If it helps, I got a good dog as a rescue!! She always sort of knew she had dodged a bullet.

katar wrote on 04/06/21 at 16:03:58:


Today we're adopting a two year old dog as well.  I frankly don't know whether I'm winning or losing, but the position has surely changed rapidly!

Well I pretty much quit playing competitive, over-the-board chess around 2012 or 2013, so it's been a while!  I was still playing my random Sicilians mostly back then, with the occasional French or Caro-Kann.  Against 1.d4, I kept playing the Triangle and occasional Dutch, but also threw in some Tarrasch and Lasker QGD games, and a few Benko games.  Basically a bunch of random stuff in those last couple of years. 

After quitting over-the-board chess, my current "repertoire" is different, but only applies to online play and is not that fleshed out.  I've been playing 1...e5 almost exclusively, and wish that I had taken it up years ago.  It was less work than I thought it would be, and I like the positions that I get.  I generally play the New Archangel (is that what it's called?) with 5...b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 against the Spanish.  Against 1.d4 I'm still a bit random, but mostly play the Ragozin.  I think that these lines suit me very well, as they put an emphasize classical principles like rapid development, space, and central control, but are unbalanced enough to play for a win.  If I ever return to competitive OTB chess (not likely with three kids aged 8, 5, and 1.5 years old!), these are the lines I'd probably choose.

katar wrote on 10/22/10 at 22:05:08:


I'm only mildly familiar with Mickey's games, so I'm not sure how similar our styles are.  I tried modelling my Black repertoire after Dreev briefly--since we seemed to have similar styles and even have very similar White repertoires--but it didn't work out too well.  He's quite happy in the Anti-Moscow and Meran Semi-Slav's, and I'm not.  The Caro may be a fit.

Also, I'm not sure that us "weekend warriors" are best served by copying the chess elite's openings.  They're playing against other elite players exclusively, and we have to do battle with people rated hundreds of points below us on a regular basis (at least I do now).

Quote:


Yes, where is Markovich?  I suspect you're right, which is why I did some work on 1.e4 e5 a couple of years ago.  As I said, I might be talked into playing it, but I want to play it for the right reasons.  I'm afraid that the many Open positions will not suit me that well (though they may be good for my education).

Alright I'd better give some background on what I've played in the past and why I'm rethinking things.  First, I'll point out that I've always been a 1.d4 player, only playing 1.e4 in casual games.  Sometimes I think I should seriously try to play 1.e4, but that's another discussion...

vs. 1.e4
When I started playing chess I played the Sicilian Dragon because of the name, using Chris Ward's first book as a resource.  When I was a 1500 player I saw the book The Complete Dragon (by Gufeld?) and some 1900 player told me that Chris Ward's lines were refuted!  

I got depressed, didn't want to have to buy a huge book, and I took the advice of an older Master who hadn't played competitively for 20 years: I started playing the Taimanov/Paulsen Sicilian.  I also played the French for a while during this time.  I eventually gave up the French because of all the Exchange variations and just played the Taimanov/Paulsen/Kan systems ever since (with occasional Kalashnikovs, Scheveningens, etc).  My results are decent, but have never been great for my rating.  Most of my nice wins come from people playing inferior anti-Sicilian lines, which I score very well against (especially when I get a an improved French sort of position).  I also score well against tame Open Sicilian lines.  Although it doesn't happen often, I get in trouble when White plays like a man and aggressively goes down one of the more dangerous Open Sicilian lines--often Black's delay in development in these systems can be a little difficult to handle.  I can post some games later that make me think the Sicilian might not be best for me if people think that would be helpful.

About a year ago I started playing the Caro-Kann a little as well, and my results have been okay: a draw with a 2300 player, draw with a 2000 player, and 2.5/4 against 1900 players.  The positions weren't exactly thrilling, but I know I've only scratched the surface here.

Only for about 6 months, when I was already about 2000 strength, did I study 1.e4 e5 pretty seriously.  I played only one rated game like this, a Vienna against a young 1700 player, and lost (though the opening wasn't exactly to blame).  It might actually be that 1...e5 is a good choice for me, but I would have a lot of work to do there, am a little put off by all the "romantic" attacking tries White has, and am discouraged about playing into lines that a lot of up-and-coming younger players have played since birth (more or less).

