nocteus wrote on 02/06/13 at 14:15:22:


The Goring sequence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 can be met by the Capablanca .. Bxf3 and .. Qc4 idea as you suggest. You still need lines against the sequence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4. The Max Lange, if you allow it, can become very theoretical.

Personally I like the move-order trick 3...Nc6 followed by 4...g5, as it catches a lot of White players out and they end up playing lines that they aren't intending to (many of my games as Black in that line end up as Hanstein Gambits, where Black is fine).  3...Nc6 is also a very good response to the Bishop Gambit, when 4.Nf3 can transpose to the same lines.  That said, I don't meet every third move with 3...Nc6- if 3.Nc3 or 3.d4, I would prefer 3...Qh4+ as the king has to come out to e2.

While I'm sure that 3...Nc6 is good for equality, I have to admit it's not as theoretically critical against 3.Nf3 as the immediate 3...g5.  4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 transposes to the 5...Nc6 line of the Kieseritzky (5...Nf6 is more critical) and after 4.Nc3 g5, while White can be tempted by the dubious Pierce Gambit (5.d4), the Hamppe-Allgaier (5.h4 g4 6.Ng5) is sounder than the standard Allgaier.

I'm under the impression that 3...c6 is a sounder way to play the Falkbeer than 3...e4 (4.d3!) but still inferior to 3...exf4 transposing to the Modern.

Kubi wrote on 11/17/09 at 10:26:43:


The Falkbeer is one thing, 2...d5 with transposition to the Modern is another.  The Falkbeer proper is unfavorable to Black; do you disagree?

JEH wrote on 11/13/09 at 14:20:27:


Uberprofessionals depends on chess for their uberliving. The sharpest stuff might be a lesser part of that one would think. 

A few ramblings:

* At GM level openingschoices also give away some information for which result the player is aiming.

- For instance a Petroff, although a viable opening, very often means "hey, lets split the point and hit the bar early" from the black side.
- An other example is Radjabov on the white side of the scottish opening. 17 draws and 1 win or what is the latest count? Basicly he is saying the same thing as in the first example. 

What has this to do with the 2 knights with Ng5, you might ask?

Well, at GM-level I believe that if black has to play for a win he'll look towards more unbalancing moves then 1 ... e5 (sicilian, pirc, ...). So when presented with question: "what will I play after 3 Bc4?" he'll often opt for Bc5 because of the fact that his winning chances aren't worse then in the mainline Ruy Lopez while keeping the same risk-profile. 

One could even use some game theory:

Let's say that there are only 2 openings in the world after 1. e4 and that all players are of equal strength. Futhermore both score 55% for white when the "best" moves are played in the opening. The only difference is the risk-profile. 

Opening A: a more risk-averse opening: 35% of the games are won by white, 40% draws and 25 % of the wins are for black. 
Opening B: 40%/30%/30%

The black player opts for opening A. In response to this the white player doesn't choose the optimal move X but chooses X'. This drops the percentage back to, lets say, 54% in favor of white. 

But now black has to make another choice:

does he choose

line X'1: risk profile 34/40/26 with optimum play
line X'2: 39/30/31

In my opinion most pro players will go with line X'1. Otherwise they would have gone for B in the first place. As most people are risk averse it might even be that most people will choose X'1 over X'2 even if white would score 55% in X'1 and 54% in X'2.

I know this is a very simplified model and then many other factors play a role but lets not forget these are professionals. Most of them play severals openings and in most games they will have an idea of what results they would like to obtain and how much risk they are willing to take. 

Holbox wrote on 11/13/09 at 10:28:28:


Well that all depends. For non smoking, not drinking gym trotting vegetarians, a lifetime might be too much. For those who are prone to the fast life, a lifetime might turn out to be not too much at all.

I would consider this question: 

Will lifetime be too much?

I wouldn't like to be a slave of my words.

I can speak from personal experience that the "win with white, draw with black" mentality is why I gravitate towards the Caro-Kann/Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian complexes with as black. 

When I play with the black pieces I try to equalize first, win later.

When I feel I need to win I will wheel out openings I feel are theoretically worse off (ie: I've played the Pirc Defense a number of times in tournaments), but give practical chances.