I suppose you have also found out that Müller and Voigt have forgotten a whole chapter? They only investigate 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2, not Black's other 4th move options.

I liked the Berg game more. That Russian game - well, typically for 1.e4 - a lot of patient manoeuvring and hardly tactics. Of course it's still a good game, but it kinda confirms my statement on 1.e4. I have also played through a couple of Kramnikvs Grünfeld games, especially the Bb5+ ones. Rather sharp stuff.

MNb wrote on 08/01/08 at 14:56:52:

Depends. If you take Tiviakov's and Topalov's games as white you are probably correct. If you take Kramnik's and Shirov's games as white probably not.

Btw those Berlin games are quite fun. In particular the Russian one is very good.

I have played pretty much every opening at one time or another (which is one reason I'm not that good).  I think the discussion here is very interesting because it hits on something that has been driving me crazy:  Playing the "best" lines vs. playing practical or fun lines.  At the moment, my location and lifestyle dictate that I can't engage very often in OTB games so I'm mostly doing online blitz and correspondence.  I've been going back and forth between playing "good" openings like the Ruy or QG as white, 1...e5 and Slav as black and playing openings that I know are not as good but are fun like the BDG and 2...Nf6 Center Counter.

To address the original question in this thread, yes, even though I'm currently playing the bad and fun openings like the BDG I have spent a lot of time in the last few years studying classical principles.  That is how I know the BDG is not as good as the Ruy Lopez.  I don't consider it a copout when my opponent replies 1 d5 d5 2 e4 e6 (or 2...c6) as I would probably do the same thing.  The BDG is pretty dangerous for black if taken by surprise in a fast time control game.  Usually when confronted with the Caro-Kann I will play the exchange with 4 Bd3 and with the French I'll just play the exchange with 4 c4 ala Waitzkin and Ashley.

Anyway, my feeling at the moment is that I'm never going to be an expert or above (I'm 49) and that last thing I need in life is more drudgery, so win or lose I'm just going to play fast time controls and aggressive openings for now.  I know the BDG is not as good as the Ruy, but at this moment I don't care.

Willempie wrote on 08/01/08 at 05:41:27:


I must admit I'm not sure how 5. Re1 is in the style of the Riga, or how your pawns can jump over your Knights.

SWJediknight wrote on 07/31/08 at 16:13:57:


Yes. I gave up the Danish around 1990 and the KG a few years ago. Despite Anon2's advise I like to waste my time as I feel like, so I try to keep up with the theoretical developments. Especially the Danish is an opening you can ask me questions about and hope to get a sensible answer. Here I must admit that I play much more corr. chess last few years than OTB. In my last OTB tournament I succeeded to play attacking chess with the London System.  

SWJediknight wrote on 07/31/08 at 16:13:57:


So you went exactly in the opposite direction as me ...
OK, after being a bit negative on White's attacking chances let me do two suggestions, besides the KG. Both are based on 2.d4 exd4.

A) the Danish according to Alekhine. 3.c3 dxc3 (Ne7 and there is some endgame with the centre pawns gone but slightly more active pieces White can reach - if interested I will look it up for you) 4.Nxc3 and White can avoid the main line of the Göring Gambit after Nc6 (Bb4 5.Qd4!? to avoid 5.Bc4 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nc6, though White may have other options but 7.Nf3 as well and even 7.Nf3 d6 8.Ng5 is worth investigating) 5.Bc4 Bb4 and now 6.Nge2 is possible. Black must give up the pair of bishops as well and White's pawn structure does not get ruined. The knight is not worse on c3 than on f3 and somewhat later White has f2-f4 available.
B) 3.Bc4 Nc6 (or Nf6 4.Nf3 Nc6; Bb4+ 4.c3 is A) 4.Nf3 Nf6 (Bc5 5.c3 Nf6 6.0-0!? is underestimated according to Emms in Play the Open Games) 5.0-0 and you already have found out about the sterility of ...Qh5. So focus on 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 (Bd7 gives White nice attacking play, as I learned at the wrong side of the board). At the moment I quite like Black, but there is quite some uncharted territory here.

Willempie wrote on 07/31/08 at 21:40:36:

Show me the way, because I can't find it ....

