Hi, 

Below expert level 
I would suggest the French. 
Black has a firm foothold in the center   
and has avoided the gambit stuff after 1.e4 e5. 
This is very important if you don't want to study theory. 

There are only relatively few pawn structures. 
With practice and analysis after the game it is 
inevitable that you understand them better than your 
equally rated opponent in the long run. 

3.Nc3 is difficult to prepare for White, if Black 
responds with 3...Nf6. After 4.e5 there are 
many transpositional devices for Black. 
After 4.Bg5 White has to be prepared against three 
main systems. 

3.Nd2 is no developing move, so it is no 
surprise that Black has a lot of sidelines 
and main lines availabe, 
White must know them all.   

If Black has to repair his Defence against 
3.Nd2 or 3.Nc3 there is an escape with the Rubinstein. 

Indeed, the French is very theoretical in high level chess. 

But beyond expert level it is another story: 
After 3.Nd2 or 3.Nc3 Black chooses the line which comes 
on the board, and he has more experience with the resulting 
structure, not so bad prospects in practice. 

That leads many White players to the Advance (even Sveshnikov, 
who admits in his book that 3.Nc3 is clearly White's best move), 
the King's Indian Attack or the Exchange.   

The French is relatively unpopular in top level chess, 
so crushing novelties are not so probable. 

I admit that the Hanham formation is less work, but it is much more 
difficult to enlarge your opening repertoire, 
because you will miss the e5 strong point, if you try to vary.   

If you have made it into the databases, White could play 1.e4 d6 
2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 - nothing special but now e5 would be suboptimal - 
and again you will miss the e5-strong point you are used to. 

I think to sidestep the French is a bit more tricky.

TopNotch wrote : Quote:


In "Opening for White according to Anand 4, Khalifman suggest 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 to fight for an advantage. It is covered in 31 pages. I don't know if White have necessary a clear advantage, but they have a durable +/= and can hope for more.

In comparison with 1.e4 d6 2.e4 e5!? 3.dxe5 I think it's Better for Black than 1.e4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 because Black have not commited with Nf6, and can play the solid move f6 to cover Ng5 treath, Bxc4 treath, and cover the e-pawn. But that's only my idea.


And after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 transposing in a phillidor also, like after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf6

So where is Black's advantage to play first 2..Nf6 if he want to transpose in a Phillidor? 

And about the subject, I think that the Owen defense (1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7) is not a bad choice, you just should have strategical principes, and understanding of the position, but there is no hugh variations to learn.

In the line Topnotch mentions against the Garcia Ilundain Scandinavian (Qd8) there is the very complicated 10. f3 Bxc2 (!) of 1-0 Perez,L-Lopez Martinez,J/Varadero 2000. and  0-1 Herrera,I-Del Rio Angelis,S/Santa Clara 2000. The first is a nice win for white and the last is what would seem to be the refutation of white's sacrifice.

But all is not so simple as former Qd8 specialists as Candela, Del Rio and Lopez Martinez seem to have abandoned the defence.

David (Garcia Ilundain) never played anything but 10. f3 Nd5 and he dismissed the whole Bxc2 idea as "rubbish" when i asked this thoughts on the variation.

Though I might be one of the better players in the country, it is doubtful that I am in the top 6. Though I have managed to win against Matoewi etc, I have overall a negative score against them. Then it is hard for me, to leave school for an Olympiad, as there is nobody to replace me. And indeed Suriname does exclude non national residents.
For more info on the tournament, please contact:

Franklin Mungroo <ssbkommissietoernooien@yahoo.com>

or

Michael Siban
<msiban2000@yahoo.com>

A quote from the newsletter M.Siban send me:

"The Suriname Chess Federation will provide room, meals and transportation for the invited players."

So who knows? If you mention my full name - M.Nieuweboer - I am sure, they will react.
Alas I am not sure myself, if I will be able to participate.

The last time I was in Surinam I had to travel to Guyana first and then take a ferry over  

I do not like ferries very much as they seem wholly unreliable, somewhat like the Kings Gambit in that respect

Also when it came time to leave Surinam the authorities tried to seize my Chess Clock among other things, as they seem rather strict on taking goods out of the Country including prizes. I had a helluva time convincing them that I brought the Chess Clock in for the tournament. 

It would be nice to see Surinam again and whether the political situation has changed. Post more details regarding the tournament, in particular Prize Fund, cost of accomodation, is it Fide rated etc.. Better yet, is there a website where the information can be found.

Regards

Top

Postscript: I almost forgot to ask, if you were in Surinam 9 Years already, and are better than the best players there, why were you not in the Olympiad team. Does Surinam have a policy excluding non national residents from representing the country.

Quote:


With the somewhat inplausible explanation that you gave regarding how you manage to spend all of your time here and still have a life, you have not really addressed the crux of my previous post at all, but this is not unusual for you.

To reiterate, if one does not want to study theory, and would prefer rather to stick to pattern thematic play, then there are certain risks that comes with that. To expect the same level of reliabilty from such minor lines is naive, but as I said, The Hippo and Hanham variation via a pirc move order are both eminently playable.

Your harping on King's Gambit references and comparisons are misplaced. First off the Kings Gambit is, well, a gambit, and while it may not be cramped it certainly is not reliable either. But then again you already figured this out already, as you like to say, you play chess only for fun and not results and find the proven systems like the Ruy Lopez etc. boring and too drawish. 

