ErictheRed wrote on 04/12/18 at 18:06:54:


Given that ..Bb4+ is one of Black's options, preventing it makes sense.

The one and only time I ever faced the Albin, I had played 4. a3. This provoked .. c5 in response and White was completely OK in the reversed Benoni.

In the case of the Alekhine, the most uncomfortable line for many Black players may paradoxically be the main line. It's objectively hard for Black to equalize there, but it does require a lot of knowledge from White since Black has many different setups. When I dabbled in the Alekhine myself I faced 2.Nc3 a lot and found that a bit annoying, though if Black is happy to transpose to a Vienna Game/Four Knights, Classical French or Pirc he's fine.

bragesjo wrote on 04/12/18 at 10:36:35:

I second this tip; anyone who struggles against the Scandinavian should check out Greet's book. Objectively Black may have found satisfactory answers to his lines, but that doesn't matter much on club level. The general idea of 3.Nf3 and c4 soon makes it different enough from what Black is used to with Nc3, where White's space advantage is smaller. This setup also avoids the gambits Black may be hoping for after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6.

The setup with Bc4 and d2-d3 can also annoy Black players, since there's no potentially weak d4 pawn to play against. It's probably only a serious try against 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5, but it must be playable even against other lines.

ReneDescartes wrote on 04/12/18 at 17:52:25:


I also wonder if the issue is psychological - we are perhaps told, and believe, the opening played by our opponeny may not be good  and as a result place extra pressure on ourselves to  find the winning lines instead of just playing the position ?

grandpatzer wrote on 04/12/18 at 14:18:27:

Yes, it would be hard to write such a book. The above posts show that for some players it's stable pawn structures that drive them crazy, while for other players it's just the reverse, just as I'm sure for some it's positions that are too bland and for others positions that are too violent.

Even worse, the whole idea of the bogey opening is that the known theory yields a poor record for the given player. So such a book could not simply reproduce the best theory against the given openings!

That fact suggests that our problems with a bogey opening lie not in the opening, but in our general chess skills. Perhaps we are too hesitant in fast-play situations, or too reckless. Perhaps we try to force matters in one spot when maneuvering against two weaknesses would eventually crack the opponent under our static advantage. Perhaps we don't ask whether pawn breaks really give more activity to our opponent than to us. Maybe we never understood the process of creating and attacking queenside weaknesses by advancing the a-pawn, so that we can't pull it off when we need to and don't understand when our opponent is about to clobber us. 

That in turn would mean that the best things to do against bogey openings are, first, to look over one's own games in them with a good teacher to see what weak skills or misconceptions the resulting middlegames and endgames expose, then practice those skills,  and, second, to examine a bunch of master games by specialists in those openings to see how White and Black win when they win.

Bancrates wrote on 04/11/18 at 22:24:24:


That would be an interesting book, but on what basis shall we establish what these "Bogey Openings" are? I guess we should try to find some bogey openings that are common to most players, but that's not easy...

It seems that there are many similar suspects.

Alekhine used to be one of mine, till I learned the Exchange variation. I've had encouragingly positive results there now. 

Scandinavian with 2...Nf6 is off-putting as well. Almost never see it, but whenever I do, feel like a fish out of water.

I've always enjoyed playing the Classical Caro in longer time controls, but suffered at short time controls.

Interesting that this almost always seems to occur from the White perspective, since everyone has their Black defences sorted out.

Maybe we should collectively publish a book - "Antidotes to the Bogey Openings" a la Experts on the Sicilian.

grandpatzer wrote on 04/09/18 at 20:11:52:


I played the BDG for a while, so I can transpose the Scandinavian into a BDG.

I have too many, and it is hard to say which one is the worst, so I will discuss all that come to mind at the moment. 

With White:

Petroff: Rather boring and very hard to get anything against, regardless of what line I employ. Black usually knows it better too as it is rather rare. 

Berlin Defense: I don't enjoy giving my opponent the bishop pair in such an ending for what I see as very limited compensation. In the non-ending lines, I really feel like it is just completely equal, and sometimes drift into a worse position for no apparent reason. 

Caro-Kann: I have had some nice games online so far in the Advance variation, but for every nice game there has also been a disaster. I try to follow the recommendations given by Shaw in his 1.e4 book, but often I find it hard to really understand the positions and my compensation for a sacrificed pawn or two. Black often just ends up material up for nothing as I don't play the White side of these positions particularly well. Back when I played the Classcal Caro my results were not much better, and it seems like I play the opening better with Black than with White. 

Bogo-Catalan: Maybe it should be called the Bogo Indian, but I am referring to the line where Black plays 3.Bb4+ after 3.g3, avoiding a normal Catalan. It seems hard to get an edge here, and the positions are often quiet and boring. Furthermore, Black often cements a strong knight on c5 and I have no plan. Some intensive study would probably help here as I have not given this line the attention it deserves. 

QGA: I play 3.e4 here and generally like the positions, but Black always knows them better and seems to make me suffer to prove compensation for a pawn in some lines. Again, more study would probably fix this. 

With Black: 

Rossolimo: For Sveshnikov players this is very annoying. I did not see it much till recently, and now it seems like everyone is playing it. I like the defense I have chosen against it, but somehow often end up positionally in trouble or just drifting into a bad position due to being rather bored or dissapointed that I didn't get 3.d4.

Exchange Slav: I really need to study this one as I often end up worse, or at least bored. 

7.Nd5 Sveshnikov: I seem to struggle on the Black side of this pawn structure (d5/c4 vs e5/d6). I think it is due to worrying too much about the c5 break and not getting on with my own kingside initiative. 

Leningrad Dutch against 1.c4 (without d4): I am hesitant to play the Dutch against 1.c4/Nf3 because White is not forced to transpose with d4 later on. I find myself kind of lost for ideas in these reversed closed sicilian positions, and White often just throws the b4 pawn down the board at me, while my kingside play is usually too slow to be meaningful. I definitely need to look into these lines more.