LeeRoth wrote on 01/29/14 at 18:47:55:


I couldn't disagree more.  It all depends on the position--how serious is the attack?  How much material investment did it cost?  Or structural/positional investment?  

To be honest, I think that this is a really typical class player's mentality.  Of course it depends on the exact position, but it's often much easier to defend against a direct attack than to deal with a prolonged positional buildup.  

There's another way to get winning chances in this situation, which is equally as valid, and which we have thousands of GM games for evidence: snatch some "hot" material.  Especially if your opponent was in a peaceful mood, he's suddenly forced to attack you, to refute your play, to play sharply.  And as long as you don't go "on the defensive" but play actively with a view to counterattack, you will get your winning chances.  Some people seem to have completely forgotten about counterattack.  If you want one specific opening line that illustrates what I'm talking about, there is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bf4 Qb6.  And thousands more.

When I looked a different openings or different subvariations I detected a paradox. The sharper the variations are the, more lines are forced and it may leed mass exchanges or other simplifications that turn the position drawish. It can also lead to repetion of moves.

I think one should play an opening one knows well.

katar wrote on 01/30/14 at 00:56:27:


I mentioned Carlsen's idea of Aronian not playing well against the Dutch as an example.

LeeRoth wrote on 01/29/14 at 18:47:55:


Interesting discussion… thanks to all who have contributed!

LeeRoth, you are expressing exactly the concern that prompted my OP.  My own main line defenses are the French and the Slav so in my case I always have to deal with their respective Exchange variations.  I recently had this last round scenario - except it was from the White side - so it made me think what I might do if I was in this situation on the Black side.  Clearly it would be a mistake to risk everything on a line that you've not prepared reasonably well.   I am still curious how many of us have "invested" in preparing that surprise, pet defense and what you have chosen? 

Like the French exchange you mean? Here's an absolute classic of the genre from off chessgames.com. As I remember Short had to win it to qualify for the candidates or some such.



Class Playing directly for a draw with white is just a very dangerous activity because it means you lose your normal state of mind, keep having to overrule your instincts etc.

Its much more worrying if white can get a safe +/= sort of position. Even then make like Magnus and keep playing. If their nerves crack you'll get chances. If not, then well, try to play better earlier on in the tournament

chk wrote on 01/29/14 at 11:59:28:


Yes, completely agree. Just play the normal stuff, which you know. 
I do not change, and just bank on being better and winning.

LeeRoth wrote on 01/28/14 at 23:41:42:


Well it's always nice to get the initiative; chess is a dynamic game, after all.  The trouble is, how often does Black really get to "chose a line where you have the initiative and are the player doing the attacking"?  Fairly rarely, unless White is willing to play into it or you are choosing a dubious line.   

Take the King's Indian: White can allow the Mar Del Plata lines where Black gets to attack White's king, but they've been worked out very extensively.  Same with many lines of the Dragon, Najdorf, etc., and besides, White can deviate and play quieter lines in all of those openings.  The trouble with "attacking" lines (especially for Black) is that 1) they are generally VERY well worked out theoretically, 2) sharp lines can sometimes peter-out fairly quickly with mass exchanges, and 3) they are often easier for your opponent to play against.  It's always easier to defend when you are defending against direct threats, or when the defensive/counterattacking ideas have become standardized (as in the Mar Del Plata, for instance).   

I'd much rather have a fairly closed, maneuvering game where I can try to outplay my opponent over the long haul.  And what about snatching some semi-poisoned material and forcing your opponent to prove compensation?  That's definitely a way to play for a win, provided that you defend actively, keep counterattacking resources, and don't become passive.   

But the original question was: what's a good opening to play for a win against a stronger player?  I'm not sure.  In my experience, below a certain rating (maybe 2100ish Elo), the components of the game that make up a player's chess strength are all over the map.  Some 1900 players are wild, crazy attackers, quite adept at finding sacrifices and tactics--these guys might find a "White to play and win" or Tal-like sacrifice as well as a 2300 player.  But get them in an endgame, or close up the position and make them think about how to time their pawn breaks (or even that they need to make a pawn break!), and they fall apart in no time.  Other 1900 players are the opposite, and can play stodgy, "solid" chess quite well, but when you make the game dynamic and they really have to calculate accurately, trust their intuition, deal with tension, they fall apart.   

So club players are generally all over the map.  The higher up the rating chain you go, the better players are in all phases of the game.  At some point (let's just call it "Master," forget Elo), the main differentiation in skill, in my opinion, is positional understanding and practical decision making.  At this point, Masters (pretty much) all know their basic endgames, can calculate pretty well, visualize well, etc, etc.  What really separates them is their intuition, their sense of danger, their knowing immediately and instinctively when a critical moment has arisen that they need to invest their time and energy into working out a correct solution, sensing farther in advance when an attack might occur, their "chess culture" that allows them to play many different types of positions well, their ability to see what is important in a position and not waste time on extraneous moves and "clutter," and on and on.  These guys are much harder to beat of course, but when you do beat them, it's generally because you are playing the types of positions that you know very well so that your difference in chess technique, at least for that one game, is not as great.   

How are games won and lost?  Through mistakes.  I think that people around here place too much emphasis on openings and opening "theory" in general, as well as a bit too much emphasis on tactics.  If you want to win a game of chess, don't worry too much about the theoretical reputation of an opening, as long as what you are playing is sound.  Play to set your opponent as many problems as you possibly can.  That's what chess is about: finding ideas, setting your opponent problems to solve, and solving the problems that he sets you.  Resolve to sit down and do the hard work, and winning chances will come.  The only openings that will make this easier for you are the ones you know like the back of your hand.

As an aside, pick up a popular repertoire book from 5 years ago or so.  Find a main line recommendation that you worry about: does it offer enough winning chances?  Is White a little better?  Now go look in a database and see how many Grandmaster games made it to the position you were worried about.  It's often FAR smaller than you think; strong players don't always play "repertoire book theory," they think and play their own ideas, and somehow they do OK.  Or the repertoire book theory was their idea, and they've moved on to new ones!  Of course there are some exceptions to this, but somehow professional players can go on with their lives (and repertoires) even when a new GM Rep book comes out.   

One thing I've noticed over the years is how little IMs and GMs know "repertoire book theory" compared to, say, Candidate Masters, and how much more they have their own ideas and know important games.  They're cultured, they know how to play chess.  You should have a similar attitude, and your own ideas about your openings should differ (even if slightly) from the literature.

And seriously, below IM level or so I think it's silly to worry too much about creating winning chances.  You will get them if you play well, regardless of the opening you choose.  Top-level Grandmasters have problems that we amateurs do not.

I would put my money on the French in a last round game. The pawn structure is predictable, and there are many playable sidelines where one can just "play chess" using existing knowledge of typical plans. Interestingly, there are a couple of French games in Shirov's Best Games with Black DVD where he also discusses the issue of how to win with Black.

For me this question is much harder to answer with respect to 1. d4.
Nimzo: 4. Qc2 can be played very drawishly by a strong White player
QID: 4. g3 gives White a large margin of error
KID/Benoni: good choices but these openings are only playable by specialists. Those who dabble with it once in awhile are just looking for trouble.
Benko: Good winning try, the only problem is it loses a pawn.

Grunfeld: funnily enough I think this is actually an excellent winning try even though everyone says it is analysed out to a draw. Black has many playable lines regardless of what the books say... 

Slav: Semi-Slav and main line Slav are both good choices. An exchange Slav played by a stronger player is a problem though, but Black usually has more experience than White in the exchange slav so Black might grind out a win using knowledge of subtle nuances.