If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
i know that Kevin Pacey had a thread ago about how he would play some less than "hip" lines and get good results with them
i was thinking about trying the Zurich variation of the Nimzo
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 Nc6
it leads to a very different game than most of the nimzos i play anyways with Black immediately going for ...d6, ...e5 etc. i also think that 6.f4 v. the Najdorf is due for a revival and Vallejo-Pons' 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nd2 e6 5.g4!? is fun for blitz
as white in the nimzo 4. e3 c5 5.Ne2 cxd4 6.exd4 d5 7.c5 is interesting, but i think that Black does well to get ...a5 in, keep White's pawns from rolling and play ...e5/...b6
i know that Kevin Pacey had a thread ago about how he would play some less than "hip" lines and get good results with them
I generally try to 'improve' on what theory gives at home before playing an offbeat opening. Sometimes I let authors of less well-known books that I have do the work (or much of it) for me. I feel as uneasy about going unarmed into a line that's supposed to be += or worse, with Black, as the next guy.
i was thinking about trying the Zurich variation of the Nimzo
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 Nc6
it leads to a very different game than most of the nimzos i play anyways with Black immediately going for ...d6, ...e5 etc.
This is a fairly active and unusual line for Black, so you might get lots of wins. However there are so many += lines available to White, I think, that you may have lots work to do if you want to be conscientious. If you don't have book(s) or articles that advocate this line then database games might provide food for thought. The type of game here may not always lend itself to helpful analysis by a computer though.
A line against the Classical Nimzo that might(?) take far less work at home is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 and now 6...h6. This little move doesn't get any attention that I remember in books I've seen so far, yet its been played quite a bit, and by some of the world's strongest players. It also might put out opponents who were looking forward to pinning with Bg5 next turn with White.
i also think that 6.f4 v. the Najdorf is due for a revival
This line fits in with the Austrian Attack against the Pirc, from which it may sometimes transpose. The critical English Attack, or even still 6.Bg5, does not always secure a theoretical edge for White, and they each have buckets of theory, so why not play 6.f4 before it might become all the rage again?
Myself, I've always used Open Sicilians and Anti-Sicilians with White about half the time each. As a youngster I scored well with the former, and now that I am getting to be a geezer it is the opposite.
as white in the nimzo 4. e3 c5 5.Ne2 cxd4 6.exd4 d5 7.c5 is interesting, but i think that Black does well to get ...a5 in, keep White's pawns from rolling and play ...e5/...b6
I hate to let White's queenside pawns roll in the Panov Caro-Kann, unless I know what I'm doing, so I'd feel the same way about this line of the Nimzo-Indian.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 12th October, 2009, 07:52 AM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I hate to let White's queenside pawns roll in the Panov Caro-Kann, unless I know what I'm doing, so I'd feel the same way about this line of the Nimzo-Indian.
can you give some examples of games where this went right? at my less than lofty level it looks like you're rolling the dice...either it works really well or you're busted...
I've played those sort of Panov Caro-Kann lines with Black only in speed chess games which I've long forgotten, so I'm afraid I can't help you that way. My favourite choice against the Panov is 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 and if 5.Nc3 g6, which can possibly transpose to quiet lines of the Grunfeld that I've played both sides of. Even here, you really should remember what to do against 5.c5 (i.e. a quick ...e5).
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
It's a sideline I've never played. It seems like a Rossolimo, where White by contrast can prefer not to block his c-pawn, so as to build a pawn centre. In the given variation, 3...Na5 is interesting, but you may not encounter that many class players who are attracted to putting a knight on the rim so early. Instead 3...Nd4 is more normal, when the game turns a little unusual as well. White has some hope that Black might not equalize smoothly in either case, if you believe ECO (4th edition). Not much homework required, and no traps for either side to fall into (except the 'obvious' 3...Na5 4.Nf3 a6 5.Ba4?? b5 6.Bb3 c4) if you hope (or are afraid) to have a quickie.
i would like to be able to play the grand prix v. everything but after
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 it's not so great v. something like ...e6, ...Nge7, ...d5 etc.