I've been thinking seriously about moving the Sicilian to back-up status and using the Caro or French as my main defense.  I would possibly adopt 1...e5 if strong players convince me that would be best.

vs. 1.d4
My opponents play 1.d4 about 1/4-1/3 as often as 1.e4.  As a 1.d4 player myself, I've had more freedom to switch to various defenses (since I've studies them all from the White side).  I've played a lot of stuff over the years, but I'll stick with my main tries:

For a while I tried playing the Nimzo/Bogo, but gave it up because I hardly ever saw the positions I studied.  Probably half of 1.d4 class players play the Torre, London, or Colle, and I got sick of dealing with those.  Escpecially after being commited to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6, I always felt that the London and Torre actually did give White a very small advantage.  I have John Cox's Deviations book and it doesn't really change my opinion.  Certainly those lines are not very exciting even if Black is objectively equal.  I had a hard time playing for a win there.  The few times I got to play a Nimzo were generally against White players that specialized in 1 particular line (4.f3, 4.Qc2, etc.), and I always felt I was fighting on White's territory.  Some lines seemed hard to play for a win, too, like 4.Qb3.

I played the Noteboom/Meran for a few years but didn't have that great of results, either.  Often, I would obtain the better position (sometimes with an extra pawn after something like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Nf3 dc 5.e4 b5) only to find White's extra space in the center difficult to handle in practice.  Some Noteboom positions can get very messy, also.  I eventually concluded that I play better with a pawn center and less complications, so I moved on.

I played the KID for a short time and had great results against weaker players and terrible results against stronger players.  As long as I could follow the standard plans/pawn breaks as I was fine, but when a stronger player insisted on the position becoming a mess (which can happen a lot on the KID), I didn't do too well.

For a while I played the QGD (mostly Lasker's), and again had decent results.  However, I found it very hard to play for a win against the Exchange QGD and 5.Bf4.  In most of those positions, I felt I'd rather be White.

I started playing the Classical Dutch about 4-5 years ago and have had good results, though they are somewhat skewed because I had a rating advantage in most games.  In general, I play it with 7...Ne4 or 7...a5, treating it kind of like a Queen's Indian and don't go all-out for a Kingside attack.  Also, I think the surprise factor played a big role: I got a lot of easy wins after moves like 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.d5? Nxc3! 9.bc e5 or somethjing similar.  An IM crushed me after 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.f3!? and I lost to a 2200 player after 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bf4.  I'm still playing the Classical Dutch, but I don't think it's a long-term fit.  White has many dangerous anti-Dutch lines, and once players near my strength actually start studying the main line theory I bet my results will go down.   

I started mixing in some regular Slav games, but in 6 games against 5 different opponents I've had 5 exchanges!  Kind of depressing.  In the Exchange Slav I lost to an IM, lost to a 2250, blundered and lost from a winning position against the same 2250 player, beat a 2200, and drew with another 2200 player.  I also drew with a 1950 player after failing to find a nice tactic in the Euwe variation.  My results weren't terrible mathematically, but the fact that 5/6 of games were in the Exchange Slav really put me off the opening.

I've thought about moving to the Stonewall, Nimzo/QID, or trying the main Slav again.  I've recently wondered about the Chebanenko Slav; Black "surrenders" the center less often there and that might be a good choice for me.

As an aside, I don't personally feel like the Slav and Caro are that closely related--blasphemy, I know.  But whether White has an e-pawn or c-pawn makes a difference to me (though I'm not sure which one I prefer).   

Is anyone still reading this?  If so, thank you!

ErictheRed wrote on 10/21/10 at 21:56:03:


Understood. Given this information it further solidifies the Slav (Chebanenko, or Sokolov), and NID/QID/QGD complexes.

The Dutch Stonewall is actually a real possibility versus 1. d4 given you get space at the cost of a mostly manageable weakness, understanding trumps theory, excellent defenders throughout history have made use of it (Botvinnik, Petrosian, Kramnik), and you can maneuver. Black also retains pawn breaks on the kingside (...g5) and queenside (...c5) depending on what happens.

Based on your description I would rule out the Classical Dutch, and Leningrad, though.