You say you coach chess, but I hope you do not promote this 'Non result oriented play chess only for fun philosophy to your students'. The thing is, chess ceases to be fun if you keep losing all the time, so wanting good results certainly has its place.

I have actually visited Surinam many years ago and was also fortunate to meet relatively recently its Chess Olympiad team of: Matoewi Roger; Mungroo Franklin; Gajadin Dewperkash; Dos Ramos Ricardo; Veer Willem and Lo Kim Lin Frank and I am not sure that they and other Surinameese would take too kindly to an outsider referring to their country as 'the edge of the bush'. 

Top

Postscript: I somehow doubt this will be the last word    

In reply to an earlier post of TN:
"I wonder Mnb if you devote as much time to your students as you do to this forum"
I give after school lessons three times a week and chess lessons once a week. Then I am a single father of a 10 years old son but have a girl friend, who I visit several times a week.
Life is good at the edge of the bush.

Magem Badals,J (2515) - Rausis,I (2460) [B07]
FRAchT, 1992
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Pf6 3.Pc3 e5 4.Pge2 Le7 5.f3 0&#8211;0 6.Le3 exd4 7.Dxd4 Pc6 8.Dd2 Pe5 9.Pg3 Le6 10.0&#8211;0&#8211;0 c6 11.f4 Pc4 12.Lxc4 Lxc4 13.Pf5 d5 14.Pxe7+ Dxe7 15.e5 Pd7 16.b3 La6 17.The1 Tfe8 18.Ld4 Tad8 19.f5 Dh4 20.e6 fxe6 21.fxe6 Pf6 22.g3 Dg4 23.Df4 Dxf4+ 24.gxf4 b6 25.f5 Te7 26.Lxf6 gxf6 27.Tg1+ Kh8 28.b4 Lc4 29.Tg3 Tf8 30.b5 cxb5 31.Pxd5 Tg7 32.Txg7 Kxg7 33.Tg1+ Kh6 34.Pc7 Tc8 35.e7 Lf7 36.Pxb5 Tc6 37.Te1 Le8 38.Kd2 Kg5 39.Pd4 Td6 40.c3 Kf4 41.Tg1 Td7 42.Te1 Td5 43.Kc1 Te5 44.Pe6+ Kxf5 45.Pg7+ Kg6 46.Txe5 Kxg7 47.Td5 Kf7 48.Th5 Kg6 49.Td5 Kf7 50.Td8 Kxe7 51.Ta8 a5 52.Ta6 b5 53.Ta7+ Ld7 54.Txa5 Kd6 55.Ta7 h5 56.Kd2 h4 57.Ke3 h3 58.Kd4 Lc6 59.Ta6 f5 60.c4 bxc4 61.Kxc4 f4 62.Kd4 Kc7 63.Txc6+ Kxc6 64.Ke4 1&#8211;0

Rasik,V (2432) - Orsag,M (2387) [B07]
CZEchT 0102 (7), 13.01.2002
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Pf6 3.Pc3 e5 4.Pge2 Le7 5.f3 0&#8211;0 6.Le3 c6 7.Dd2 Pbd7 8.Pg3 b5 9.Pf5 b4 10.Pe2 d5 11.Peg3 dxe4 12.fxe4 exd4 13.Lxd4 c5 14.Dg5 g6 15.Le3 Kh8 16.Pxe7 Dxe7 17.Lb5 De6 18.0&#8211;0 La6 19.Txf6 Pxf6 20.Lxc5 Lxb5 21.Ld4 Kg8 22.Pf5 Tfc8 23.Lxf6 Txc2 24.Pd4 Db6 25.Dxb5 Dxf6 26.Pxc2 Dxb2 27.Dc4 Td8 28.Tf1 1&#8211;0

I know, that Black has done well in this line. But it is remarkable, that in both games won by White a knight was manoeuvred to f5. This gives us a clear clue, how to handle this line. To reinforce this idea, White could consider playing the bishop to g5 and retreat it after h6 to e3.

Nielsen,P (2365) - Jensen,T [B06]
Aarhus Open Aarhus (8), 1991
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Lg7 3.Pc3 d6 4.Le3 b6 5.Dd2 Lb7 6.f3 Pd7 7.0&#8211;0&#8211;0 e6 8.d5 exd5 9.Pxd5 Pe7 10.Lg5 f6 11.Lh6 0&#8211;0 12.Lxg7 Kxg7 13.Pf4 Pc5 14.b4 Dd7 15.bxc5 bxc5 16.Da5 Tfb8 17.Dxc7 Da4 18.Dxe7+ Kh6 19.Pe6 Da3+ 20.Kd2 Db4+ 21.Ke3 Dc3+ 22.Ld3 Tg8 23.Pe2 De5 24.f4 Dh5 25.Dxf6 Tae8 26.Dg5+ Dxg5 27.fxg5+ Kh5 28.P2f4+ 1&#8211;0

So in Nithiananthan -Wong Meng Leong, 1999, White should have played 9.d5 too. In this line White has the good statistics &#8211; whatever that tells us.
Note, that the Black systems are hardly played by strong GM&#8217;s, with exception of the eccentric Azmai. If I remember well, this was an argument for TopNotch against the KG. His criticism on gambit addicts has a core of truth, but an addiction to play rather cramped systems as the two adviced by TN has even a worse influence on a player&#8217;s development. If one wants to get the maximum out of one&#8217;s potentials, one must both learn to play cramped three row systems and get used to the delicate balance of material versus time and force (Spielmann in Richtig Opfern).
As this post is quite off topic, I will leave the last word to TN.