MNb wrote on 07/30/08 at 16:35:57:

If you want a slugfest you can get them there as well. Even if you play serious, very often the attack is the best way to beat the Berlin endgame (and also the Petrov). Though of course it is without queens and pawn sacs  
Then again against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 there is no way for black to avoid a tactical slugfest

May I quote from "Chess Openings for Black, Explained":

Openings are Schizophrenic

"Don't waste your time with the fantasy of the 'tailor-made' repertoire we sometimes hear about that will bring out your inner, winning you with just the right openings. Certainly, an experienced chess teacher can help you to improve much faster and absorb important principles more thoroughly than you could on your own. However, in any major opening, you can't play in a way that will guide you only to tactical terrain while preventing positional games, or vice versa.

Try staying in a 'solid' Caro-Kann agaisnt someone who wants to pry the game open for an attack. Even Mikhail Botvinnik couldn't do it in 1960 against Tal. Or try playing the Sicilian for a sharp, attacking game against an expert in White's c3-system, and you'll likely find yourself in a positional struggle. Some variations of the French are passive, while some are downright counterattacks. Some forms of the Ruy Lopez are positional; some are wild and hoary. Some Giuoco Pianos are hardly pianissimo. Your opponent can play the Queen's Gambit like the draw-prone Carl Schlechter or like the checkmate-obsessed Frank Marshall.

Openings are schizophrenic. Whatever opening you play, you risk getting a position that doesn't match your own attitudes about aggression or passivity. Still, in some extreme cases, consider the plusses and minuses of your play, indeed of your style. If you are a pawn-loving Korchnoi fan, don't play the Benko Gambit!"

MNb wrote on 07/30/08 at 16:35:57:


Well, naturally, 2...c6 is what I have in mind after 1.d4 d5 2.e4, though I have also started to look at the French again.  I can only presume that this puts me on more familiar ground, which is not nothing...

Anonymous2 wrote on 07/30/08 at 05:43:07:

Why don't they play 2.c4 and allow Black to keep the pawn after ...dxc4 ? These days I am convinced that 1.d4/2.c4 provides more chances for a tactical slugfest than 1.e4 (Petrov, Berlin Defence, Fort Knox).

HgMan, if I were you I would happily play 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 (as I am me it will be 2...e6). Principles don't get a chessplayer too far and why miss the chance to fight that BDGeer on familiar ground?

Anonymous2 wrote on 07/30/08 at 05:43:07:


You're of course right, 1.e4 can indeed lead to sharp positions if White wants it. But the BDG and to a lesser extent the Sicilian Dragon, have devoted followers that feel like they belong to an exclusive club. Though some would no doubt chide, 'a club of weak players' when it comes to the BDG. Whenever I've played a BDG in a tournament, other BDGers would come up to me and introduce themselves and we would discuss the opening and our experiences. That doesn't happen with other openings. There is a sense of community within that opening unlike anything else in chess. 

I started playing gambits after an opponent told me my strategy to win was to try to make the game so boring that an opponent would fall asleep! 

I then found that gambits are a lot of fun and began playing them so often that my positional, and even my endgame play, began to weaken over time. However, my understanding of sharp, messy positions grew and has tended to compensate somewhat. 

There's serious chess and there's fun chess. And someone playing the BDG isn't overly concerned about losing. It's all about having a good time. That's why BDGers tend to look for sharp lines everywhere.

HgMan wrote on 07/29/08 at 13:35:43:


When I started studying openings more than 25 years ago I was a diehard gambiteer - Volga Gambit, Danish Gambit, Morra Gambit, Jänisch-Schliemann, Falkbeer and a few more belonged to my first serious repertoire. I also remember being excited when I discovered the 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 variation against the C-K. But I have always tried to remain objective and very quickly turned to the Caro-Kann 4.Bd3 instead. Also rather quickly I discovered that I found it harder to meet solid declining variations than the sharp stuff after accepting a gambit. Quite a few gambiteers I have met bashed such solid play; I have always suspected because they didn't know how to handle it.
I sincerely have tried to explore more than gambit-stuff. If I have succeeded is another matter, but one thing I have noticed: I tend to have success in positions with an isolated centre pawn against players of about equal strength, at both sides of the board! At the other hand I am afraid my positional understanding is seriously lacking. Not that that thought keeps me awake at night.
At the moment my repertoire is build around all those "real" Queen Gambits, so once a gambiteer always a gambiteer I suppose.
My last point is this. I have always felt that gambiteers should try to get positional understanding as well. Gambit/attacking play is not a different kind of chess and that often seems to be completely forgotten. A weakness is a weakness, initiative is initiative, a strong square is a strong square, if you have sacced material or not.