As I've read the comments in this thread (that I started), I've come to agree with the post below.  As much as I hate to admit it, my dislike of 1...e5 truly comes from an inability to handle the positions well (rather than a genuine preference for closed positions).  This thread has inspired me to stick with 1...e5.  Today I lost three games horribly to the Ponziani in blitz (out of book after mover 4 - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.Bb5). In the past, I would take this as evidence that I prefer closed games.  However, I now admit that these losses mean that I need to spend more time with open games.  Maybe I'll even take up the Two Knights...

Thanks - it feels good to confess
Scott

p.s.  Now, if I could just figure out what to do against 1.d4 d5...

>>So I regard some of the statements here about how dicey and unsettling open positions are as evidence of a serious gap in the games of the persons making these statements -- notwithstanding that these may be more talented players than I am (and that there are no doubt very serious gaps in my own game). 
 
I'll go further and say that the black side of the Two Knights is in some ways the Philosopher's Stone of chess.  If you can play it well, you will probably make a good chess player. [/quote]

Willempie wrote on 04/28/08 at 11:38:55:


I don't know about the kingside necessarily, but I take your point.  You certainly have to battle in the center.  The upside is that if White plays an inefficient move, you become White.

In so many of the semi-open systems, an inefficient move by White means only that Black's equality comes a little more easily.

I just don't see how anyone can play chess well if he can't play open positions well.  The reason is that the very best thing that you can do in many closed or half-open positions is to open the position on favorable terms (or at least, it's critically important to know whether any given opening of the position is favorable or unfavorable). If you can't judge well what your chances are in any given open position, and don't have a good idea what to do in it, how can you play chess at all?  So I regard some of the statements here about how dicey and unsettling open positions are as evidence of a serious gap in the games of the persons making these statements -- notwithstanding that these may be more talented players than I am (and that there are no doubt very serious gaps in my own game). 
 
I'll go further and say that the black side of the Two Knights is in some ways the Philosopher's Stone of chess.  If you can play it well, you will probably make a good chess player.

MNb wrote on 04/26/08 at 15:18:30:


I don't mind having the initiative at any stage, rather I dislike the concessions one often has to make in initative-based, "fast" openings like the Open Games. I mean positional concessions and also to some extent material sacrifice, and tactical weaknesses that need constant monitoring. For example, I tried the Sveshnikov as a junior and did poorly with it, knowing that I was under pressure to find accurate, dynamic moves all the time to justify my loose pawn structure.

In the typical game that I win I first outplay my opponent through better opening knowledge or understanding (OK, sometimes I have to wait for the middlegame before they do something wrong), and eventually I often get an initiative/attack without making any concessions. It just isn't tempting to start taking risks in open positions against the typical amateur hackers, when I know I am likely to beat them with something semi-open where their lack of understanding will show...

Right now I am happy with the Sicilian and the French, but I read in Davies' 1.e4 e5 book that his switch to 1...e5 as Black (on the recommendation of Psakhis?) helped him finally rise to the GM level. If I am ever in the same situation, I promise to give 1...e5 a fair hearing. 

smrex13 wrote on 04/22/08 at 01:42:08:


I'm not much of a 1...e5 player myself - a few years ago I tried out Kaufman's Berlin repertoire, mostly in blitz, and when I ran into these guys who played instantly for the first 10-15 moves (various d4 gambits, Evans Gambit, Belgrade etc) I had more than the occasional disaster. Black is OK of course, but only if he knows a lot of stuff by heart - and at least in blitz, white can improvise quite easily, getting you out of book. And books and people often over estimate black's being OK into more than that, which might be true if Fritz or Rybka etc were playing black, but in practice I've noticed that - "and white has not enough for his pawn/damaged structure/missing bishop pair" etc, - doesn't help me much when I'm forced to play defensively for the first 25-30 moves...

I later moved on to the Philidor, which removed a lot of the trickier gambits as well as the boredom of the 4Knights - but since you'd like to play the Ruy 2...d6 won't help you much.

However, have you considered 1...Nc6 ? I've been trying this in blitz a lot myself - the most common is 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 and then you'd play 2...e5 of course. (Personally, I like Miles' 2-d6, Nf6 & Bg4 system, but that's another matter..) My experience is that after 2...e5 white for some reason usually either goes for the Ruy or the Scotch. 

And btw, after 3.Bc4 there's no law that forces you to play the main variations - you could e.g try the Hungarian Def, 3..Be7, which albeit a bit passive it gives either a closed position reminiscent of a Czech Benoni or something Philidorian if you exchange pawns on d4. In blitz it usually ends white's 'instant play', at least.


Maybe the Belgraders, etc usually prefer 2.d4 but after 2...e5 here too, you'd encounter 2...dxe5 and 2...d5 much more often than the various remaining d4-gambits - and in my exp most go for the Scotch or dxe5/d5 which are much easier to play without a lot of preparation. 

Against other 2nd moves it helps if you're prepared to replace ...e5 with ...d5, as a good Scandinavian is a common panacea. 

>> And somehow White's attacking schemes are more stereotyped and predictable in those openings; when I play 1.e4 e5 I feel like anything can go wrong, and quite suddenly. 

I completely agree.  Even the sharpest openings (Najdorf, French Winawer, Nc3 Caro) are not nearly as difficult to handle as some of the sharp 1.e4 e5 lines.  I think the relative stability of the center in the semi-closed openings makes White's attacking plans more understandable.  The Qg4 Winawer, for example, tells Black exactly what he needs to watch out for - an attack against the Black king with several typical structures that are learnable.  On the other hand, in 1.e4 e5 lines, it's amazing how often a sudden threat arises from nothing in a sector of the board that seemed unimportant.  I think that's what attracts some players to the opening, but it's what frustrates me and sends me running back to the French or Sicilian.

Scott

Willempie wrote on 04/24/08 at 06:59:14:


That's exactly what I mean, yes. Sure, White has plenty of attacking chances in both the Sozin and the Qg4 Winawer (I can't comment on the Nc3 Advance CK; never played it with either color), but I find that the tactics start somewhat later than in many of those open games (more time for my opponents to run out of theory and/or make some positional error). And somehow White's attacking schemes are more stereotyped and predictable in those openings; when I play 1.e4 e5 I feel like anything can go wrong, and quite suddenly. But I admit that the problem is a general dislike of open positions. Come to think of it, I'm not a big fan of 1.e4 e5 from the White side either...

So I conclude, again, that if I take up 1.e4 e5 as Black it might well do me a lot of good in the long term, but in the short term my results are likely to suffer.

Quote:

But lots of good stuff on 1.e4e5 chesspublishing - anyway enough material to build a repertoire either with white or black or even with both colours concering e4 - e5.

At the beginning of my chess career I played mostly 1...e5. But if one wants toplay this move he should study tons of theory. At least White can choose 3-4 different opening schemes. Then I switched to 1...c6 for a while but realised that this type of positions are not in my style. Then started to play the French. It worked very good for me bringing me alot of points, but the variations which I played has been sent to history recently. Thus I started to play Sicilian. During the years switched from Scheveningen to Paulsen, Sveshnikov, Najdorf. And finally I found myself  . The system that bests suits my style is Rauzer.
From the other hand playing with White against 1...e5 is also very hard task. How can White obtain even a small plus with good chances for complex play and win...
So I think that the choice of the opening move (system) is upon the style of the player. First you should determine what kind of positions you like and then choice openings which can lead to these typical structures.

Regards