16.Bh4 has only been played in one game, but it looks like a line that could be successful in a one-off game, since the obvious lines with ...g5 at some point give White at least full compensation for the pawn. However if Black ignores this temptation and plays in the centre then he has a slightly better version of a normal Breyer: 16...c5 17.Qd2 ed4N 18.cd4 cd4 19.Nd4 Rc8 20.a4 and the position is fairly typical but for White's h4-bishop which is not doing anything. That said the position looks equal. 

Did you mean the 15.b3 d5 16.Bg5 variation?

TN wrote on 03/24/12 at 13:15:21:


Yes, I have an ICC account and I watched the five-video series. It is quite instructive since plans and tactics are given as well. I cannot remember the exact duration of the videos, but I think it was around 20 minutes or so each. 

Regarding books on the Breyer, I also asked about this but apparently there are not many books. The only books I have on the Breyer are my old New In Chess Yearbooks. I wish Quality Chess, Chess Stars, or Everyman (or all of those publishing houses) would publish either an objective coverage/overview book or a repertoire book on the Breyer. With Grandmaster Repertoire series by Quality Chess, the Breyer would be an interesting choice for that series. A high-calibre Breyer repertoire book that is 300 pages long would be excellent.

Are there any books other than Kaufman with model games in the Breyer from Black's point of view? I've found it easy to find theory on the 15.b3 variation, but there's not much coverage on other lines in the sources I have. 

Is it worth watching Ronen's series if I already have Kaufman's book?

In another thread I saw a member complaining that the 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 variation was too easy for White to play. I prefer 15...Bg7 16.Bd3 d5, as played successfully in Shirov-Mamedyarov, Tal Memorial 2010.

Breyer is good enough for a win- 

Pentala Harikrishna seems to do very well with it.

Its advantages are that engines cannot refute it. Even white's best tries don't lead to a huge disadvantage.

Blackstock's book was very good and still is good today albeit the a4, bd3 lines hadn't been developed then and the b3 line being met by d5 has been superceded.

My impression about the Breyer: unless you face extremely strong opposition or intend to play some specific sharper sub-line (there is stuff with an early ...d5 for instance) the Breyer can be played based on the study of games to learn the strategies behind it. I think such more middle game oriented study will help more here than a purely theoretical overview. That's at least how I would go about it.

What are the best resources for the Breyer? Besides the recent Kaufman repertoire book, I have not seen a book dedicated to this opening, unless I am missing something.

It is a pity that there are not more books on this line; a 200+ page book on its theory would certainly be helpful.

Regarding your values for the French exchange (White wins/Draw/Black wins: 27,9%/36,7%/35,5%), I consider that white players enter this line to draw, but are not very successfull: more Black wins than White wins probably means that black players have on average a higher rating than white players and succeed in winning. So, while the French exchange may seem drawish, the better player keeps good winning chances.

On the other hand, the values for the 5.Qe2 Petroff are completely different (White wins/Draw/Black wins: 17,5%/65,3%/17,3%). Almost twice as much draw as for the French exchange, and same win loss ratio for either color. So, if lower-rated white players go into this variation to draw (same assumption than for the French exchange), they seem to be successful.

Of course, statistics can be interpreted differently according to your purpose. According to my explanation, they give exactly the results that I had in mind before seeing them: the 5.Qe2-Petroff is much more drawish than the French exchange.

Finally, the reason we discuss it under the Breyer topic remains a mystery for me!

fling wrote on 01/30/12 at 10:29:22:


OK, very slightly worse if you prefer....

Of course, it's a question of degree, but is someone going to make the argument that with Black Kramnik has played the Russian Defense as successfully as he once played the Sicilian? 

Just want to point out that Qe2 or some other White choice may be drawish, but the opening as a whole may not be. The French Exchange may be drawish, but the French as a whole isn't. 

Although, ironically, I just consider the Petroff slightly worse for Black...

Only once that I can remember; I won the endgame where I made a few mistakes. It was against some 2200 in the ICC 3-minute pool. I do not think many players who face the Petroff want to play 5. Qe2 unless they for some reason desperately need a draw. Even in that case, if Black plays with intent and/or is a bit higher rated, then a draw is definitely not a sure result. 5. Qe2 reminds me of an Exchange French without queens, which should not be too critical; there have been some recent games in the Exchange French at IM/GM level and most of those games were not draws.

