All the time. I played the Giuoco Piano or Ruy Lopez (well, sort of) when I first learned the game as a kid and it still feels comfortable to me.
Replying 1.e5 to 1.e4
Sort:
Yes, it has theory, but it is not significant. The normal openings (Italian game, Ruy lopez, Scotch game, etc) are easy to play as black, since they are about logical, quick and active development. Gambits can be hard to play, but you need to just learn a line against King's gambit, and evans gambit and you are ok, you need to play chess. (And of course the possibily is always there to decline a gambit.)
what scares me the most is the evans gambit.
It's not just the evans gambit you need to look out for - the scotch gambit and its cousins the goring gambit and danish gambit will be hard to deal with otb if you haven't prepared a line against them.
i will look it up through game explorer but black has to defend for a long time.
If you use the Petroff (2.Nf3 Nf6), you only need to prepare for the four knights (3.Nc3 Nc6), the bishop's opening (2.Bc4), the vienna game (2.Nc3) and the king's gambit (2.f4).
Super_Patate wrote:
If you use the Petroff (2.Nf3 Nf6), you only need to prepare for the four knights (3.Nc3 Nc6), the bishop's opening (2.Bc4), the vienna game (2.Nc3) and the king's gambit (2.f4).
what about 2. d4
All the time. The two reasons why there is so a lot of theory after 1. e4 e5 is: the opening was considered sound for a longer period of time then the other openings and Black has a lot playable options making White's task of obtaining an advantage difficult.
As Black, I usually focus on making solid development in the opening without worrying too much about what White is doing. If I put my pieces in good positions I feel like I can defend without too much stress. And sometimes an overly aggressive White will blunder and I have the opportunity to convert that into something tangible.
Most if not all of the gambits can be declined to good effect. I think Alekhine of all people had a similar motto but I could be wrong. The only gambit you are almost forced to grab is the Scotch gambit. There are lines with d6 that avoid it but White almost always has an advantage in those positions and you may not like that.
The Evans gambit can be declined and still lead to active play for both sides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svqGJuAzWuU
Here's something I discovred after switching from the sicilian to 1..e5.
While there's a lot of theory it all has a similar feel. For example I generally play lines as black where my bishop goes to c5 and many of the structures resemble each other. Since my knights usually land on c6 and f6 and my LSB has limited natural squares its logical that they should.
Compare this to the sicilian which has: open,closed, gran prix, SMG, alapin, maroczy etc all of which are nothing alike.
So my point is that 1..e5 theory, while heavy is easier to digest if you plan your repertoire well.
Just decline the evans. If you play the QGA its an extra + as it resemble some lines in it.
The most theory based opining is the scisilian
Would recommend this line against the Evans, blunts white's attack:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=65705936
Declining poses white no problems.
Does anyone here reply 1...e5 to 1.e4
I guess the only disadvantage to this reply is the colossal amount of theory involved. Maybe not at my level, but definitely it is a factor nonetheless.