thibdb13 wrote on 06/19/10 at 21:09:48:


Here... it's all in Finnish, though.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/pterasti/shakki/shakkiavaukset/

How views differ.  To me, recommending that a player in the 1800s "stay on the edge of opening theory" in the "insanely complex Mieses," while warning about the amount of theory such a player would need to know in Ruy sidelines (where the play tends to be more natural) seems rather odd.

I voted for the Scotch. Kasparov style (-> not the 4 Knights!), stay on the edge of opening theory and know the exact plans. If your opponent also knows his stuff you'll still get a healthy and reasonably unbalanced position with objective equality. An uninformed opponent can easily get into trouble against the SO.

I'm totally against playing the main line Ruy Lopez on an 1800 level. What will happen is the following:
- in 1 out of 20 1. - e5 games you'll get your main line Spanish. In every second of these the other guy knows it better or tries to play the Marshall, which is something somebody below 2200 should only play with black.
- in 4 out of 20 games your opponents will play Russian or open / closed Philidor. That's okay for white.
- in the other 15 games the other guy will play a weird RL side variation (3.- Bc5 / Nf6 / f5 / Nge7 / g6; 4. - d6 / f5 / b5 ... ). Unfortunately all of these moves are playable and white needs to be very precise to get an edge. Chances are you'll be behind on opening knowledge if you run into such a variation for the first time. Then playing neutral moves gives black easy equality.

So my recommendation is to deviate early while still maintaining chances for an edge. Play a more focused repertoire which allows you to gain an understanding of the positions quickly.
Generally speaking the SO gives white the better structure and forces black to proof his compensation. This takes many players out of their comfort zone. And especially the insanely complex Mieses rewards the better prepared player.

thibdb13 wrote on 06/19/10 at 10:53:07:


A Finnish player has made a website about how effective different openings are at about 2100 level. According to his statistics, the Bishop's Gambit (3.Bc4) was extremely effective. That's why I took it up a couple of years ago. I'm at your level, and I have found it rather difficult to play and requiring good knowledge. There are so many playable sidelines for black. But now that I'm learning the theory better, it works all right... I haven't had a chance to play long tournament games lately, though.

I think the Petroff isn't an effective drawing weapon at mortal levels.  There's the 3.d4 Nxe4 lines, including a few offbeat ideas (4.Bd3 d5 5.dxe5 for example), there's 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3, which has seen some approval at GM level and often leads to castling on opposite wings, and there's the Cochrane Gambit (4.Nxf7!?) which is theoretically iffy but difficult to deal with OTB.

One issue with the Scotch is that you not only need to deal with 4...Nf6, when the Mieses Variation is tricky and the Scotch Four Knights drawish at high levels, but 4...Bc5 is also critical.

You're right about the Petroff.

You'll face it about 1/10th of the time from the position after 2.Nf3, and it's quite interesting. 3.Ne5 d6 4.Nf3 Ne4 5.c4!? is an interesting surprise weapon for White, and the main line with 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 offers good chances for a small edge.

rukh wrote on 06/19/10 at 08:31:29:

I have plaid the King's gambit from time to time in blitz but I am not sure this opening can give white a real long lasting edge.
Carlsen may have plaid (and won with) it, but it still does not mean that this is an effective weapon for someone at my level (nor at a higher level)

You might want to consider King's gambit, too. You'll get to sac a pawn and no petroffs or philidors. Carlsen played it recently.