I like to play the French, mostly because I know most white players hate to play against it. Plus the Sicillian is way more complex, and most e4 players are better prepared for the Sicillian than the French.
And while yes, the French starts out "closed", it rarely stays that way for long. Usually, you end up better in the center, I find.
Sicilian.
I like to play the French, mostly because I know most white players hate to play against it. Plus the Sicillian is way more complex, and most e4 players are better prepared for the Sicillian than the French.
And while yes, the French starts out "closed", it rarely stays that way for long. Usually, you end up better in the center, I find.
I love playing against the French, not because I necessarily score well, but because the ideas are clear and the plan is simple; I exclusively play the Tarrash. Defend against pressure on the D4 pawn, and if that it is not possible exchange it. Develop light squared bishop to d3. Dark squared bishop is useful where it is because it helps f4 and f5 pawn push, gaining space, which is what I usually play for. Finally, and throughout, neutralise black's queenside pressure( which is the trickiest part), and eventually penetrate on the kingside.
Plus, there is always the chance that black castles into on of the two greek gift patterns.
oh, and importantly, cut out that impulsive, early QG4 bulls***.
and as for the main question, I, for one, still play D5. I know a few tricks to unbalance the position. Except in the four knights opening. God, I hate that opening.
e4? I opt for Alekhine's defence.
Hi guys,
Sicilian, Sicilian, Sicilian. But, to be honest, sometimes I get really tired of playing the Sicilian.
Watch your back rank.
The Scandinavian fails to excite me, but I enjoy playing against it on account of the results. White wins.
Because most people that play the Scandinavian are hoping that the shock value of the opening and the careless-inducing euphoria of thinking you have a won game from move one will destroy White's ability to play well. If someone knows how to handle the Scandinavian, it can be harder to crack than you think. I play it all the time OTB to great effect, walking away with at least a draw more often than not, and yes, many people don't know theory, and normal looking moves for White can be hazardous to his health. I play the 3...Qd6 move order, with a 5...a6 or 5...c6 (with intention of ...e6 and a Caro-Slav pawn structure), and if you know the critical positions that have literally one correct move, many White players, even strong ones, are going to find getting the full point is going to be more difficult than they think. The Scandi is a very underrated opening, and because of that, can be very, very dangerous with someone educated in it's complexities. Don't knock the opening because most of the people you have played only play this opening because they're scared of theory-impacted openings like the Ruy or the Sicilian, or the Caro and French for that matter.
My general replies to 1.e4 are mostly the Sicilian and the French. I prefer these openings because they are my type, I generally likes open positions where I can attack. But for people who play closed positions, I would prefer a different opening. I don't mind the Caro-Kann either, it is also very popular and commonly used.
These are just my thoughts. They're all good if you ask me, but which one is better?
You like open positions and French?! My impression is that among all the major replies against e4 the French is the one that most likely leads to closed positions with fixed pawn chains.
Um, if I'm hell bent on winning i choose the opening that i think my opponent is weaker at. There is a reason I can go see their past games. And I try very hard to force a line that works to their weakness and my advantage.
All 3 openings are sound and solid. I'm really not sure what you're looking for here. Who cares what I prefer unless you intend on playing me. Then you should care. It's what the masters do and I believe it's good enough for us weak players.
Thats the game as its recorded in my chessbase...I think the guy is often overrated to be totally honest lol...but ok it was a long time ago that he played, he didnt have the benefit of so many things we have today that make us better.
Neither Kasparov nor Fischer thought Morphy was overrated... I tend to think their combined opinion is pretty solid on chess related matters.
Chessgames.com shows that game as an odds game with Morphy playing without either a queenside rook or knight (tremendous, ridiculous, silly odds). But one of the kibitzers raises the exact same point I raised about the Rg3(?)... another kibitzer says other sources list this game as a victory for Morphy... perhaps morphy played sloppy in this odds game, perhaps he actually won it. hard to say. Perhaps batgirl has an opinion.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1238133
closed games always might have some potential to open up eventually.
this is all very convoluted imo lol.
im not really sure what your asking or why you are associating open games to the french or siclian. and closed games to 'something else'. Its commonly understood that if black is looking for an open game he plays 1...e5. I would agree if you say this doesnt necessarily create an open game, but I do think its a little harder for white ro profitably keep the position closed than other first move responses (especially the french! lol wtf?)
but you dont even mention 1..e5 which just seems bizarre to me.
The odd part for me is that he throws the French defense in the same league with the Sicilian and says he likes them because "he likes to attack". I can understand that the Sicilian is a very sharp attacking opening but the French? I'm not French defence expert but I am positive this is classified as a "positional\maneuvering" rather than an attacking opening. The only one doing the attacking in the French is the white pieces.
Clearly you've never played a poison pawn winawer...
Black has the option to play aggressive, attacking lines against practically any white setup in the french.
Thats the game as its recorded in my chessbase...I think the guy is often overrated to be totally honest lol...but ok it was a long time ago that he played, he didnt have the benefit of so many things we have today that make us better.
The scandinavian is fine. I used to have a hard time maintaining a good position against it until i discovered 3. d4...now i really like my positions against it and they last longer. a couple years ago i saw a brilliant game by nissipeanu, beating topolov in the scandinavian...its not as bad or as passive as its reputation imo.
Wow !! What to say ?! Such chess titans as Fischer, Kasparov and Botvinnik sang the praises of Paul Morphy and certainly did NOT think he was overrated but a lowly C class player ( under 1600 otb ) thinks he was !? Who to believe eh ? Well, its not a difficult choice for me, what about you ? 
Thats the game as its recorded in my chessbase...I think the guy is often overrated to be totally honest lol...but ok it was a long time ago that he played, he didnt have the benefit of so many things we have today that make us better.
The scandinavian is fine. I used to have a hard time maintaining a good position against it until i discovered 3. d4...now i really like my positions against it and they last longer. a couple years ago i saw a brilliant game by nissipeanu, beating topolov in the scandinavian...its not as bad or as passive as its reputation imo.
Ok, I just have to ask. Does this mean you believe all of us here are better than Morphy was ? Who is it that you think was better than Morphy was ?
CAro-Kann
Sicilian kan amd white is lost
Too hypermodern for the Hypermoderns: the Pirc.
I see you didnt answer my questions. You believe we are better than Morphy was ? You believe you are better than Morphy was ? Have you even read what such chess titans as Kasparov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca and Lasker have said about Morphy ? Do you understand that those chess titans have a LOT more chess "credentials " than anyone on this server has ?
i play the sicilian and the french with equal regularity these days.
Generally it's the sicilian vs. weaker players and the french vs. stronger players when I don't feel confident in my sicilian, or just for a change of pace.
The poison pawn winawer is the greatest variation ever.
edit: The poison pawn najdorf aint bad either.