Quote:


this is an interesting thread and i see really no need to discriminate some posts only because you dont agree with their opinion about the scandinavian opening, TopNotch, all posts were related to the topic.

I suggest that guests be barred from posting

This will avoid the annoyance of the same person posting with multiple handles as well as making it easier to deal with other abuses.

Guests should be allowed to read posts and thats it, if they want to do more than that, then register.

Top  

Sometimes I think some of you respond just for the sake of it  

You often contradict yourselves, and the arguments presented are almost never compelling and mostly full of gibberish.

Lets try to refrain from spamming shall we.  

Top  

Quote:

and the answer to roger3's question is ... the scandinavian

Quote:


I'm not sure what you are talking about here Inn2, nobody claimed the Scandinavian was simple, but relatively speaking I would contend it contains the least amount of theory of the mainstream defences to 1e4 (although willempies suggestion of the rubinstein french also has something to be said for it) . How can you possibly claim that the Caro Kann is easier to learn than the Scandinavian when in the Caro Kann white can choose from the Fantasy, the Advance, the Exchange, the Panov, the Two Kights and 3Nc3 to name just a few?  whereas against the Scandinavian white has to play 2exd5 and after 2..Qxd5 3Nc3 black can choose which variation to specialise in. 

I totally agree with Scipio_Rex's and Willempie's comments on how to learn a new opening.  I made similar comments in a separate thread (http://altmax.com/cgi-local/cpf/YaBB.cgi?board=1e4;action=display;num=1116512229).
Willempie, you say that approach works better for some openings than for others.  Could you give some examples of openings for which it works and for which it doesn't? ???
Thanks

Hello Folks!
Sorry, but sometimes this "fear of theory"-thing is driving me nuts. TopNotch is completely right. There's nothing for free; especially not a reliable answer to 1 e4!

Around my chess area, I know a lot of people who try to practice the "one fits all"-approach. Usually they play 1 e4, followed by a King's Indian "Attack" setup, they gain, how shall I put it, not much from the opening, end up in passive positions and draw (at best!). But they have avoided theory!

OK, I can understand that you can get scared when you look at something like the Sicilian Dragon for Black.
But I thought the main point is to get to play positions that suit you, not to reproduce book lines.
You shoult PLAY an opening, not parrot its books.

Whatever defence you choose against 1 e4, there will be a certain workload. Find out what kind of middlegame you like to play. Make up your mind if you want mere equality or obtain winning chances. There's a lot of openings and subvariations to choose from.
Try it out it Blitz or computer games.
When you've found one you like, just play it. And look up theory afterwards! Playing and learning go hand in hand. If you know why you put your pieces on certain squares, you don't need to "learn" too much (well, at least something would always be helpful...).

The only thing you should avoid are those highly tactical lines, where assessments change from day to day and every move is worth its weight in gold.
You're not obliged to play anything of the like!
Even the Sicilian can be played without having to burn the midnight oil.
Play chess, not theory!
(Sorry if I sound too harsh, but I hope my point is clear.)

Thanks for your ideas.
Indeed I had a closer look at the Basman Sicilian, one of the most interesting low-theory-Sicilians. But then I discovered one very nasty variation. I currently dont sit in front of a chess board, but I remember that it had to do with Be3, of course answered by Qb6, then Nc3 (answered by Nc6?, not sure of that) and - if I remember correct - in the 7th move White played Nb5, and whatever followed then, was really not very inviting!