Petroff is actually not too drawish; the positions that arise can actually become quite unbalanced. Strangely in my recent online games I either lose quite badly to an attack, or win with an attack of my own, or positionally in a middlegame with two pieces or some endgame, with very few draws. The most popular variation White chooses, 5. Nc3, can lead to Najdorf-like attacking positions for both sides with opposite-side castling, whilst there are a few lines where all the pieces remain on the board until move 20 or so, and Black attacks with ...f5 and ...Rf6. In the sounder Petroff positions, at least Black remains positionally sound. The Petroff actually seems a bit sharper than the Breyer to me, which sounds paradoxical, although both are generally fairly solid openings.

Perhaps because if more people play main lines, one must know them with more detail. I have to do the opposite, and learn sidelines such as 2. c3, 3. Bb5, etc. Sicilians in detail because most people play those instead of the main lines.

I play the Najdorf and Petroff, and to me it seems like the Petroff and Berlin are even more difficult to play against than the Najdorf. Breyer is probably about as difficult to play against the Najdorf. But I could see why Petroff and Berlin can deter players from playing 1. e4.

I suppose it depends on how players feel about the lines avoiding the Berlin, but they seem fine to me even compared with those of the Breyer.

I do not see a true reason to change from Berlin to Breyer, since I find the Berlin is actually doing much better than previous years. I see more GMs play it now, and more 1. e4 players trying their best to avoid the Berlin.

fling wrote on 01/16/12 at 11:43:57:


Yes, I agree with you. Adams once stated that he felt not playing the Open Sicilian at a young age held his chess career back. Of course, in the case of a club player who is happy to get to say 2200 or 2300, it's possible to do so without playing main lines. 

@Markovich

It might be a good idea to move a large portion of this thread to a new topic in general chess, such as 'why people don't play main lines' or 'main line openings and chess improvement'.

TN wrote on 01/16/12 at 01:20:15:


Yes, sometimes people reach a certain level despite doing something wrong!

Maybe they would be better if they played real openings 

I find it difficult to imagine if Topalov, Kramnik, Grischuk, etc. could play the Colle/Torre/London or Wing Gambit for the rest of their careers and maintain 2700+ ratings.

I am sure titled players eventually had to learn main lines..

If you're young, look relatively well prepared and they think they can probably win via technique, then it just makes sense for them no? The frustration bit does at least seem to have worked

Most people playing sidelines though, do just play them vs everyone. Some of it maybe being scared of preparation (slightly absurd in context!). The prevelance of it does get annoying, although it does also mean that playing main lines gives you surprise value(!).
(not annoying cf results, just interest.).

It would be nice if more people played the main lines. I cannot remember myself ever regularly playing non-main line openings. I learnt the Slav and Taimanov and 1. e4 Open Sicilian and main lines when I first started tournament chess. The only time I played a non main line was when I played the Grand Prix Attack for fun, since it was the last round of a very bad tournament, and another loss would not have mattered to me (even though somehow I won that game). 

There are many ways for White to avoid the Breyer, which is a shame since I was considering learning it and it seems like an underrated variation. There are many deviations to achieve a Breyer, the first being 1. e4 e5 2. f4/2. Nc3/ 2. Bc4/2. d4/etc., the second being 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4/3. Bc4/3. c3/3. Nc3, and then the Exchange Spanish, Delayed Exchange Spanish, Worrall, 5. d3, 6. d3, 7. d3, 8. d3, 9. d4 Spanish, etc. Might as well just play the Berlin Wall...

I wonder what opponents who keep playing non-main lines think when playing against 2300+. I have played against a few Morra Gambits played by 2200-2300 players, winning all of them but one, where I was three pawns up in a winning endgame and then suddenly I started to hang my pieces due to stupidity.

But on topic of the Breyer, many players around my level still do not play the Ruy Lopez. If they do, it ends up being the Exchange Variation. Most of them play the Four Knights and Bishop's Opening. I suppose titled players will enjoy playing against those openings due to equalising more easily. But then the positions are not as interesting as the Breyer.

