katar wrote on 02/06/14 at 00:18:57:


There is also 9...b6 which has a tremendous (68%) score in my database, admittedly with a fair number of draws.  Still:





Right up until 20...Nf5? Black should have been happy with his winning chances.  And it's like the resulting ending was a dead draw or anything.  

Also there's a cool exchange sac line (from White's perspective) played only once:


White's 11.Nd5!? took some of the fun out of Black's long-diaganol strategy in that game, but I don't see anything wrong with accepting the sacrifice on move 11 (I'm certainly no expert here, though).  White has great compensation, but sometimes that's the way you have to play if you want to win.  In any case there'll be no "cruising for a draw" there; White will need to play actively and Black should get his counter-chances if he's alert.  

There's always a way, and it doesn't require going berserk.

In the Berlin, White's best hope to defend the fort for a draw, bunker-style, against a much much stronger opponent is probably the 5.Re1 line with Bf1.  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 7.Bf1 Nxe5 8.Rxe5 O-O 9.d4 Bf6 10.Re1  
If Black is willing to untangle that position and play for a win against a weaker player, then I think in all other lines Black should be happy.  Note that Bf1 is quite better than the common Bxc6 when Black's bishop pair gives chances for a small endgame advantage.  Anyway, here's the position after 10.Re1 if i've done this correctly:

For d4, I would play the Triangle systems , Noteboom/Marshall Gambiit along with Dutch Stonewall against 4 e3.  A Pterodactyl/Dzindzi-Indian would be interesting too (as well as the Dutch Leningrad).  

For e4, while at club level, the black side of the Exchange French is more winnable than for a master, it still poses problems.  Against another club player I would think about the O'Kelly Sicilian or the Modern with a quick a6 and b5 against 4 f4.

The English Defense seems like a good idea against c4 (and d4 too depending on the move order).  I actually have had good luck with playing 1. c4 d6 2. d4 e5 for a win too.

Yeah, it's not clear to me that the Berlin is inappropriate for a win, though if I were a Berlin player I'd probably supplement the endgame with 4.0-0 Bc5, a move that has been played by Topalov, Anand, Leko, Adams, Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Nielsen, Fressinet, Short, Paco Vallejo Pons, Salov, Morozevich, Gurevich, Piket, Sokolov, Kaidanov, Dolmatov, Gulko, Beliavsky, Gustafsson...

Unless you play an extremely narrow repertoire, there are (almost?) always ways to mix things up within your primary defense.  How hard would it be to mix the Berlins Wall with 4...Bc5?

Well first, I wouldn't presume to be able to seriously comment on the repertoires of the world's best players, or any professional players.  They have problems that I don't have, as an amateur.  But I do think that there is a little bit of a "last round fallacy" if you will; Kramnik would never have been in that situation if he had won an earlier game as Black, for instance.  Winning chances are something to think about for most of your games, not just the 1/10 or 1/20 that you happen to have Black in the last round of an important event where a draw is paramount a loss. 

Secondly, 1.e4 e5 isn't really my area of expertise, I admit.  If the Berlin endgame isn't good enough though, can't Berlin players supplement their regular repertoire the same way that Petroff players do?  A quick look at the database shows that most of them do exactly that (excluding the 2750+ players who have problems I can't imagine having).  Exactly which lines to supplement it with are a matter of taste; you might pick a sharp and slightly less popular line, like the Archangel or New Archangel; something that is fairly forcing and gets "your" position on the board the majority of times.  The Open Variation might be another good choice, in which case Black could consider the move order
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6.  Or play the Philidor, etc, etc. 

I understand Inn2, and I didn't mean to trivialize the problem.  I meant that if someone is happy with the Petroff 99% of the time, then there really isn't a problem.  But since no-one (perhaps besides Kramnik) is really happy playing the Petroff that much, everyone supplements the Petroff with something else that is still part of their "normal" repertoire.  A GM who plays in an Open tournament needs to win with Black in early rounds as well as (sometimes) the last round.  

Gelfand has played The Petroff more times than Kramnik, and he supplements it with the Najdorf, which he essentially plays concurrently with the Petroff, so they are both "normal" openings.  Ilincic has played the Petroff more times than anyone in my database, and he supplements it with Sicilians and 2...Nc6 in roughly equal measure.

Hence my turning the questions around: what openings are inappropriate when needing a win?  I agree that the Petroff isn't.  But almost no-one plays the Petroff anyway, they need to win as Black more often than in 1% of their Black games.  Instead of playing the Petroff, they play "The Petroff and ______" as their main defence(s).  Each player solves the problem differently; some will play the Sicilian and some will be a little more economical and play 2...Nc6 or 2...d6, such as Pavasovic, who is an "average" GM who has played the Petroff more than almost anyone.  

For the VAST majority of players, creating winning chances as Black is important much more frequently than just the last round, so their "normal stuff" always includes something a little bit more flexible and sharp. 

Well, in my repertoire, I have a line where if White wants to force an early draw by repetition, white can play it. 

I would not play that line in a must-win situation. In all other situations, I can be fairly confident that White won't play for a draw. 

So I can empathize with the problem. The general advice, play what you know, don't go berserk, and all that holds true, but the devil is in the details. Know your repertoire!

I have to agree that finishing off sharp attacks is often quite as hard as defending them. Defense/counterattack often quite fun too

Slow build ups are much worse because quite often by the time the tactics start its far too late and your opponent doesn't even really have to play accurately to win.