Explain the power in your Openings!

Explain why you think your opening is awesome and include some chess diagrams and variations to illustrate your point! show some games if you have any where you did well with that opening! you can post more than one of your favorites! 

and most importantly, have fun! :)

and if you think of anything more, you can edit it! :)

1.c4!! :)

It has extremely high transpositional lines, and even  some original english ones!

spainsh opening

1. Nf3 is even more flexible than the English. Black often is less familiar with it than c4, and although it often transposes into the English, you can create random variations (often actually very sound!) to confuse your opponent.

dwaxe wrote:

1. Nf3 is even more flexible than the English. Black often is less familiar with it than c4, and although it often transposes into the English, you can create random variations (often actually very sound!) to confuse your opponent.

That's a matter of taste. Some would find not having the option of placing the knight on e2 or h3 as "inflexible".

Nimzo33 wrote:

dwaxe wrote:

1. Nf3 is even more flexible than the English. Black often is less familiar with it than c4, and although it often transposes into the English, you can create random variations (often actually very sound!) to confuse your opponent.

That's a matter of taste. Some would find not having the option of placing the knight on e2 or h3 as "inflexible".

You should change your name then, because in that case you don't deserve the name "Nimzo."

i love the traxler counter attack because everybody thinks it is a blunder.

dwaxe wrote:

Nimzo33 wrote:

dwaxe wrote:

1. Nf3 is even more flexible than the English. Black often is less familiar with it than c4, and although it often transposes into the English, you can create random variations (often actually very sound!) to confuse your opponent.

That's a matter of taste. Some would find not having the option of placing the knight on e2 or h3 as "inflexible".

You should change your name then, because in that case you don't deserve the name "Nimzo."

? your post makes absolutely no sense, which is highlighted by your lack of explanation.

a.) How does Nimzowitsch fit into this conversation? I don't particular remember him scorning knight maneuvers to e2 and h3.

b.) Perhaps you are talking of the opening Nimzowitsch is mostly notably known for, The Nimzo-Indian? If that is the case, then you are STILL completely off topic. For one, the nimzo-indian starts off with the QUEEN's knight, and even then White's king's knight is often placed on e2 in some lines.

c.) What makes you the judge as to whether someone's username fits? Nimzowitsch is one of my favorite players, and that alone I believe would warrant the use of "Nimzo" in my username.

Mebeme, this is not the Queen's gambit:

This is worse for black than any Queen's gambit line. It is sort of the Queen's gambit with white to play or a premature attempt at the Grunfeld. White can simply play 3.cxd5, and after either capture, chase away the piece. Black cannot even transpose to the Grunfeld after 3...g6, as white now has 4.Qa4+ causing more problems for black with a white pawn now on d5. Otherwise, white can just play 4.Nc3 and 5.e4, and get away with murder.

Nimzo33, I agree with Dwaxe here. I think you need to do some research on your name.

TonightOnly wrote:

Nimzo33, I agree with Dwaxe here. I think you need to do some research on your name.

Yet again, a claim against me with absolutely no explanation. Nimzowitsch is one of my favorite players, how does that relate to me not deserving my handle?

I was merely contesting dwaxe's proposal that 1.Nf3 is more flexible than 1. c4, which I do not entirely agree with (as I believe some players would prefer the flexibility of the knight going to any one of it's first three beginning moves.) Why do I not deserve the name "Nimzo" merely because of this?

ANY explanation would be helpful, as I do not feel like reading up on the whole history of hypermodern chess, or intensely study Nimzowitsch's style merely because some people do not believe I deserve my handle... 

whoa chill out people just post yer openings so i can learn

I prefer "the quiet 1.b3",

Added note on 1.Nf3: I think that's the opening of "Nimzovich Attack" -

Variation I

1 Nf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e4!? dxe4 4 Ne5

018 IA 4...Qd4? 5 Bb2

026 IB 4...Nf6 5 Bb2

043 IC 4...Nd7

Variation II

1 Nf3 d5 2 b3 Nf6 3 Bb2 c5 4 e4 Nxe4 5 Bb5+

062 IIA 5 ...Bd7 6 Bxd7+ Qxd7 7 Ne5

075 IIB 5...Nc6 6 Ne5 Qc7

082 IIC 5...Nd7

... while 1.b3, 2.Nf3 is the Nimzo-Larsen Attack.

I apologize for disturbing the thread in the way I did, and also if it seems as if I lost my temper. I was just offended by what <dwaxe> said and shocked that both <dwaxe> and <tonightonly> believe my name to be ill-deserved (which I don't think it is.) 

<dwaxe>, <tonightonly> if you still feel I do not deserve my handle (for whatever reason) then lets keep this private, so please message me instead about it.

