I dunno, I am a little biased towards sharp openings, and exciting chess in general, and these stupid lines bother me. Such lines are:
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 or 3..Bf4. Anything really that doesn't contain c4 at some point. It seems to me like they are just ridiculously lazy and look to just play really boring chess. Moves like e3, Be2/Bd3, c3. Just super solid, super lame. How do some of you dudes out there spice up the game? I almost always play a quick c5, and follow up with Qb6 to try to exploit the fact that his dark squared bishop is missing. This next game makes me warm and fuzzy inside, but I can show you many more games where I look very foolish on the black side of these openings. This game, I punished this guy pretty energetically for his bad play. 🙂
[Event "ICC 15 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2006.06.25"]
[Round "?"]
[White "bmiko"]
[Black "TheShootah"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Ne4 4. Bh4 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 cxd4 7. cxd4 Qb6 8. Nb3 a5 9. Rb1 a4 10. Na1 Qb4+ 11. Nd2 Nxd4 12. a3 Qa5 13. e3 Nf5 14. Bg3 Nfxg3 15. hxg3 Bf5 16. b4 axb3 17. Rxb3 e6 18. Bb5+ Kd8 19. Qc1 Rc8 20. Qb2 Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Rc1+ {White resigns} 0-1
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Well shootah 😉, I completely agree. Everytime I see a 1.d4 player that refuses to use 1.c4 I get very annoyed, and break things. I've always been a little clueless on what to use to spice it up and try simple, solid developing moves to gan as much equality as possible. This c5 idea sounds interesting though and I may have to give it a try.
I dunno, I am a little biased towards sharp openings, and exciting chess in general, and these stupid lines bother me. Such lines are:
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 or 3..Bf4. Anything really that doesn't contain c4 at some point. It seems to me like they are just ridiculously lazy and look to just play really boring chess. Moves like e3, Be2/Bd3, c3. Just ...[text shortened]... 17. Rxb3 e6 18. Bb5+ Kd8 19. Qc1 Rc8 20. Qb2 Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Rc1+ {White resigns} 0-1
Originally posted by cmsMasterWow, you haven't been on since 2004! What's up, give up on FICS?!
Well shootah 😉, I completely agree. Everytime I see a 1.d4 player that refuses to use 1.c4 I get very annoyed, and break things. I've always been a little clueless on what to use to spice it up and try simple, solid developing moves to gan as much equality as possible. This c5 idea sounds interesting though and I may have to give it a try.
EDIT: oops, you've obviously got ICC.
I use a slow d4 line against the KID.
Nf3 ..Nf6
d4 ..g6
g3 ..Bg6
Bg3 ..0-0
0-0 ..d6
Re1 (instead of c4) ..Nd7
e4 ..e5
c3
Leaving c4 out of the game gives white an extra move at this point. The pawn on c4 doesn't really seem to do much for white in the KID once white has played e4 (d5 is covered, white doesn't seem to require direct control of b5 for any real reason). Leaving it out allows the pawn on d4 to be secured. I don't have any games finished in this line on RHP, but i scored a strong win in this line for my Club quite recently.
Originally posted by marinakatombThe thing is that if you want to expand on the queenside then you've lost a move with c2-c3.
I use a slow d4 line against the KID.
Nf3 ..Nf6
d4 ..g6
g3 ..Bg6
Bg3 ..0-0
0-0 ..d6
Re1 (instead of c4) ..Nd7
e4 ..e5
c3
[fen]r1bq1rk1/pppn1pbp/3p1np1/4p3/3PP3/2P2NP1/PP3PBP/RNBQR1K1 b - - 0 8[/fen]
Leaving c4 out of the game gives white an extra move at this point. The pawn on c4 doesn't really seem to do much for white in the KID once ...[text shortened]... ished in this line on RHP, but i scored a strong win in this line for my Club quite recently.
If white doesn't commit to c4 and instead brings his knight to c3 in front of the pawn, I immediately take advantage of that weakness with Bb4. The threat is giving white weak doubled pawns where c5 plays a big role. They can't cover the knight without moving the queen, and if they do that I play Ne4 putting more pressure on both the queen and c3 knight.
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamI think this is why someone came up with the idea for the 1. a3 opening... it makes some sence, but if black is aware of its purpose then black can compensate in develpment and eventually take an advanatge which is why its not seen as a good opening... but to throw it in a bit later can be troublesome...
If white doesn't commit to c4 and instead brings his knight to c3 in front of the pawn, I immediately take advantage of that weakness with Bb4. The threat is giving white weak doubled pawns where c5 plays a big role.