The 4NCL does not necessarily mean people will play main lines. Although even if one does not have time to prepare, I do not understand forgoing playing the main lines. Most of the time I do not have much time to prepare due to studies or being busy doing other things, but I still play the Najdorf and Grünfeld as Black and 1. d4 main lines as White, even without any preparation. I just rely on the opening variations I learnt however long ago that may be. I first learnt 1. d4 main lines three years ago, and I play it without preparation if I have to. Lack of preparation certainly does not make me want to play the Colle.

I guess some combination of weekend tournaments, limited time to work on openings, habits formed pre computers/ databases and (for the titled folk at least) expecting to score very well unless actively surprised in the opening. 

Never been, but I'd imagine it has to get more theoretical at the 4NCL when everyone has time to prepare etc?

The thing that really depressed me about this was one year when after about half the British they'd managed to have more Morra gambits than open sicillians.....

Actually its some of the ~21-2200 folk who scare me more, because they seem to have been using the same very shaky openings basically forever. Doesn't stop them doing well of course, but still!

I've often thought that must be some serious differences between countries, and even regions within them, in terms of how theoretical everything gets.

Certainly club level chess in the northern UK really isn't theoretical at all, and the main line Lopez isn't at all common from blacks perspective either. I don't know why.

I've always tried, and have 117 games with 1 e4 on my database 16 reaching the position after 3 Bb5, and then mostly side lines.

A grand total of 2 games then reached the main line closed Lopez position proper.... Also one 8 a3 anti Marshall and one Open Lopez where I forgot the early move order!
(which is what happens if you never see things in practice.).

I am surprised you can play the Breyer so often. At around my level (2250 FIDE), I get anti-Sicilians about 85% of the time when I play the Sicilian, and at least 90% of the time I get d4 sidelines when I attempt to play the Grünfeld. When I try to play 1...e5, more than 90% of the time I get the Bishop's Opening, Four Knights, Scotch, 2. Qe2, 2. d3, Vienna, etc. Not sure why, but having a chance to play main line openings is a rarity for me.

There are also a few Breyer videos here:

http://www.chessclub.com/chessfm/index/ronen/index.html

ghenghisclown wrote on 07/19/11 at 04:51:20:


Thanks for the link! The lines shown by Avrukh involving a sac on d5 look very attractive, but unfortunately in many other lines of the Breyer Black's position remains cramped and rather passive (although solid and harmonious), not easy to play and no fun at all for sub-2000 players playing for a win with Black. Black gets to play about 14 easy moves but then his suffering starts!

spagh3tti wrote on 06/17/11 at 12:41:51:


There's also a useful chapter in Flear's Ruy Lopez Main Line Everyman book.

Between this and the forthcoming book on the Ragozin, my repertoire is about to be "outed." I prefer good openings with less published material. It makes the exploration more fun and the results that much more satisfying...

WillT wrote on 04/06/11 at 22:43:12:


It's a sad state of affairs. I fell in love with the Breyer some 20 yrs ago and the romance is still ongoing. I have Blackstock's 1976 The Breyer System, which is ok for covering the basics and early sidelines, but a lot of today's stuff obviously isnt there. In Bikhovsky's 1993 The Closed Spanish devoted to the Karpov-Zaitsev system there are three chapters that cover a few Breyer lines via the transposition 9...Bb7 10. d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.Bc2 Nb8. That's it, at least to my knowledge. Sverre and Johannessen's 2007 The Ruy Lopez: A guide for Black went so closee to being about the Breyer, too bad the Gm let himself be convinced, as he states in the introduction, to make it about something else 

Nope, there is not a recent work that reflects the current state of the theory of the Breyer (the only exception beeing the chesspub, but it is always the exception, so it doesn't really count as anybody always asks for sources other than chesspub). Actually, there are some lines that challenge the Breyer right now and the opening is played in every major tournament, so we should wait for things to "settle down" a bit before a new book is out on it. I think that the second edition of "Chess Advantage" by Kaufman will promote the Breyer as a repertoire choice but if i was him i would wait at least untill late 2012 before i publish a work on it.

Now the Romanishin's Nf1+Bg5 line and the "old" main-line with Nf1-Ng3+a4 are quite challenging in my opinion. The other lines have been met effectively by Carlsen (most recent is Topalov-Carlsen, Amber 2011), Hammer (probably he has worked with Carlsen on it) and Navara in practice (Kamsky, Mamedyarov and Anand are other notable practitioners of the Breyer with recent games on it)