White Opening v Black Opening

On the OTB forum we were discussing big scalps some of us have taken.

It has been discovered that most of us took the scalps with the
Black pieces.

So it appears that we tend to work harder at our Black defences.

I was wondering how the ratio of opening books was split.

Are there more books on the White Openings, or Black Openings?

I vote Black, could be as high as 3 to 1.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
On the OTB forum we were discussing big scalps some of us have taken.

It has been discovered that most of us took the scalps with the
Black pieces.

So it appears that we tend to work harder at our Black defences.

I was wondering how the ratio of opening books was split.

Are there more books on the White Openings, or Black Openings?

I vote Black, could be as high as 3 to 1.

I agree. my opening books are:

MCO-13


White:
The Dynamic English - Kosten
The Symmetrical English - Carsten Hansen
Symmetrical English - David Cummings
Winning With the Catalan - Angus Dunnington
Attacking with 1. d4 - Angus Dunnington
I now play 1. e4 =)

Black:
The French Defense 2 - Minev
Play the French, 3rd Edition - Watson
French Winawer - McDonald
Remember the MacCutcheon - James Eade
Modern Benoni - Andrew Kinsman
Tactics in the Chess Opening 3 (French Defense and other half-open games) - Friso Nijboer & Geert van der Stricht
The Sveshnikov Reloaded - Dorian Rogozenko
Starting Out : The Sicillian - John Emms
Winning with the Benko - Jacobs
The Grunfeld Defense Revealed - Michael Khodarkovsky
Benko Gambit - Jan Pinsky

5-12 black wins


For completeness:

Endgame:
Silman's Complete endgame Course
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual
Pandolfini's Endgame Course
Capablanca's Best Chess Endings (60 Compllete Games) - Chernev

Other:
How To Reassess Your Chess - Silman
The art of Defense in Chess - Soltis
Paul Keres: The Quest for Perfection - Keres & Nunn
Best Lessons of A Chess Coach - Sunil Weeramantry and Eusbi
Leonid Stein : Master of Risk Strategy - Gufeld & Lazarev
My Chess Career Explanded Edition - Capablanca
Kasparov's Opening Repertoir - Shamkovich
the Modern Chess Self Tutor - Bronstein
Creative Chess - Avni
How Purdy Won: CSJ Purdy - Hutchings & Harrison
The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal - Tal
US Chess Federations Official Rules of Chess 5th edition
Art of Attack in Chess - Vucovic
Tal Botvinnik 1960 - Mikhail Tal
Chess: The Art of Logical THinking - McDonald
Pawn Power - Dunnington
Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 - Bronstein
Modern Postal Masterpieces - DUnne
The Sorcerer's Apprentice - Bronstein & Furstenburg
Winning Chess Tactics - Sierawan / Silman
Chess PRaxis - Nimzowitsch
The Amatuers Mind- SIlman
1001 Winning Chess Sacarafices and Combinations - Reinfeld
Logical Chess: Move by Move - Chernev


I have sold at least 3 books which were too awful to keep.

Originally posted by vipiu
easier to play as white, so not much need for studing the opening...you can always play thet 1d4 2Bf4 like that girl from your team...I know you hate this a lot hihi

Black probably wins this overall, just because of a torrent of books on the sicilian.

All the chess opening books I had I donated to school (won them all at tournaments).

Originally posted by greenpawn34
It's a waste of the White pieces. Black's can equalise in 6 moves tops.

The White where she did not play 2.Bf4 she won easily.

By all means play that dross if your in a tournament and it's only affecting you,
but in a team game???
If I was team captain she would get Black all the time.


She can play a mean Pirc,

Originally posted by greenpawn34
On the OTB forum we were discussing big scalps some of us have taken.

It has been discovered that most of us took the scalps with the
Black pieces.

So it appears that we tend to work harder at our Black defences.

I was wondering how the ratio of opening books was split.

Are there more books on the White Openings, or Black Openings?

I vote Black, could be as high as 3 to 1.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
On the OTB forum we were discussing big scalps some of us have taken.

It has been discovered that most of us took the scalps with the
Black pieces.

So it appears that we tend to work harder at our Black defences.

