1. c4 d5
This opening gets a one-page mention in Schiller's "unorthodox openings" book, though I don't have that book.
Any other books that mention it? I have 4 books on the English Opening, but none of the authors mention this variation. I'm guessing they consider it garbage not worth covering.
I welcome any feedback.
i think its bad if black plans on retaking with the queen right away..then white can develope his knight to c3 with a gain of tempo, and from there he will be able to develope a strong center along with potential play down the semi open c file
EDIT:interesting, some dbs same its relitivly equal if black takes with queen, then retreats back to d8...but there are too few games to say anything concrete.
No mention of this variation in de Firmian's "modern chess openings" (14th edition).
According to database, first mention of this opening goes back to 1843, Staunton vs. Saint-Amant. According to DB play went 1. c4 d5 2. Nc3 e6 3. d4 Nf6 transposing to a Queen's Gambit. Surprisingly, Staunton didn't grab the pawn on move 2.
Originally posted by endgamerActually, if Black were to capture with the queen, even with Nc3, after Qa5, it's not obvious to take advantage of the extra tempo. With accurate play, Black can develop its own strong center to at somewhat counter White's "strong center".
i think its bad if black plans on retaking with the queen right away..then white can develope his knight to c3 with a gain of tempo, and from there he will be able to develope a strong center along with potential play down the semi open c file.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIf what you're saying was always true, the Sicilian wouldn't be as reliable for White.
1 c4 d5 strikes me as a slightly inferior Scandinavian-like setup. I think it's worse than the Scandinavian because in the 1 c4 version White still has two center pawns while Black has only one. In the regular Scandinavian, both colors have exactly one center pawn left.
Originally posted by badivan1I'm not saying it's always true, but it is generally true unless there is another advantage to compensate for not having the two center pawns. In the Sicilian, White has a lead in space and development as compensation for lack of two center pawns.
If what you're saying was always true, the Sicilian wouldn't be as reliable for White.
I've been doing some analysis of the main(?) line 1. c4 d5 2. cxd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 and it's not clear how white can take advantage of his extra central pawn, at least not in the opening.
I found the above line in an old Soltis book on the English, but all he says is that black loses time with his early queen move. Well, duh. Same thing can be said about the Qxd5 Scandinavian against 1. e4, but that doesn't mean it has been refuted.
There's also the line 1. c4 d5 2. cxd5 c6!?, with black inviting a reversed Smith-Morra Gambit, called the Vector Gambit.
All in all, I couldn't find any analysis or complete game that demonstrates that 1. c4 d5 should be avoided by black. It would seem that the move is quite playable actually.
I guess you could consider 1. c4 d5 as a sort of surprise weapon against the English Opening, especially since this precise move order has no coverage in major opening books. Of course white can transpose to a Queen's Gambit with 2. d4 or to a Reti with Nf3, but is that what white was aiming for with 1. c4?
Originally posted by KalhornovI think that after 1 c4 d5 2 cd Qd5 3 Nc3 Black is probably only a tiny bit worse off than in the Scandinavian. It would probably take an extremely strong player to win the game based on this small of an opening advantage.
I've been doing some analysis of the main(?) line 1. c4 d5 2. cxd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 and it's not clear how white can take advantage of his extra central pawn, at least not in the opening.
I found the above line in an old Soltis book on the English, but all he says is that black loses time with his early queen move. Well, duh. Same thing can be ...[text shortened]... Gambit with 2. d4 or to a Reti with Nf3, but is that what white was aiming for with 1. c4?