Quote:On 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 O-O Nxe4 5 d4 , Black is not compelled to play Nd6 : he can play 5...a6 , going back to Open variation ( else , White has no better)
This is recommanded by Kevin O'Connel in his book
Yes, I played the Open for many years, and this is how I always reached it. At the time the stock of the Exchange stood rather high, and this way you can reach the Open without encountering that system. More recently, trying to find something new against the Berlin, some people have been looking more closely at 5. Re1. This was supposed to lead to pretty easy equality for Black, but apparently there is some doubt being cast on that.
Personally I have little taste for the "Berlin Endgame." I am impressed by White's activity. We could quibble over terminology, but it's not really an endgame, is it?
I would like to reply to one aspect of the orgininal post: its generalizations about what sort of players play the Spanish and what sort of systems they're likely to be comfortable with. I see this kind of reasoning on this forum a lot, and elsewhere too, but I think it's a big mistake to design your repertoire based on the supposed strengths and weaknesses of people who play given systems. It would be much better to design it based on your own strengths and weaknesses.
Just to come back to the Open, my impression is that it's stock is up since Ponomariov demonstrated Black's good chances in that piece-down endgame that arises from 9. Nbd2 Nc5 10. c3 d5 11. Ng5 Qxg5 and so forth. Is anyone aware of anything that would call into question an "=" evaluation of that particular endgame? A little while ago I played a cc game (on net-chess) with the Black pieces against a ICCF 2400+ opponent, but it proved nothing since we both just followed the moves of the Ponomariov game until a the very last, and a draw was straightforwardly obtained.
I do think that if Black's is solid after 9. Nbd2, the stage may be set for an Open Defense revival.