DrKibzwang wrote on 06/02/15 at 03:31:45:


The Petroff does perhaps give some chances for dull technical positions if white chooses not to play ambitiously. 

Personally though I've always seen the Petroff as an opening for those who want to fight with white in a fairly open middlegame not an opening for those wanting technical play and good endgames.

Have a nice day.

How about the Petroff?

Besides the ideas suggested so far (especially the Berlin ending), an interesting approach is the Philidor via the move order 1.e4 d6!? 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5!   

Sergey Kasparov has an interesting book titled "A Cunning Chess Opening for Black" (http://www.amazon.com/Cunning-Chess-Opening-Black-Opponent/dp/9056915932/) that deeply explores the ending that follows 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8, which a lot of amateurs (at least those not afraid to exchange queens) will play very quickly, especially in blitz -- entering what the author calls "the Philidor swamp."  From my own experience playing this and similar lines, you will get the ending quite a bit -- though hardly in every game.  But I'd say it is your best chance of getting a quick ending via "the open games."  See sample pages here:
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/9008.pdf

This idea is even better after 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5! 3.dxe5?! etc., when the pawn at c4 creates some problems for White -- weakening dark squares and presenting a potential target.  There are plenty of other books on the universal 1...d6 repertoire.

Edmar Mednis had an interesting book long ago titled "From the Opening into the Endgame" (http://www.amazon.com/From-Opening-Endgame-Edmar-Mednis/dp/1857441249) which explored your idea of getting interesting endings out of the opening -- but as White.  As others have pointed out in this thread, White has a much better chance of forcing an ending than Black.  But it would be interesting to contemplate an endgame repertoire as Black.  Probably the Slav and the Caro-Kann present the best opportunities.  Perhaps the Bogo-Indian and Rubinstein French (see Langrock's book) are another approach.  But I think 1...d6 followed by ...e5 is the simplest option and the one closest to your desired open games repertoire.

...

Now, the first part of your reply, that was interesting and I thank you very much. As for the rest...

Edited:

Quote:


I don't want to wander too far from the original topic of the post (suggestions for a 1...e5 endgame repertoire), but I would like to reply to Antillian's comments on my earlier post.

No, I certainly do not claim that attacking play is superior to technical play; I don't know how such a claim could even be clearly defined and measured. 

What I was suggesting was that below master level, attacking play is disproportionately rewarded. In other words, non-titled players can be induced to play poorly by placing them under attacking pressure. They lack the defensive skills of a higher level player.

Thus, if one adopts an endgame repertoire, one risks losing the opportunity of exploiting this practical strategy.

how about the modern Steinitz defence 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 ?
I have no experience with it, but it looks solid to me

Benoniac wrote on 07/30/13 at 21:40:59:


My guess is that you misunderstand me. I have never said that I would not like to exploit white's mistakes, nor did I say that I would not play according to the needs of the position: if a kingside attack is asked for, so be it!

You confuse, as Antilian rightfully expressed it, passive play and solid play. Yes, I could go 
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5!
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 and Ulvestad!
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 and right into the heart of the Muzio et alii!
And so on.

I use to play such lines, fighting for the initiative right from the third move. But, for a time, I would like to take a step back. Why not? Have you got some ideas in the Open Game complex?

heavypieces wrote on 07/30/13 at 08:52:08:


You are right...right in saying your view is very subjective. I derive far more pleasure from squeezing an opponent to death, soaking up an attack and going on to win or otherwise outplaying a  player positionally, that in wining through attack. 

There is of course a different between playing solidly and playing passively. And a good player understands that sharp play cannot be entirely avoided and will have to be willing to attack when it is favourable. 

But, there are many valid approaches to playing chess. And  it is wrong to say that attacking play is fundamentally superior to other styles of play.