As a long-time London System player (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4), I know that if Black knows what he is doing he can equalize in a variety of ways (e.g. 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bf4 Bd6). But that fact that Black can equalize in an objective sense does not mean that he has the same chance as White to win the game! Even though Fritz might call the position "equal", since I am very familiar with the themes of the London System and have played hundreds (thousands?) of games with it, I have a very "practical" advantage over an opponent who may be the same playing strength as me, but isn't as well-versed in the types of middlegames that the London often produces.

I like to make the distinction between an "objective" advantage an a "practical advantage." "Objective" is what, say, Fritz says about the position, while "practical" means "There is a better chance that I am familiar with and enjoy the type of middlegame that the opening produces than my opponent is."

I'm sure Fritz would say that the Smith-Morra Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 c3 dc 4 Nc3) is slightly better for Black. I'm sure that it thinks that White has some compensation for the pawn minus, but not enough. But in "real-life", like games between two "A" players, I would suspect that White would win a majority of the games. Class players tend to be better attackers than defenders, I believe. In short, the Smith-Morra Gambit is "objectively" better for Black, but "practically" often (usually?) better for White below IM-level.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
As a long-time London System player (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4), I know that if Black knows what he is doing he can equalize in a variety of ways (e.g. 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bf4 Bd6). But that fact that Black can equalize in an objective sense does not mean that he has the same chance as White to win the game! Even though Fritz might call the positi y" often (usually?) better for White below IM-level.i thought that 2Bf4

In their book Win with the London System, Johnsen and Kovacevic recommend the 1 d4 2 Bf4 move order.

For example, after 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5, 3 Bf4 is slightly dubious because of simply 3...cxd4. Better is 3 c3, but after 3...cd 4 cd the game has transposed into a rather boring Slav Exchange Variation.

Using a different move-order White can avoid the rather stale Slav-Exchange as follows: 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 c5 3 e4!?. This is an Albin Counter-Gambit Reversed. Since the "normal" Albin (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5) leads to interesting, fighting chess, playing it a move up could be a lot of fun for White!

In an earlier post, I mentioned the "equalizing" line, 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bf4 Bd6. But with a different move order, quite a different type of game ensues: 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 e6 3 e3 Bd6 4 Qg4!?

Johnsen and Kovacevic cover these rather squirrly lines, which will hopefully cause people to stop referring to the London System as the "Boring System."

The move order 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 was originally dubbed the Mason Attack (named after the late-19th century English master James Mason). These days it is the move-order of choice by a number of Londoners.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
In their book Win with the London System, Johnsen and Kovacevic recommend the 1 d4 2 Bf4 move order.

For example, after 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5, 3 Bf4 is slightly dubious because of simply 3...cxd4. Better is 3 c3, but after 3...cd 4 cd the game has transposed into a rather boring Slav Exchange Variation.

Using a different move-order White ca ...[text shortened]... master James Mason). These days it is the move-order of choice by a number of Londoners.

Hi Robbie and Gay Guy.

I was testing the conditional routines.
After I played 1.d4 I set the condition.

'if 1...d5 then 2.Bf4.'

The computer suddenly asked me,

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

Must be something that Russ has programmed in to make the
chess on RHP more exciting.

Anyway, I said "Yes I want to play 2.Bf4"

It accepted my move but then declared the game a draw. 😉

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Robbie and Gay Guy.

I was testing the conditional routines.
After I played 1.d4 I set the condition.

'if 1...d5 then 2.Bf4.'

The computer suddenly asked me,

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

Must be something that Russ has programmed in to make the
chess on RHP more exciting.

Anyway, I said "Yes I want to play 2.Bf4"

It accepted my move but then declared the game a draw. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, see pawn dude the London takes equality to new heights, never before envisioned, i would like to meet the chick that plays it in your team and to congratulate her for trying to bring some finesse into an otherwise sac happy and hack your way through princess street, past Scotts monument, up onto the royal green and blast the castle walls, taking ...[text shortened]... Tartakower

[fen]r1bq1rk1/pp2p1bp/2n3p1/3p1p2/3PnB2/2PB1N1P/PP1N1PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 11[/fen]