One part where I disagree is transposing to the Pirc, Modern, and Philidor via 1. d4 with 2. e4. I think the Pirc is a better opening than its reputation, whilst I do not find that the Modern and Philidor are less reputable than playing against the Old Indian or Modern with e4 rather than the Modern with c4 and no e4.

MNb wrote on 02/14/12 at 01:45:16:


The Modern, just as in the previous edition.

MNb wrote on 02/13/12 at 22:31:21:


I do play both. I recently switched from the French to the open games. So it still makes sense to play 1 ... e6 against d4 if I do not feel like dealing with 2.Bg5. I even play 1.d4 e6 2. Nf3 c5 offering transposition to the French (occurs perhaps in 10-20% of my games) and the Sicilian (has happened only 2 or 3 times as far as I can remember). If your opponent's repertoire is 1.d4 based you can assume that the French and especially the open Sicilian (unless you are playing against Polugaevsky) are nothing to be afraid of.

But I agree that consistency as far as style is concerned is about the stupidest thing to care about. Most openings require you to be able to use various styles anyway.

Mortal_Games, Neric, et al.: you guys worry way too much.  And you seem to have everything figured out; the young Kasparov had a split personality!!  1.e4 would have suited him better!!  Carlsen's style is better suited for the Nimzo!  You guys are too much for me, honestly; you understand other players "styles" much better than I understand my own.  I guess the young Karpov shouldn't have played all those beautiful attacking masterpieces with 1.e4; what was he thinking?

Assume you meet a player whose main defence to 1.e4 is the Caro-Kann.  What can you assume about his style from that?  That he's a "solid" player that wants to get out of the opening without White hurting him?  That he should play the Slav against 1.d4?  I don't think you can assume anything!  Perhaps he chooses the Caro-Kann because he wants to win with Black and he deliberately chooses an opening where the pawn structure will never be symmetrical, so that he can always outplay his opponent strategically, even from less tactically-charged positions.  If this is his reasoning, the Slav would certainly NOT be a good choice for him, now would it??

I think a lot of people have a big misconception about the game of chess, opening choices, what constitutes "style" and preferences, the different ways that openings can be "aggressive," etc.  But I'd rather not get off topic here.  According to my view of chess, 1...e5 and the Grunfeld go together about as well as two openings could, but I don't place much emphasis on "going together" anyway.

slightly off-topic, but probably useful to others here: Just lost in a King's Gambit Accepted today. White does get some initiative in the opening, even though I believe Gustafsson etc that objectively white perhaps has equality, perhaps not even that. Should I learn the Falkbeer from Kaufman? Did anyone look closer at the lines he advocates? They look kind of wild to me but do they work? I used to play 2 .. Bc5 but it was depressing to me when white just gobbled up my bishop with a well-timed Na4. The upside of d5 or Bc5 seems to be that Black averts the Bishop's Gambit which is probably at least as good as the Knight's (so Black has half as much theory to worry about?).

Quote:

You are right about the Grunfeld but 1...e5 called Open Games do not lead to open centres. The best choice for a Grunfeld player would be Sicilian defence in terms of style. Of course strong players play everything because they search to be universal players and for this reason confusion spreads because the openings that truelly belong to the roots of their style are disguised in their universal play. When Kaufman calls Magnus Carlsen defences, I agree in half of his choices because altough Magnus plays the Grunfeld (because he plays everything!), the openings that really belong to the roots of his style are Nimzo, QID or QGD.

Quote:


Yes to the young Kasparov because his move was 1.e4 and the one that represents more Kasparov style. Later he played 1.d4 because style is something that is not frozen and is evolving with age. It´s not a case of split personality but universal play. 

Quote:

I agree with this point for a player who wants to achieve better results until master level, but after 2300 a strong player must develop is repertoire and be capable of playing in any style.

I have talked with Kaufman.  He truely believes the Breyer to be the best play vs 1.e4.  He adds Magnus Carlsen plays it.  His other choice is the Caro kan vs 1.e4.  He also recommends Grunfeld as a good attempt to win.  Nimzo/Ragozin he also tends to like.  So maybe the Nimzo and caro kann may have been a better choice.  From what I know of Larry he triese his best to put forth a quality product or else he won't do it. He may have had to cut things short due to publishers limitations.  But I do now know that for sure.   Oh and he thinks in the Mar del platta variation causes huge problems to black.   
I only wish he wrote other books besides just Opening books.   
Finally he is a quiet good guy who is, patient and  likes to help when he can.   
hope this helps,
Zatara

I am not sure about the refutation against the King's Indian in the book, but after suffering too many horrible losses by playing the King's Indian from 2003 to 2008, it feels like every line is a refutation...

I would think that the Bayonet would be recommended. The Mar Del Plata is scary to play since any mishap could result in a mating attack.