Antillian wrote on 12/09/06 at 12:29:30:



Thanks for your thoughts. I mainly play chess because it is fun. However, it is more fun when I win  and my current openings give me the best opportunity to do that. My goal is to become an expert (350 points) in 5 years which I think is modest enough that I can attain it. Toward that end I do about 15 min of tactics each day and try to either 1. study an endgame or annotate a master game and compare my thoughts to the masters annotations/lines actually played. 

That said, I get bored with what I play about once a year and change up my openings just to keep the game interesting and fresh. When you say to play classical opening, does playing the petrov as black qualify?

As to the original topic (the Tango w/o 2. c4), these articles http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_shrtcts/archive.html by Joel Benjamin are the sum of my knowledge on the tango. He doesn't really address it, but I doubt you can avoid transposing into a Tromposky/colle/london system if that is what white really wants to play.

The last sentence contains the best advice for amateurs. An amateur is someone, who does something for fun.

Antillian wrote on 11/09/06 at 01:21:36:


Out of curiousity, at what point would you leave those classical opening behind and play one that you like?

When I first started out, I had no idea what to do beyond 1. e4 and usually played what I now know is a Giucco Piannisimo. At my first tournament, I learned about a faboulous opening called "the kings gambit". I got a provisional (USCF) rating of 800 and took up the KG which shot me all the way up to 1000 (against other scholastic players). Someone told me to play classically, and I had learned basic opening theory (develop, occupy center, safeguard king) so I took up the Scotch (black I always played the two knights with moderate success). I was soon a 1200 player and went back to the KG as it was more fun. I ran into a few d4 playeres and after 2 debacles with the QGA I took up the nimzo/bogo. I then took up the sicillian najdorf to spice up my black game and a year later graduated high school with a 1400 rating and a repitoire of KG and najdorf sicillian. 

7 years later I started playing again and realized I had mellowed a bit and took up both the french and english. I am now a 1650 USCF player (1800 corr) who plays the benko, french and english. I feel like I never really got a good handle on symetric games, and it shows up every so often when someone plays a simple french exchange against me. I have considered going back and trying out symetric games for awhile, but I'm not sure I would get anything out of it.

kylemeister wrote on 11/09/06 at 19:16:32:


Basman's is my favorite opening book. Principles rather than tons of variations. I go there for understanding, Collins' 'Understanding the Chess Openings' to get a broad overview of things, and then to specific books once I've chosen a repertoire.

Keilmeister: Thanks fore the ideas. Soltis' pawn structure chess is pretty beyond my level at the moment. I got it, realized it was more advanced than I am, and traded it for My System.

EricTheRed: You've convinced me to use the Aargaard book. I'ver ordered it for one-day delivery.  This is good: frankly I don't like fianchetto openings as I usually end up with my space all gone and I never recover.

As a sort of holistic approach I might suggest taking a look at

(1)   Play the Queen's Gambit, by (Croatian GM) Drazen Marovic.  It would allow you to explore the Slav, Semi-Slav or 2...e6 QGD (except the Tarrasch), via succinctly-annotated illustrative games (with a page or so of text introducing/summarising each major system).  It's not a repertoire book for White, as you might think from the title.  Many of the games are older (Capablanca, Petrosian etc.), as Marovic thinks those tend to be more instructive.

(2)  (relevant parts of) Pawn Structure Chess by (US GM) Andrew Soltis, e.g. the chapters on the QG family and Caro-Slav structures.

True enough, maybe nothing in these books gives specific recommendations on playing against non-2. c4 stuff.  A couple of thoughts:  regarding the Colle, a Slav player would probably be happy to play 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 Bf5, and if 4. c4 (recommended by every Colle book I've seen) c6 and voilà, it's a Slav.  3. Bg5 is also basically innocuous (one American GM actually called it "a horrible move") due to 3...Ne4.  In any case, I'm so old-fashioned that I think everyone should have a decent opening reference book such as MCO, which could provide guidance on lines such as these. 

A final practical thought is to use interlibrary loan as a way of previewing books.

The Slav by Matthew Sadler got some good reviews. It is good with explanation of the ideas and has complete games. However, it does not cover deviations.

http://www.amazon.com/Slav-Matthew-Sadler/dp/1901259005/sr=1-2/qid=1163074052/re...

The Tarrash might be worth considering as well. There is book called "Meeting 1. d4" which deals with playing the Tarrash as well as any non 1. e4 openings White might throw at you other.

http://www.amazon.com/Meeting-Everyman-Chess-Jacob-Aagaard/dp/1857442245/sr=8-1/...


I would suggest you stay far away from any books by Schiller. I have never read a good review on a Schiller book.

ErictheRed wrote on 11/09/06 at 02:26:44:


Yeah, that's what I think too.  It reminds me somewhat of another recent thread/debate on this board, and of something John Donaldson once wrote, approximately "I'm a firm believer that everyone should play classical chess at the beginning of their career, and I cringe whenever I see a 1600 player wheel out the King's Indian Attack."  (And no, I'm not saying that playing the Tango is exactly comparable to playing the KIA.)