Facing the move ...d5, at least, is par for the course in the Grand Prix (via 2.f4 or 2.Nc3), so maybe if you don't like facing it here, where there is a bit of memory work involved, and where ECO thinks things are not so clear (the best hope objectively speaking for a White sideline like an Anti-Sicilian), then perhaps you should think again about playing the Grand Prix, even beginning with 2.Nc3.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 15th October, 2009, 02:40 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
...where ECO thinks things are not so clear (the best hope objectively speaking for a White sideline like an Anti-Sicilian).
perhaps I should expand on my view of what White might expect sidelines, as opposed to mainlines, ought to bring him. I think it may agree with what ECO editors seem to have as their philosophy as well.
White sidelines, such as Anti-Sicilians, typically reach a position that might be evaluated as equal (or at best unclear) in, say, well under 20 moves with correct play, even nowadays, with Black having many equally good alternatives along the way. Mainlines often require Black to walk more of a tightrope, often necessitating at least some memorization, but in the end topical mainlines, with best play, tend to also end in unclear positions, but deeper in the move count, into the middlegame or even endgame.
Other, now out of fashion, mainlines like the Accelerated Dragon have become less popular (with top players at least) because it is generally thought that White can always get a slight plus with correct play (i.e. with the Maroczy Bind). In effect the Accelerated Dragon arguably has become a Black sideline nowadays.
If you look at books like MCO, by contrast, sometimes even topical mainline openings are evaluated as ultimately slightly better for White. I am not sure who to agree with in every case, but for the sake of chess I like to believe, like ECO editors seem to, that Black should be able to reach an unclear/balanced position ultimately, however deep into the game this takes. If not, he should rethink his choice of opening.
The necessary disclaimer for all this is that opening theory always is evolving, and even lines sometimes thought to be well worked out hold surprises. Plus it is up to the individual player to decide whether to agree with the books or his computer's evaluation.
Now for the sake of some entertainment content I'll show you a recent game of mine involving a White sideline (though not an Anti-Sicilian). It is typical in that without calling on much memorized theory at all, Black arguably equalizes or is close to equality very early on, and has lots of reasonable alternatives throughout the early to late opening phase. White blunders in time trouble in an interesting position that's still approximately even (at least my computer thinks so).
John Upper (2170) - Kevin Pacey (2354),
Ron Rodgers Memorial, RACC (Ottawa) Round 4, 15 Oct. 2009
At this point of the tournament my opponent had a perfect score, while I had a half point less. After the game he explained his choice of opening by saying that he was studying his Black openings, and was playing something with White which involved no work in the meantime.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 b6 4.Bg5
Here we have a Torre Attack, with White playing c2-c3 unusually early.
4...Bb7 5.Nbd2 Be7 6.Qc2
This move is less common in my databases than the less commital 6.e3. Already the game seems to have left what my library covers.
6...d5 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Ne5
8...h6
Castling or trading knights was also reasonable.
9.Bxf6
Retreating to f4 would have been less obliging. Now I could have simply recaptured with the bishop, but I played to unbalance the position a little more.
9...gxf6 10.Nef3 f5
Here right up till move 16 my computer gives ...c5 as its favoured alternative, but it does not 'complain' much about my play.
11.h3 h5 12.0-0-0 Bd6 13.Bd3 c6 14.g3 Qc7 15.Ng5
My opponent offered me a draw after making this move, but in view of the tournament situation, the favourable rating difference, the time trouble he was in (already) and the approximately balanced but completely unplayed position, rejected the offer was a no-brainer. Other than fatigue there was no good reason for him to get into time trouble by this point, but sometimes one feels the obligation to search for a forced advantage early with White.
15...Nf6 16.f4 c5
Here ...Ne4 was the machine's new favourite choice. Probably unwisely I began to play faster around here.
17.Ndf3 c4 18.Be2 Ne4 19.Nxe4 fxe4 20.Ne5
20...0-0-0
Instead ...f6 immediately is also possible. Either way White's play on the kingside doesn't seem to clearly win through. Black has the possibility of advancing slowly on the queenside, and can live with the bad B/b7.
21.g4 hxg4 22.hxg4 f6 23.Ng6 Rxh1 24.Rxh1 Rg8
25.Qd1??
Cracking in time pressure. Fritz' recommendation is f4-f5.