Semi-Slav would get bumped further down the list.

Quote:
 

Understood. That solidifies my mental picture of Slav, NID/QID/QGD, Stonewall Dutch recommendations. All of them fit that description in that pawn breaks are common.

Quote:


Definitely have to simplify my recommendations from my previous post.

Versus 1. e4 - 1...e5, C-K, French.

Versus 1. d4 - Slav, NID/QID/QGD, Stonewall Dutch.

If one were to choose the Stonewall then it would go best with the French in order to use 1. d4 e6 and avoid various Dutch sidelines.

Following in Karpov's footsteps would be combining the C-K with the NID/QID/QGD complex for a highly positional repertoire with plenty of scope for outplaying opponents in addition to not creating any weaknesses. Not surprisingly there's even a transposition from the Caro-Kann to the Nimzo-Indian (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. Bd3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 0-0 9. 0-0 b6).

Quote:


I had a feeling based on some of the conversations we had at the time.

I'm going to send you a PM, so be on the look out for it.

BPaulsen wrote on 10/21/10 at 04:34:07:


It's very hard to define messy positions, but in the Anti-Moscow Black has made weakening pawn advances on both his Q-side and K-side, and his King doesn't have an obvious place to hide.  All for an extra pawn.  I realize this is a viable way to play for a win as Black (and other "positional" players like Dreev do so), but I would prefer White here.  He has a nice, mobile pawn center, his King knows where it's going, and he can work on getting at Black's weakened squares.  I personally wouldn't want to suffer White's initiative with a King in the center and potential weak squares on both flanks for the sake of a pawn.  It's just messy enough for me to screw something up after playing well for 20 moves.

Quote:


The more I think about this, the more I think I prefer semi-closed or semi-blocked positions.  In general I like getting my pieces to ideal squares and then making a decisive central advance/breakthough (obviously this only happens in a fraction of games, but I'm talking stylistic preferences).  I don't mind positions that are quite blocked as long as I still have pawn breaks to create winning chances.  When the game opens up, I want to have the initiative already, not open it with the intention of engaging in an equal struggle for it like Bronstein or Tal.

I'm also very good at clarifying the center in a way that favors me.  In those positions where both sides have multiple captures or advances they could make (lots of KID positions, the old Rubinstein Nimzo where Black plays both ...d5 and ...c5, the Closed Catalan, etc.) I'm good at sensing the right moment to release the tension and generally understand what pawn formations will favor what piece placements, etc.

Quote:


It was a low point for me as well--we should get back in touch through PMs, I'd like to know what you're doing these days, etc.

Against 1.e4:
I would suggest 1...e5 since your biggest priority is to secure space in the center.  Specifically, I would point you to Mihail Marin's 2 repertoire books on 1...e5.  He avoids sharp "theory contests" out of the opening-- for example by preferring the Giuoco over the Two Knights and opting for the KG Declined.  Marin's Ruy Lopez defense is the Closed Chigorin line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 and now either 12...Nc6 (the Rubinstein Variation) or 12...Bd7 (the Petrosian System).  As an alternative, you might also investigate 11...Nfd7 (the Keres variation), where one idea is pawn play with the f-pawn (which should appeal to your preference for pawn play in the center).  Nigel Davies covers the Nfd7 line in his "Play 1...e5" and i believe Shereshevsky suggested this same variation in the Soviet Chess COnveyor.

Against 1.d4:
This is a harder question.  1...d5 claims space but the pawn structures tend to resolve quickly into something set in stone rather than fluid in the middlegame (e.g., Carlsbad, IQP, etc)-- in other words, my impression is that neither side is particularly flexible with their pawn play, but the middlegame instead revolves around well-known positional themes (eg, minority attack).  Therefore I'd suggest Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian due to their greater flexibility with the central pawns.  There is nothing wrong with QID of course, but my impression (as one who doesnt play any of these openings for either color) is that Bogo secures Black more central space with pawns than the QID.  Black is not getting overrun by white's center pawns, White can't force tactical chaos without Black's permission, and Black has huge flexibility with his own fluid pawn center.  Don't laugh, but as a starting point i'd even mention the Dzindzi/Alburt/Perelshteyn book.