 does not give the Black a messy tactical game by force since the White is not obliged to go running for the pawn that is offered. He/she can perfectly reasonably reply with 4. d3 avoiding the complications, or they can try 4. d4 offering their own gambit. Then again a White player who is good at endgame might be perfectly okay with giving up the initiative for a pawn. The key is for the Black player to be flexible, be prepared to play either a sharp tactical game or a more positional one as needed, and not start imagining that they have won the game on move 3.

na5 is far from refuted (it is what I play). na5 is really the reason that ng5 isn't played that much, gives black the play that white should have by right. Both Jessie Crie (GM) and Josh Freidel (GM) seem to think the same (Chess lecture.com).

jesse krai? (I've seen him at a CA tournament! :O

I think Hikaru Nakamura found a line with Bd3 that gave a significant opening edge to white. it seems that the resulting c6 pawn is just a weakness, and white can develop pieces after all.

logical and symmetrical on move 1, but from there on obviously it can not be completely symmetrical. >.<

pvmike up above said that Na5 was no good, though playable "sub rybka"

People say the whackiest stuff on line. It's easy to do when no one knows who you are and no one can call you out on it. Na5 rules!

I hope.

Haha in the past I have had some success with the fritz variation (Nd4) but I think that is more dubious than the Na5 line...

According to my database, after 3. Bc4 Nf6 is chosen more often than 3... Bc5 is.

So is there anyway I can call, or maybe do a massmail to all chess grandmasters? I got to tell them that it has been refuted. They gotta stop playing this crap or they will never improve!