EDIT: And yes, I agree, the queens gambit or a delayed queens gambit is really the only way to add offense to 1.d4...
Originally posted by ChessJesterErm...many 1.d4 openings have a lot of offense.
I think this is why someone came up with the idea for the 1. a3 opening... it makes some sence, but if black is aware of its purpose then black can compensate in develpment and eventually take an advanatge which is why its not seen as a good opening... but to throw it in a bit later can be troublesome...
EDIT: And yes, I agree, the queens gambit or a delayed queens gambit is really the only way to add offense to 1.d4...
With all due respect, I think the attitude that Colle/London/Torre,etc. lines are stupid or lame is detrimental to one's chess development (and encouraging to those of us who like to play these openings). While many chess players prefer certain types of positions, we can't always get them. If you like mad attacking games, you have to face the fact that you will sometimes have to play a quiet, positional game. And if you like to win on move 90 in a long endgame, you will still have to prepare to meet some highly tactical openings.
There are grandmasters who specialize in the Colle/London type of openings, and they score quite well. Rather than take the attitude that these lines are stupid and the people who play them are lazy, you are much better off thinking "these are quiet openings that I need to prepare for." Taking a position that requires subtlety and trying to force it into a slugfest is a recipe for disaster.
Just my two cents,
Scott
You are quite right, and I agree with that, but is it not my right to think that these aren't openings that push for an edge like 2. c4 does? Maybe I phrased my question poorly, but I was simply looking for interesting lines for black. If white is trying to play subtle chess, black doesn't have to! I think that a player should always being trying to play towards there strengths. I simply want a line that's interesting and imbalanced. I don't want to sit there like a bum, exchange off a bunch of pieces and be equal. After all, if black couldn't play for a win in these positions but white could, then everyone would play this crap.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I agree with you that the 'd-pawn specials' (d4 without c4) do not generally lead to the same theoretical advantage that 2.c4 lines lead to for white. In that case, though, you should prefer to face these d-pawn specials as black if you are looking to win since you yourself feel that they are inferior. I've seen it happen so many times that a person criticizes an opening as being boring or theoretically unsound only to get destroyed over the board because they have no idea how to handle it. I think we're getting confused here between having a theoretical advantage and getting a position that you like. There are probably many lines of the King's Gambit or Dutch Leningrad, for example, that are assessed as "=" by theory but that you would love (and I would hate) to play as white. Conversely, there are probably lines of the QGD Orthodox assessed as += that you would be bored to death to play on the white side.
You are quite right, and I agree with that, but is it not my right to think that these aren't openings that push for an edge like 2. c4 does? Maybe I phrased my question poorly, but I was simply looking for interesting lines for black. If white is trying to play subtle chess, black doesn't have to! I think that a player should always being trying to play to dn't play for a win in these positions but white could, then everyone would play this crap.
I understand your desire to find interesting lines for black, and you should definitely look to play any lines that are challenging and fun for you. However, there are always going to be times when you are taking too much risk in doing so. I think one mark of a good chess player is knowing when to take the risk to unbalance the position and when to stay the course and slowly build his/her position.
I've experimented recently with the London Opening (after playing 2.c4, and even 1.e4 for quite a while), and suddenly I'm wiping out players rated several hundred points higher than me. They generally look to attack right out of the opening, but against the London the strategy often backfires. While I develop my pieces, they throw pawns forward or chase my bishop around for no reason, and then I have a very easy middle/endgame to mop up. I'm not saying that you always play this way, but it's something to beware of. And I'm probably guilty of the opposite - overlooking attacking chances to maintain a solid position or pursue a small advantage.
In any event, play the openings that you like and have fun. That's what it's all about!
Scott
Originally posted by smrex13Haha, I get what you are saying. I am not looking for some crazy slugfest, although that would be great, I am just looking for something that leads to alot of play for both sides. Lines that contain imbalances, and aren't symmetrical and drawish. You know, I can play ..d5 ..Nf6, ..e6, ..Bd6, and probably equalize, but that's no fun right!?
I agree with you that the 'd-pawn specials' (d4 without c4) do not generally lead to the same theoretical advantage that 2.c4 lines lead to for white. In that case, though, you should prefer to face these d-pawn specials as black if you are looking to win since you yourself feel that they are inferior. I've seen it happen so many times that a person critic ...[text shortened]... lay the openings that you like and have fun. That's what it's all about!
Scott