...or even in 3 moves!
1.e4 e5 2.Nh3 Qh4 3.Ke2 Qxe4#

saubhikr wrote on 01/09/08 at 02:41:22:


When I'm learning a new opening, I'm always using books in order to learn the basics, then I search Chessbase and Chess Publishing to see if there are any novelties and/or different opinions, and supplement with some analysis on my own. I don't know how it will be to use Chess Publishing as your primary source, as I've never tried that myself.

Since there are so many different ways for White to challenge 1...e5, it's easy to get lost in the jungle; therefore, my recommendation would be to use a repertoire book in the beginning, in order to learn one reply to each of White's possibilities. Then you can later supply by studying alternatives to the lines you don't like.

It's hard to say how long it will take before you can try 1...e5 in a tournament game, as it depends on how effectively you study it, how hard it is to learn the lines you choose and how well you think you have to know it before trying it (which, I believe, is individual; some players are better than others at finding useful moves when out of book). My guess would be "somewhere between one and three months."

... e5 is probably the best reply to 1.e4.
But if you really want to win you have to play the sicilian.
That is why I play both

Yeah, Hebden has been a real inspirer to me too. It's amazing how he just plays natural chess and suddenly ends up winning seemingly drawish positions.

As for my honest thoughts about 1...e5: Having played it for seven years, my experience is that it's as good as any other opening, and if I'm the stronger player, I usually win. Of course, I concede some draws (and losses) now and then - but that would be the case with every other opening as well! Perhaps it's not the best choice in a must win-situation against a stronger opponent who is content with a draw, but since your main concern is weaker opponents, I'd say 1...e5 is no worse than other openings.

In my view, the Sicilian may give you more chances to win right from the opening, but also more chances to lose to a good preparation. 1...e5 is less likely to give you a better position from the opening, but once you know how to deal with the dangerous-looking sidelines, you're also less likely to end up clearly worse. Usually you'll get a pretty equal position where the stronger player will win the game.

Oh, and I could add that during my 1...e5 career, I can only remember one game where the opening completely ruined my winning chances (except for a couple where I simply went wrong and quickly lost). In that game, a Ruy Lopez, I dived right into my opponent's 20-move preparation and ended up in an endgame where he had the only winning chances. I had several ways to avoid the endgame, so I wouldn't blame 1...e5 for that...

saubhikr wrote on 01/07/08 at 01:05:29:

I don't bypass questions! I thought you asked whether I "really believe one can win consistently against weaker opponents." with 1...e5, which I have already answered twice!
If you weren't asking that then what were you asking?
Incidentally, this Forum has a strict no adds policy!

Davies' comment (if it's the one in his e4 e5 book) refers specifically to the Ruy Lopez.  I'm not sure the same benefit comes from playing 1...e5 if your opponents seldom venture into the main lines.  In fact, you can study the Lopez and play through master games on your own to gain insight into positional play without switching to 1...e5.   

Also, Davies mentioned that he had been playing the Modern and Pirc to avoid theory and therefore had missed out on part of his chess education.  If a player has been playing main line Sicilians, I'm not sure that he's losing much in the way of chess knowledge.  Sicilians can lead to tactical or positional play and are generally considered to be very sound (at least most variations).   

Just my two cents,
Scott

"Don't feel obliged to go along with Davies' comments re... e5, though I acknowledge this is a widely quoted notion."


 

Rossia,
Got your email. Thanks a lot. Its very useful.

Tony,
I really respect you. Made a career out of your "Dynamic Engilish" book. When I was in India, I actually learned Nimzo with your "New Ideas in Nimzo" book (so funny - didn't know the opening before and started with new ideas !). 

I will distrub you once more - It will take me who;e 2 months to pick up e4-e5 and you really believe one can win consistently against weaker opponents. If I can't make good progress in next few months, I will most likely quit chess foreever and focus on my IT career only. So please let me know one more time what you think. A few more lines of yours may make big difference for me.