Originally posted by Dodger11Look at the pawn structure, from move 1, black creates no pawn or positional weaknesses. Yes, he losses a few moves, but if he can hold the tactical fort against him the first 12 or so moves, he's in very good shape. Unlike other openings were black is forced to play an inferior position throughout the game, and his only hope is unless white at least does a slight blunder/mistake.
The center-counter game sucks, black typically loses tempo up the butt while white chases the queen around the board by developing pieces.
Originally posted by Dodger11That is ridiculous. Tell that to Vishy Anand when he used it against Kasparov. If you learn the lines it completely and utterly playable!
The center-counter game sucks, black typically loses tempo up the butt while white chases the queen around the board by developing pieces.
Not to mention, Black doesn't really lose a tempo.
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5
White spent a tempo to capture on d5, while Black recaptured and developed simultaneously. Here, Black has gained a tempo.
3. Nc3 Qa5
White develops and attacks the Queen simultaneously, forcing Black to move the already-developed piece. The tempo Black 'loses' here is the one he gained last move. He nets neither loss nor gain of tempo.
The problem with this line is not loss of time, but vulnerability of the Queen due to premature development. If Black plays 3...Qd8, then he loses time!
But 3...Qa5 not only does not lose a tempo, but it also puts the Queen in a relatively safe, relatively useful position, minimizing the drawback of its premature development.
As has been said in this thread, the ...Qxd5 Scandinavian is sound, if mildly unorthodox.
I'm a big fan of openings that give black a better or equal pawn structure, so you can have a chance to win at an endgame, openings like the Sicilian and Center Counter are excellant for this purpose. Black's chances really only rest with an endgame theory expert, it's hard to mount, say, a kingside assault as black, unless white likes defending. Openings, like the Caro Kann however, I am not a huge fan of, the pawn structure just looks ugly for black, mind you, it's a good middlegame opening to acheive black draws and is filled with traps that may help black win off blunders. The French's pawn structure as black is also good, but I find bishops are useless as black in this opening and you deliberately cramp yourself somewhat, unlike the Center Counter or Sicilian when peices become active.
Anyways, Paul, if you want to win as black, the Sicilian is probabaly best, but the center counter is the next best option if you want to get rid of the books your opponent may have on Sicilians. A lot of ppl say the Center Counter sucks (including IM's and GM's), but it doesn't suck, it's just that a lot of ppl don't know how to play it after the first 3 moves or so as black. (Including those same IM's and GM's, lol) It's slightly unorthodox, but logical in it's naive direct way of equalizing the center.
At our level (The level of non-titled players) there are almost no games that end without a player making a mistake. As ratings increase the mistakes get smaller (and harder to notice). This doesn't mean they aren't there. Any opening that can get you to a middlegame where you feel comfortable is fine. Whether that is the Sicilian or the Caro-Kann or the St. George doesn't matter. They all lead to playable middle games (at our level) and they can all lead to both wins and draws.
Sure some openings naturally lend themselves to early aggression, the Sicilian being one of those. Of course the more aggressive openings tend to have more variations (or get "refuted"😉. But remember (as paul reminded me during our latest game) in correspondance chess opening books are allowed. That means you won't be completely at a loss as to the response to say the Wing Gambit or some other lesser played sideline.
Originally posted by XanthosNZDitto to that: I've come back to chess after a long absence and, after scanning Fine, decided that the dragon variation of the Sicilian seems to be a solid bet. People above 1400 seem to have some nice attacking variations that I have yet to master, usually involving early development of the king bishop or the queen, but when I lose it's generally for reasons other than getting creamed on the opening.
Just because the Sicilian is broad doesn't make it bad. For instance you can specialize. Find one early variation for the case of Nf3 and learn a bit of the closed and anti-sicilian's. For a player who likes wild open games you should love the black side of the Smith Morrah or the Gran Prix.
I found my variation and now am a solid c5 player. I know next ...[text shortened]... however somehow I do ok in the King's Indian Defense.) I say keep it open and look for tactics.
Originally posted by XanthosNZTrue, I would worry more about practicing tactics and endgame before worrying too much about the opening. That's why I play e5. It's simple and i have a great book that has lots of variations. Once you get to a playable middlegame it is the tactics that becomes most important. Improving Tactics should be the only worry until you reach master level.
At our level (The level of non-titled players) there are almost no games that end without a player making a mistake. As ratings increase the mistakes get smaller (and harder to notice). This doesn't mean they aren't there. Any opening that can get you to a middlegame where you feel comfortable is fine. Whether that is the Sicilian or the Caro-Kann or the ...[text shortened]... letely at a loss as to the response to say the Wing Gambit or some other lesser played sideline.