MNb wrote on 11/01/08 at 20:06:33:


I notice that Beliavsky and Mikhalchischin thought that 5...b5 6. Bf1 Nd4 7. c3 Nxd5 8. Ne4 Ne6 (instead of the Berliner stuff) should lead to equality.  Hmm.

Nietzsche, 

If you play the Petroff, you don't have to play the Two Knights or the Scotch.  Also, If you play the Modern Defense to the King's Gambit, which is completely adequate, you hardly need to keep "pages and pages" of notes.  The black side of the Vienna doesn't require all sorts of notes, so far as I'm aware.  The Danish can very simply be declined, where Black has a very solid variation, the well-known one with ...Bg4, ...Bb4 and eventually ...Qc4.  And the Vienna, since when did that require reams of notes?  So this part of you post, I really do not get.

More fundamentally, I think that the pursuit of a "non-theoretical" system is anti-chess.  Chess is theoretical.  The endings are theoretical, for crying out loud; all the openings that are any good are theoretical.  I agree that no one should play the Petroff with the idea of avoiding theory, but the same is true of the Caro.

Just play this and replace the lines that make you suffer.

MagicTrick wrote on 11/01/08 at 23:00:58:


Mostly appears sensible and reliable. 
Traxler/Wilkes Barre is wild but will be a lot of fun for you. Cannot understand why it is not played more. 

I warn against Qh4 versus Scotch however. That will result in  suffering and a fair few early baths.
  If you want (comparatively) low maintenance line, 4...Bb4+ is worth a look. See old Miles games, an SOS article and games of (iirc) Stefanova among others.
Gd luck.

Markovich wrote on 11/01/08 at 01:29:41:


Thanks, I'll try that. Although, I feel that my lack of knowledge and experience will cost me 50-100 ELO rating-wise. Is it enough to play e5 and the Tarrasch (or the QGA instead?) online in CC (chess.com) and in live chess (FICS)? If so, what time control would you recommend for live chess to get a balance between a good quantity of games and reasonable quality? Also, should I get any books on the Open Games or Tarrasch/(QGA?)?

BTW: Do you still recommend this type of Black repertoire even for a mainly 1. e4 player like me? I mean, if I get open games as White am I not getting the same experience?

kylemeister wrote on 11/01/08 at 19:32:18:


S**t, again a typo. I have corrected it. Regarding 5...b5 I am curious if GM Stellwagen has concrete lines in mind. I have.

up and comer wrote on 10/31/08 at 20:47:19:


No reason to abandon the KID. I asked it because you might reconsider your white repertoire iso switching from the Caro-Kann to the Open Games. Unlike Markovich - but I haste myself to say that he and TN are much stronger than me - I think a modest diversification actually can help you, as long as there are enough lines in your repertoire which require play in Morphy-style.

After 1.d4 d5 there are, provided that Black plays ...dxc4 at some stage, quite a few interesting gambits available. Eg 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 (3.e4 is reminiscent of the Open Games as well) Nf6 (a6 4.e4) 4.Nc3 is not less sharp or sound than the sharpest KG or Evans Gambit. At the other side of the spectrum there is the QGD Exchange Variation with the minority attack, recommended by no one less than Euwe. As far as I know he wrote the first repertoire book ever; several of his recommendations were out of fashion then but popular amongst the very best now (including the Petrov). Anyhow, the minority attack is a very straightforward strategy. It will teach you planning, consequently executing your plan and flexibly adapting/changing it when your opponent does no cooperate.
What you should avoid for the time being is all those complex systems with there hidden strategical points, deep prophylactic thinking and multiplanning.

exigentsky wrote on 10/31/08 at 19:11:40:

Yes, you should.  And against 1.d4 and everything else, play the Tarrasch.  As I said before, when you can sometimes scalp chess masters in open positions, only then is it time to think about diversifying.   

My opinion.