My objection to the Rubinstein is indeed quite strong, but not without reason. I have faced it a couple of times with white. In the beginning I found it difficult to create a decent plan, but after checking some games it became fairly easy. I also have seen a couple of players suffer very boring games as black against inferior opposition, which would normally have been over in 20 moves.

Here's a fairly recent warning;)
[Event "Turin ol (Men) 37th"]
[Site "Turin"]
[Date "2006.05.21"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Shirov,Alexei"]
[Black "Gurevich,Mikhail"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C10"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nbd7 6.Nf3 h6 7.Nxf6+ Nxf6 8.Be3 Nd5 9.Bd3 Bd6 10.Bd2 Nf4 11.Bxf4 Bxf4 12.Qe2 c6 13.0-0 Qc7 14.c4 c5 15.dxc5 Qxc5 16.a3 Qc7 17.b4 Bd7 18.g3 Bd6 19.c5 Be7 20.Ne5 Bf6 21.Nxd7 Bxa1 22.Bb5 0-0-0 23.Rd1 e5 24.c6 a6 25.cxb7+ Kxb7 26.Qe4+ Ka7 27.Bc6  1-0

PS I dont like the Steinitz as black either, whence I play the Winawer, which I would recommend to anyone who wants to improve his game.

Ping-Pong wrote on 07/09/06 at 13:01:02:

I would really warn against the Rubinstein (I agree with Nietzsche 200%). 

I think with your goals in mind (endgame and positional improvement), it will pay dividends to play the french variations in which a white pawn moves to e5. These variations are littered with concepts such as pawn chains, good-bad bishop, demolishing a static center etc.

I remember Spassky telling a story about an Olympiad he played in.  He played the Black side of 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 against the Irish top board in the 1960s.  After the game, the Irishman (close to IM strength probably) asked him what the name of the opening was.

He told the story for two main reasons: 

a) to show how slowly chess news travelled at the time.

b) to show that the Caro Kann is probably best left to the professionals.

The Caro-Kann is one of the most difficult of all openings to play well.  It generally requires Black to play close to perfection for up to 20 moves just to achieve equality.  Black rarely gets a great attack in unless your name is Bareev or Shirov, and has to wait for the late middle game or endgame to start having any winning chances.

The Caro Kann is definitely purely for advanced players.  Less experienced less knowledgeable players will get crushed without knowing why.  Oh, they'll win a few games against unsuspecting opponents, but they will win in spite of rather than because of the Caro Kann.

The French is one of the basic openings.  Nimzovich used the French to teach the importance and methods of playing with and against a pawn chain.  This is one of the most important positional tools a player should learn to use.  The French is one of the great old openings that is played at the very highest levels, even when Black absolutely needs to win.  The same can't be said of the Caro Kann.   

I agree with those who hate the "Fort Knox".  What use is stashing away all your valuables and potential in some fort when you can be using it openly, aggressively and profitably!  Get your pieces out and play with them.  Don't fear your opponent, make your opponent fear you!

Cheers!

Nietzsche,

You raise some good points regarding playing too passively. I do not expect that I will be playing the Rubinstein forever, but right now I want to learn how to play more positionally. Until now I've played Najdorf, King's Indian and the sharpest 1.e4 lines I could find, and while fun and reasonably effective, I never got into non-trivial endgames. As a result, my endgame technique + general positional understanding is still that of a 1200 player. I realized that a very simple and effective way to get more endgame practice is to play more solid openings; hence my interest.

yeah... if I didn't make it clear enough:

Fort Knox = passive positions, little counter play, and the only chances are the chance to show up on the wrong side of a "How to Attack with 1.e4" demonstration.

bad, bad fearful chess.
Wicked, evil, naughty chess.
Never play it in public and don't let your children play it either.

I hope that clarifies my position on the Fort Knox.   

I would stay away from the Fort Knox.  I was looking for the safest possible defense to 1.e4 and became enchanted by the name.
Ohh..."Fort Knox"....now that IS solid.  So, I gave it a go for about 10 games.

My growing feeling was that the Fort Knox is just a nice sounding name for meak, passive defense. 
Hopefully I can make the difference between "passive" defense and active but "solid" defense clear...

Imagine one boxer hammering away at an opponent who just keeps his gloves over his face, curled up in the corner waiting for the bell to end the round; that's passive defense.
Now imagine the defending boxer is standing up toe-to-toe with his attacker.  He blocks the probing jabs and keeps his feet moving...waiting for an opening to appear.   
The defender doesn't try to throw any 'knockout' punches but simply stays mobile and looks for the gaps.

When the other guy finally throws that big left hook, he quickly ducks aside and puts a body shot into the guys ribs. 
He then backs away (one good body blow is enough for now) and it all starts again.
After about 9 rounds of this, the attacker is worn down and his punches are no longer dangerous.
Now the defender starts to think about a knockout.

Patiently waiting to counterpunch when the other guy commits himself is solid (since you don't take any big risks) but still active since keep your feet moving, counterpunch when you can, and don't just stand there.
 
My experience in the Fort Knox line is that white gets easy play and a very natural initiative that flows right into an inevitable kingside attack. Basically, black doesn't challenge white at all and the defense lacks real counter-punch capability. Black simply curls up in a ball and hopes white cannot use his initiative effectively.   
Believe me, white isn't going to just forget you're there and go away. 
If anything you just put up a red flag that says "Attack me!  I hate to be attacked and I won't try to hurt you!"   
For some defenders this is good, provactive chess. The 'rope-a-dope' style of early Korchnoi.   
But for most players, its just a bad idea and a miserable way to spend a couple of hours.

"Can he mate me now? .... How about if he goes there?... What happens if he sac that f-pawn? .... Can he mate me now?"


I would therefore recommend a more active defense to 1.e4.  A defense that is still solid in that it that don't involve things like gambiting to steal the initiative (Icelandic Gambit), opposite sides castling (the Dragon) or playing ...f5  and ...g5 opening the position up and turing it into a "who will get there first" contest.   

That's easy to say (at least for me) but of course there is no easy solution.   
Many, many players have struggled with the 'solid defense to 1.e4 problem (it really is a rather good move to start with) and no one has a clear solution or a "best answer".  Some people will assure its the Caro-Kan, others swear by the French, and of course there is the Petroff or the Spanish.  All of them are valid tries and all of them deserve respect. 

But since I have no idea what types of positions you like to play or what your playing strength is... lets just say that I think you should steer clear of Fort Knox and other "hide under the bed" defenses.   
Go for a more active defense which challenges white and doesn't involve waiting for the hammer to fall and hoping it will miss anything important.

Cheers, 
Nietzsche

   

woofwoof wrote on 07/07/06 at 14:23:40:


I had a close look at these lines, but I must admit I do not understand at all why the 4...Nbd7 variation of the CK can be considered solid.

After 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6 6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 Bd6 8.Qe2 h6 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4, which is a line which is quite forced, Black is crushed immediately if he tries 0-0. He can try to go to the queenside, but in the large majority of the games not even this is feasible and Black stays in the center and is subjected to an assault. Not what I consider a solid variation at all? However, I am of course aware that there must be a mistake in my logic somewhere, I just don't see it.

Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that the Rubinstein French is basically a 4...Nbd7 Caro-Kann without the tactics for White; so I'll try this

If solidity the key criteria, they dont get any more solid than the CK, most esp the 4...Nbd7 variation. If you prefer the French, than its the Rubinstein & Burn systems. But you also have to learn the advance variations for both, in case your opponent advances his e pawn instead of 3.Nc3.