MNb wrote on 10/31/08 at 10:08:40:
This is all well and true as soon as you have reached a certain level of play (btw I find 2100 and 2000 quite high; I would say 1700). Markovich' and my point is that a young improving player who choses the French has to deal with more than open positions, a point which you still don't deny. So, with a lot of exaggeration, you want to teach solving equations while your pupils even don't know what a variable means.
To use an analogy as well: When you learn German in school you do this basically by learning words and basic grammar in the first two years. However when you are from Limburg (or maybe Twente) and have regular contact with Germans, this method is not as useful and it may be better to put the wordlearning at a lower level and in stead let them read books, probably even books which are above their level.
In short I think you will learn more by playing a French, CK or Petrov (with the learning of the opening included) and use the time saved for other things than openings
IF you have no real affinity with 1..e5.
Quote:
The other point is that the theoretical advantage you describe (which in fact is only true for the Scotch (and even here disputable) and the Ruy Lopez and not for the Italian) isn't very meaningful on <1700 level. Also you forget to mention that actually Black can open the position at a quite early stage if White choses something stodgy, either with ...d5 or by preparing ...f5.
OK I should be less generalising. The Hungarian defense usually gives a small center, the Bd2/Nc3-Giouco does (albeit with often an isolated pawn). Your point about d5 I already mentioned in another post as it is often the only plan black has in the open games.
Quote: Finally you probably will enjoy the news that in the CL I had no problem at all to equalize after 3...Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 (and in 25 years I haven't seen any book claiming more than equality for WHite after 5...Na5, not even that excellent Euwe repertoire book; he might have invented the genre). I strongly suspect that your evaluation of this line is influenced by your aversion to gambits in general, which may be caused by you playing the C-K too long.
So Up and Comer, Willempie is a good example of the kind of prejudices you will get when you continue playing the C-K.
Firstly I havent played the CK that long.
Secondly I do play gambits, though I more often accept them. As you know in the CL I have an excellent score with accepting the poisoned pawn in the Najdorf, while I often play the poisoned pawn of the Winawer as black. Incidentally both are very open, tactical lines.
Thirdly in the TKD you are a pawn down and it is not as easy as you suggest to play this as black. The compensation is less clear than say a Benko and more like say a Marshall Ruy. Meaning that at higher levels the compensation is enough, but at lower levels requires some sophistication by studying the lines quite deeply. In my experience I never met people on the board who could reproduce their studies. At some point they play suboptimal (ie allowing a free developing move) and then they are just a pawn down.
Fourthly I may be prejudiced against some lines and openings, but in this case it has more to do with my experience in the open games, which I played exclusively from when I was 6 up until around 20.
Pages: 
Looking for a new opening against e4 (Read 72889 times)
