Markovich wrote on 10/29/08 at 13:43:50:

I am sure that it is useful, I am however of the opinion that more roads lead to Rome. Furthermore I think that this approach is far more useful for white than it is for black. He is the one with the initiative and he has to work with that. That way he learns how to deal with both initiative and open positions.
Quote:

I dont see it.
Petrov: symmetrical position with the initiative for white
Scotch: Open position with space and inititiave for white, usually with black's pawn structure in tatters as well.
Two knights: pawn down for questionable compensation
Piannissimo: Symmetrical tedious position with again the initiative for white.
In all these lines black needs to play pretty accurately and has little chance of taking big advantage of slightly silly moves (with the exception maybe of the tkd). Furthermore it is almost entirely reactive. You react to white ideas and threats and basically the only ideas for black are to develop and to push d5.
Quote:

In other words what better way to learn about open positions than the french?

Seriously though, almost all openings lead up to open positions at some point. I dont see how spending all your time on not getting busted the first 10 moves is somehow superior for your development to say playing a Caro and spending time on exercise or analysing your own games.
In my experience the open games as black are excellent for youngsters as a learning tool, however I find that when kids start hitting 15 that use gets less and less, whatever their playing level. 

Nevermind that for adults it can also be totally frustrating to get beaten by some 11-year-old on a regular basis because you dont remember your Max Lange, while you would cream them in a stodgy French or even 1..b6. 

In short I dont see how learning 1..e5 from scratch is a smart investment of your time.

Play the French, and like Willempie says try to increase the time you have for watching football matches.

Then avoid 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 and 1.e4 e5 by all means! Don't bother about being consistent either. Where in the FIDE-laws is written that one should strive for the same kind of positions in every game? But do invest time in the Staunton Gambit to overcome your dislike. That's a smaller and easier task - and in the end you might even like refuting such chaotic play.

RE: "So 1..e5 vs 1.e4 is "mandatory" to become strong what about versus 1d4??  I guess the "answer" is the Tarrasch??  ALso what about what to play vs white?  Should it be 1.e4???"

I would think the Classical response to 1.d4 would definitely be 1...d5, but not to aim for a Tarrasch, but more like an orthodox QGD.   
As white, I think either central pawn would be considered 'good enough'.  I remember Chernev wrote something like "To have a fun game play 1.P-K4, to have a fun game and win play 1.P-Q4"....or something silly like that.

slates wrote on 10/28/08 at 23:54:50:

It all depends on your chessic goals. Do you want to become as strong as possible? Understanding the Open Games is mandatory (btw 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bc5 is great fun) to become an allrounder. Do you want to have fun and don't you mind to remain onesided? By all means stick to the C-K, French, Dragon or whatever. The C-K btw is by far not as "stodgy and solid" as the Petrov - that important part of the Open Games.

Markovich - and here I agree for 95% - at the other hand argues that you must (have) practice(d) the Open Games if your first goal is to improve. At the other hand chessplayers over 40 hardly ever manage to improve anyway, which is the reason I don't bother. I just play the openings which I expect to provide me the most fun. That I will never get a FIDE-rating or some title leaves me cold. Some 20 years ago it was different, but these days after a loss I sleep equally well. It is very possible to lead a happy chesslife without ever having played Opening X or Defence Y. There is no need to be derogatory about this. There is a price to be paid: onesidedness and a lower rating than might have been possible. Then you (and I) may ask: so what?

While I completely agree with logic behind playing 1...e5 (it really is important to learn how to handle open positions) I'd have to disagree with it as a suggestion; considering the request was for "something that doesn't have too many variations to memorize, and something I can use too play for the win" 


I don't think 1...e5 fits into this category.

I personally started playing the Caro-Kann recently (thanks to Peter Wells) and think its a great defense. I wouldn't bother switching if you know it already, but would focus on tactics at your level. That should yield more points than any new repertoire.  But I digress...

If you really want something new, the Scandinavian is a good suggestion (especially the 2...Qxd5 lines). But I wanted to add that if the main criteria are "not theoretical" yet still "double-edged" I'd probably suggest you check out Play 1...b6 which was written by Christian Bauer.
You can read more about it in previous threads or the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Play-1-b6-Dynamic-Hypermodern-Opening/dp/1857444108/ref=sr...

Black gets an interesting game with almost no theory. It also puts most white players out-of-book within a handful of moves and that's usually good news.

Of course, I don't think Black can equalize as easily as in the "real" defenses (e.g. the Spanish, Najdorf, French, etc.), but its very hard to play such lines without a ton of theory. Also the critical lines of such major openings tend to lead to very complicated middlegames which are hard to play OTB, even if you do know the theory to reach them.  

With 1...b6, you have "light-square restraint" in mind.  Eventually you counter-attack the white center via ...f5 or ...d5 breaks.  It's not exactly rocket science (and certainly not as respected as mainline stuff) but even the lines where white is better are not that bad for black (i.e. the middle games are playable). So, I think it meets your criteria rather well.

I had plenty of success with 1...b6 a few years ago, but I gave it up simply because it's not a "real" defense to 1.e4 and I figured I really ought to learn a "big boy" opening.  My style also became more solid, in that I stopped wanting to give white such a free-hand in the center or a clear spatial edge.  So, I began to play the Petroff against 1.e4.

But I got tired of all the crazy gambits and "anti-petroff" stuff I would inevitably face OTB. (i.e. the Four Freakin' Knights )    Then after a few "flavors of the month" I got into the Caro-Kann, which I think will be my main defense for awhile now.  

So, just to be clear, I think the Caro-Kann really is objectively  better than 1...b6, but I also think its mostly important to play whatever defense you enjoy and are comfortable in.  I think you'll find you're not losing many games because of opening preparation as much as tactics.  But check out Play 1..b6, and hey, if nothing else, the book presents interesting games annotated by a very good writer.   that's my free advice...  

i can't rememeber where i heard this, but did the old soviet chess school taught all the kids play e5 first, then move on to other openings.  i think they did this so they can learn tactics, positional play, easier to learn.  of course i could be wrong.

I'm sympathetic to Markovich's view; I find it rather odd to suggest e.g. the Philidor or the Kalashnikov to a player in the 1500s, or to invoke considerations like "not too theoretical" or "can be played for the win."