Originally posted by DrakeFoxAt your level of development, you should be playing primarily Open Games vs. e4. Try to acquire a copy of "Understanding the Open Games (Except the Ruy Lopez)" by Mednis et al. or play through the Open Games section of Tartakower and DuMont's "500 Master Games of Chess." If you want to learn how to play the Lopez, you can play through Fischer's games where he conducted the White pieces with this opening.
Hi, I'm looking for a nice, tactical surprise weapon to use as black against e4. Not sure where to start, any suggestions?
Originally posted by DrakeFoxThe Scandinavian Defense (1 e4 d5) is relatively easy to learn, yet also has some interesting and sharp variations.
Hi, I'm looking for a nice, tactical surprise weapon to use as black against e4. Not sure where to start, any suggestions?
You might want to get "Ideas Behind Modern Chess Openings: Black", by IM Gary Lane.
In the book, Lane provides a complete repertoire for Black. He recommends the little-explored 3...Qd6 line (1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd6!?).
Even though it's over ten-years-old, you might want to get "An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player (revised edition)," by GM Raynond Keene and IM David Levy.
The book includes analysis of two very sharp gambit lines:
The Icelandic Gambit: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6 3 c4 e6!? 4 dxe6 Bxe6, and
The Portugese Variation: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6 3 d4 Bg4!?
In his "Gambit Opening Repertoire for Black", Eric Schiller also recommends the above gambits.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerBoth Eric Schiller and Raymond Keene are heavily critisized in this article:
The Scandinavian Defense (1 e4 d5) is relatively easy to learn, yet also has some interesting and sharp variations.
You might want to get "Ideas Behind Modern Chess Openings: Black", by IM Gary Lane.
In the book, Lane provides a complete repertoire for Black. He recommends the little-explored 3...Qd6 line (1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd6!?).
...[text shortened]... s "Gambit Opening Repertoire for Black", Eric Schiller also recommends the above gambits.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
I have a book by Raymond Keene about the Short Kasparov match in London and it seems fine but my book by Eric Schiller on unusual openings is something of a waste of trees.
Originally posted by MahoutI have actually read much of and enjoyed both the Keene, et.al. book and the Schiller book. I'm not too sure how their alleged (mis)takes on chess history affect their ability to write instructive opening books, but I'm sure that for those who want to find out, Mr. Winter will fill them in on the gory details.
Both Eric Schiller and Raymond Keene are heavily critisized in this article:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
I have a book by Raymond Keene about the Short Kasparov match in London and it seems fine but my book by Eric Schiller on unusual openings is something of a waste of trees.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI agree that 1...e5 is the best response to 1.e4 and probably the most aggressive. However you need to know lots of theory to get by playing this opening well.
At your level of development, you should be playing primarily Open Games vs. e4. Try to acquire a copy of "Understanding the Open Games (Except the Ruy Lopez)" by Mednis et al. or play through the Open Games section of Tartakower and DuMont's "500 Master Games of Chess." If you want to learn how to play the Lopez, you can play through Fischer's games where he conducted the White pieces with this opening.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterEspecially if you play 2...Nc6 after 2.Nf3!
At your level of development, you should be playing primarily Open Games vs. e4. Try to acquire a copy of "Understanding the Open Games (Except the Ruy Lopez)" by Mednis et al. or play through the Open Games section of Tartakower and DuMont's "500 Master Games of Chess." If you want to learn how to play the Lopez, you can play through Fischer's games where he conducted the White pieces with this opening.
Originally posted by najdorfslayerYes, 1...e5 is also very difficult, and if he wants something sharp and tactical that would probably involve playing the Two Knights Defense, which is definitely not a simple defense.
I agree that 1...e5 is th best response to 1.e4 and probably the mosy aggressive. However you need to know lots of theory to get by playing this opening well.
Originally posted by cmsMasterYes but....
I love the Pirc, but I think he may have some trouble with it, it's a pretty advanced opening and black really has to know what's going on.
it is quite comprehensible as the basic set up is relatively easy to learn...d6...Nf6....g6...Bg7, and not too complicated by move orders. It works against most of what white might play. It can lead to open tactical games or closed positional games so it embraces a lot of what chess has to offer in the long term. To my mind it's not hard in the way that The Scotch or The Modern Benoni is where you may find yourself walking along a tightrope over shark infested waters...so I to recommend it.
Here's a taste of the Pirc against the Austian attack:
1.e4...d6
2.d4...Nf6
3.Nc3...g6
4.f4...Bg7
5.Nf3...c5
6.Bb5+...Bd7
7.e5...Ng4
8.e6...fxe6
9.Ng5...Bxb5
10.Nxb5...Qa5+
The useful advice I took on board from Lev Alberts book "Pirc Alert" is to stop expecting an opening to leave you way up in a winning position...that's only going to happen against weaker opposition or blunders. Expect to come out even or slightly ahead or slightly behind but - importantly - in a playable position you are familiar with.
1 edit
Originally posted by MahoutThat's not what I'm talking about though. I mean that I think a lot of people would struggle with some of the more difficult pawn breaks, etc. that are necessary to understand if you want to be successful with the pirc.
Yes but....
it is quite comprehensible as the basic set up is relatively easy to learn...d6...Nf6....g6...Bg7, and not too complicated by move orders. It works against most of what white might play. It can lead to open tactical games or closed positional games so it embraces a lot of what chess has to offer in the long term. To my mind it's not hard in th ahead or slightly behind but - importantly - in a playable position you are familiar with.
Also, I don't like your Austrian Attack line, I prefer:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.e6 Bxb5 9.exf7+ Kd7 10.Nxb5 Qa5+ 11.Nc3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 13.Qxd4 Nc6 with some crazy stuff set to occur.
Hm, I'd actually not seen your line before, but I looked through it, and I kind of like it. I may have to try that line sometime.
Originally posted by DrakeFoxFrom my experience Scandinavian position are relatively simple and samey......................
Hmm, I'm taking a look at everything you guys are suggesting and listening, I think I'm going to at first take a closer look into the scandinavian defense!
...............conclusion you could get bored of the Scandinavian very quickly, most of the guys I know who played it have.
But as an occasional defence it is okay, not many top players play it as their main defence.