kalle99 wrote on 03/08/07 at 23:06:39:


Buy some books, for Pete's sake.  Educate yourself.  It's not my job or that of anyone else here to inform you on very elementary points of chess theory.  One naive question is maybe O.K., ten naive questions is stupid and demanding, you know?  Maybe you need a chess instructor, or better yet, actually to play some several hundred games of chess, before you bother people here for their opinions any more on very elementary points.  Or strive to frame some difficult, interesting questions about the 64 squares, not just about systems considered in the abstract, and on move 1, even.

Quote:


Yeah, saw that too and felt a forum shouldn't be used that way...

Markovich wrote on 03/03/07 at 21:04:17:


I think kalle99 had a perfectly valid question and I'm am surprised by your rather nasty reply.  I've always appreciated you as one of the most valuable contributors to this forum, regardless of the level of sophistication of the topic being discussed.  Bad day at the office I guess?

kalle99 wrote on 03/03/07 at 19:26:55:


I've heard that GM Ken Rogoff used to say that ...e5 was such a good move for Black he should play it whenever he got the chance.

Of course, I think he, too, played the Sicilian.

kalle99 wrote on 03/03/07 at 20:45:26:


Well, if you want a specific answer, you should ask a specific question.  The similarity with the Sicilian is obvious: Black wants to control square d4, thus preventing White from dominating the centre. The difference is also clear: 1...e5 allows Black to develop his pieces smoothly and strives to castle quickly. At the other hand with 1...c5 Black strives for long term centre domination himself, which becomes clear after 2.Nf3 and 3.d4. The price Black has to pay is a relatively slow development of the pieces.

kalle99 wrote on 03/03/07 at 19:26:55:


Well, why play chess? If you can answer that question, you can probably answer yours without anyone's assistance.

But in perfect fairness, why should anyone here care a frig whether you play 1...e5 or not?

Why play 1...e5?
Because Black has to play something after 1e4. And experience has shown that it is a very good answer to 1e4 (probably 1...c5, 1...e6 and 1...c6 are as good, I don´t want to discuss this here in detail!). From both points of view, logic and history, 1...e5 is the most easy answer to 1e4. - Usually closed positions change into halfopen ones and then into open ones (very seldom other way round as material is reduced during the course of one game). So it makes sense for chess students to strive for open positions and study them at first. Especially as they are based more on tactics than on positional features and therefor more easy to understand. 
In education and psychology there´s something like a "onto-genetical principle": a complicated scientifical topic should be studied in the same chronological order in which it has developed! As a beginner you start with playing "random" chess. Then you should learn to play like Greco and Lopez (same style, but of course lower technical level), then like Staunton/Andersen/Morphy, then like Steinitz/Lasker/Pillsbury/Rubinstein/Capablanca, then like Alekhine/Euwe/Fine/Botvinnik. With this kind of "classical chess style" it should be possible nowadays to reach expert or low master level - later you can jump to "modern chess", "hypermodern chess" or "21century chess".
This development has its correspondending openings: first the open games with more direct methods (2Qh5, Italian/MaxLange), then the open games with central preparations (Kingsgambit, Vienna, Scotch), at last culminating in the Ruy Lopez. By the way you learn as White to combat the halfopen games in classical stayle (3Nc3 againstFrench/CK, Austrian Attack, Open Sicilian). As Black you play 1e4 e5 and QGD. Later you play French/Sicilan as Black, maybe throwing in some classical Dutch or Benoni before you turn to the Indian Defences (and even more complicated things like Hedgehog, KIA, ...). Okay, in reality things are not that easy, all this is much more mixed and cannot be seperated as easy as described here, of course.
And I don´t want to say that Open games are only for beginners, no. The deeper you look the more complicated they develope. And the modern lines in many open games are as complicated as other halfopen or closed variations.
(I stop these thoughts here, I hope you´ve got the point)

How to defend against the Italian (2Nf3 Nc6 3Bc4)?
Besides 3...Bc5 and 3...Nf6 also 3...d6 and 3...Be7 are playable but not completely equalising (other moves are even weaker). 
3...Bc5 and 3...Nf6 are nearly equally good and equalising. 3...Bc5 is regarded as safer, 3...Nf6 as more enterprising. Both moves contains a lot of theory. Imo 3...Bc5 is more easy to play but then you must learn some variation against the Evans gambit! - Be aware of transpositions!!! Regarding a black repertoire the answers to 2Nf3 Nc6 3Bc4, 2Nf3 Nc6 3d4 exd4 4Bc4, 2Bc4, 2Nc3 should be handled as ONE complex!

tracke