I'd like to pursue a little further the question of how to continue after the recommended 1.e4 e5. It seems to be agreed that a weak player should be aiming for something more active and less subtle than the closed Lopez. But what about 3.Bc4, which at my level is more common than the Lopez? Emms and Davies recommend the Two Knights, which gives Black an active game if White plays 4.Ng5 or 4.d4. But in my experience White usually plays 4.d3. In this case both Emms and Davies propose 4...Be7 - which, if White continues with c3, Nbd2 etc, leads to positions very similar to a closed Lopez! What do people think of this advice? Would it be better to play 4.d3 Bc5, with something closer to a classical Lopez?

A related question is why Black usually plays ...Be7 rather than ...Bc5 in the Lopez, whereas 3.Bc4 Be7 is regarded as somewhat passive. But, depending on the answer, that may be off-topic in this thread.

katar wrote on 12/07/10 at 05:35:15:


Agree to disagree with MNb by all means -- I often do -- but I hope you'll continue to post here, since I enjoy reading what you have to say.

MNb wrote on 12/07/10 at 10:37:00:


Well OK, but the main line Sozin and Velimirovic where White does go for a quick f4 or g4 (without f3) are also only equal theoretically. So my concern is that slower play by White may even leave him struggling for equality. If White is too slow Black's counterplay on the queenside can be pretty strong.

I think I liked your (and Goeller's) idea of playing f4 setups against everything better...

MNb wrote on 12/07/10 at 01:11:04:

Has this setup been discussed anywhere (on the Forum or elsewhere)? My first thought is that White needs to be quicker to threaten either f4-f5, f4-e5 or g4-g5 to put Black under real pressure in the Sozin, but I'm not an expert. Could be an interesting setup to look into. Would you say it works against both the Najdorf, Scheveningen and Classical?

katar wrote on 12/06/10 at 18:41:03:

After which your adult player will fall back into his frustration because of the resulting sterile positions. For your information: there are almost 90 000 games with the c3-system in my database. Compare this with the 3 000 games of the Sozin/English Attack mixture, which can be played against the Najdorf, the Scheveningen (via 6.Be3 a6/Nc6 7.Bc4) and the Classical d6/Nc6. Also consider the 2 000 games of the Loewenfish Attack against the Dragon. Both are very easy to learn; easier than the MSG. There are several defences against this where stereotypal play resulting from your one hour study will lead to disaster. And then we haven't even mentioned yet all the ways Black can decline.

katar wrote on 12/06/10 at 18:41:03:

I don't thinks so, as I have played the Morra-Smith Gambit myself for about 10 years and with success (indeed, from a 1400 level till 1800 or so) - until it did not work anymore. So I know from experience how much work it is. Now I am too old and tired to do what I should have done when I still had the energy: taking up 2.Nf3 and 3.d4.

katar wrote on 12/06/10 at 18:41:03:

Only if you give him the topical stuff like 6.Be3 against the Najdorf, the Richter-Rauser and the Yugoslav.
May I remind you that Davies wrote a book called Taming the Sicilian? It has less pages than the recent books by Palkovi and Langrock. They did not even cover the lines with 3...d5 and 3...Nf6, which your adult is going to meet on a regular base.
Btw anyone can "learn" the Sozin/English Attack mixture in less than 15 minutes. 1.e4, 2.Nf3, 3.d4, 4.Nxd4, 5.Nc3, 6.Bc4, 7.Be3, 8.f3, 9.Qd2 or 9.Qe2, 10.0-0-0 and advance the g- and h-pawns. Remember that White should only play g5-g6 if he is ready for the sac on h6, show a few typical counterplans for Black and there you are. Everything a Class-C player must know to tackle one of the most popular setups for Black.
You don't like it? Take a look here:

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2010/01/five-easy-pieces-open-s...

Again numbers speak for themselves: 6.f4 against the Najdorf less than 6 000 games; 6.f4, 7.Be3 evt. Qf3 against the Scheveningen slightly more than 5 000.

My idea of beauty in chess is a one next to my name.  This is a hell of a game to try to learn to play well!  I don't see how anyone without a very strong desire to win could find the necessary motivation.

Yeah, I think we agree quite a bit.  I agree totally with your first point about tactics, and frequently give advice to that effect.  It's just that I don't think improving tactically is always best done by playing 1.e4 e5, or done to the exclusion of improving in other ways. I guess I would agree with your second point, too, if I really thought such matters could be separated out cleanly.

But I am not so ideological about it, I was trying to say that I think improvement and instruction and openings alike need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and that it is really quite hard where an adult is concerned to separate out pleasure and skill, limitation and adaptation, short-term and long-term gain. Just ask de la Mazza.

I would say though, that I would trust Markovich, given his writing here and elsewhere, to be an excellent teacher; that like any good teacher, he would bring his students into his own tradition; and that teaching with 1.e4 e5 is an excellent and honorable tradition, just not the only one.