Back to the topic... I've played both 1. Nf3 and 1. c4, enjoying them both. However, I currently play 1. c4 as I'm fond of many set-ups that involve white's king knight e2. One being the botvinnik set-up for the english: 1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. e4 0-0?! (Bxc3 is actually more proper so as white does not have the option to recapture with a knight, but I wanted to show a completed "set-up") 6. Nge2 and I would enjoy playing white's position. White has the option of expanding on the both flanks via b4 or f4, so it really leaves much to the mind when forming a plan.

edit: <mainstreet>, 1. Nf3 is really just a blank page that could transpose to a variety of openings (i.e. not the "nimzovich attack" but could transpose to it). Yes, of course it could transpose to the "nimzovich-larsen" attack via 2. b3, but frankly, if that is the reason why my handle is not deserved, then... wow, I'm speechless. Guess all bogoliubov fans who prefer the queen's indian over the bogo-indian should be shot, huh?

1. d4 d5

2. c4 Nf6

Is the Marshall Variation of the Queen's gambit, as you said it ain't so good but a word of caution. After cxd5 Nxd5...e4 is given the dubious notation (?!) so I guess the Marshall variation has some pitfalls for white. Oh and don't take my word for it, just ask Wikipedia!

Nimzo, I'm sort of curious what the fuss is about the name as well, but remember its easy to misinterpret what someone means on the internet. Just be careful not to overreact to a comment that was meant as a joke or a playful jab.  Anyway, you said some people might prefer Ne2 or Nh3, not that you do..so if the nimzo comment was serious it was stupid.

But for one thing, Nf3 is prbably more flexible than c4 because you still have the option of rerouting the knight to g1 (dumb or not). Once you play c4, that pawn is not coming back.

Chess_Lobster wrote:

Nimzo, I'm sort of curious what the fuss is about the name as well, but remember its easy to misinterpret what someone means on the internet. Just be careful not to overreact to a comment that was meant as a joke or a playful jab.  Anyway, you said some people might prefer Ne2 or Nh3, not that you do..so if the nimzo comment was serious it was stupid.

But for one thing, Nf3 is prbably more flexible than c4 because you still have the option of rerouting the knight to g1 (dumb or not). Once you play c4, that pawn is not coming back.

The exact quote that got to me was "You should change your name then, because in that case you don't deserve the name "Nimzo." which doesn't seem like a joke to me. I will admit that I probably overreacted, but I still believe that comment was ill-deserved.

It's not like I said 1.Nf3 is inflexible, just that 1. c4 could be just as flexible depending on the taste of a player. You, for example prefer 1.Nf3 since it doesn't commit anything, but I on the other hand prefer 1. c4 since it doesn't commit my king's knight right away. Sure, 1.Nf3 can be re-routed, but If I'm already an english player, then 1. c4 would offer me the flexibility I want. In a sense, 1. Nf3 is less flexible "for me" as c4 is almost always part of my opening, while 1.Nf3 would require me to lose two moves if I wish to have a set-up involving a Ne2.

fzweb wrote:

d4, and I'll explain why.

Less expected than e4. Many in my school always play e4 and expect e5, even the best! Beginners will be like that.

Less book line memorization. With e4, there's the Sicilian, Caro-Kann, Ruy Lopez, French, etc. And many more in each of those defences or games. d4 has Nf6 and d5 as only good moves.

For similar reasons, I started playing 1.d4. There is a lot of theory with 1.d4 available, but I have found that adopting the Catalan opening in response to openings with . . .e6 simplifies things. For one, you can eschew the whole body of theory with the Nimzo-Indian.

Some people like 1.d4 because the Sicilian is so effective against 1.e4.

Yeah I know what you mean I'm not saying it was a joke, but I find its always better to give someone the benefit of the doubt on the internet (Which by the way Im not trying to preach a sermon to you)

I never actually play Nf3 or c4 to be honest, so I guess the definition of flexible depends on what your looking for in an opening, but yeah its sort of funny, I guess they'd have to rename Nimzowisch himself if he played Ne2 ever?

Nimzo33 wrote:

TonightOnly wrote:

Nimzo33, I agree with Dwaxe here. I think you need to do some research on your name.

Yet again, a claim against me with absolutely no explanation. Nimzowitsch is one of my favorite players, how does that relate to me not deserving my handle?

Whoa whoa, I wasn't "making a claim against you." I guess I shouldn't have added the "I agree with Dwaxe part." You took it to mean that I agreed with everything he said! I didn't say that you were somehow undeserving of your name. I explained myself: You seem to misunderstand Nimzowitsch's contribution to the chess world and the general nomenclature surrounding his name, so, I thought maybe some research would be called for.

The post seems more accusatory in retrospect, and I withdraw any statements or implications that you might have found offensive. It is your choice if you want to research Nimzowitsch or not. I will stay out of it.