25...Rxg6 26.Rh8+ Kd7 27.Rh7+ Be7
The interposition that White must have missed. There is still White play that Black needs to quash, however.
28.Qh1 Qd8 29.Qh5 Rg8 30.g5
30...f5
Fritz much prefers ...fxg5 followed by ...Qf8.
31.g6 Kd6
Instead ...Qe8! is much better. Now White should try g6-g7!
what's wrong with getting into a Najdorf by 2. ...e6, 4. ...d6, 5. ...a6 (see below) to avoid the 3.Bb5+ lines and also avoid the Keres attack? Am i overlooking something silly?
Thank you. I really enjoyed playing that game. With the emphasis correspondence players are putting on computers these days, and the strength of the computers, it's getting harder to play that kind of attacking chess these days.
what's wrong with getting into a Najdorf by 2. ...e6, 4. ...d6, 5. ...a6 (see below) to avoid the 3.Bb5+ lines and also avoid the Keres attack? Am i overlooking something silly?
If you mean, for example, the sequence 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d6 intending 5.Nc3 a6, then White has options that don't lead to a strictly proper Najdorf (indeed I can't yet imagine how one would be reached, since ...e5 is the usual signature move, not ...e6), and that can be Scheveningen[-like], even after 5.Nc3 a6, e.g. a Keres Attack-like 6.g4!?, played all the same.
However, for many Sicilian players, the most offputting answer to the move order you've given might be for White to play a Maroczy Bind formation with 5.c4. If you believe ECO, this formation is not as strong as it would be against, say, the Accelerated Dragon, but Black doesn't always get a path to clear equality according to the theory, and above all the game is usually not as exciting as what Black probably was hoping for, and he needs to free himself at some point.
The subject of how White might deviate at move three also may be of interest. Some people answer 2...e6 with 3.c4, which can lead to a Maroczy Bind formation against a Taimanov Sicilian as well, after 3...Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 (though this is considered innocuous since the B/f8 hasn't been blocked in with ...d7-d6 yet), or to a sideline of the Symmetrical English after 4.Nc3 that most people wouldn't play as White (especially if they play 1.e4).
Another choice after 2...e6 is 3.Nc3 (useful to avoid the variation 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 if White wishes), when White might answer 3...d6/a6 by 4.g3 (rather than 4.d4), although it's fairly harmless objectively if White eschews d2-d4 in favour of d2-d3. In his book 'The Chess Advantage in Black and White', IM Larry Kaufman recommended 3.b3 as another idea (as a compliment to 3.Bb5[+] systems), but I don't think this harmless looking move will become popular.
Finally, after 2...e6 (or even 2...Nc6) White may play 3.c3, when Black has lost some options against a 2.c3 Sicilian that might have interested him otherwise. However many c3-Sicilian players may be reluctant to use this move order since after 2.Nf3 Black can play the most common move, 2...d6, when 3.c3 runs into 3...Nf6, after which a normal c3-Sicilian is ruled out. Nevertheless 2...e6 3.c3 could be a handy option for people who play both the c3- and Bb5[+]- Anti-Sicilians.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 28th October, 2009, 08:53 AM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Finally, after 2...e6 (or even 2...Nc6) White may play 3.c3, when Black has lost some options against a 2.c3 Sicilian that might have interested him otherwise. However many c3-Sicilian players may be reluctant to use this move order since after 2.Nf3 Black can play the most common move, 2...d6, when 3.c3 runs into 3...Nf6, after which a normal c3-Sicilian is ruled out. Nevertheless 2...e6 3.c3 could be a handy option for people who play both the c3- and Bb5[+]- Anti-Sicilians.
what does ECO say about 3.c3? i often just play 3. ...d5 going to a french...is there something stronger/more sicilian-like?
what does ECO say about 3.c3? i often just play 3. ...d5 going to a french...is there something stronger/more sicilian-like?
Under the code B40 (starting 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6), ECO's main choice against 3.c3 is also 3...d5, which can transpose to lines of the French, as you say, or independent Sicilian lines if White wishes.
In a footnote ECO considers 3...Nf6, which might go back to multiple fully playable 2.c3-Sicilian lines (with 2...Nf6), but where Black is committed to ...e7-e6 early. Nevertheless 3...Nf6 would be a good choice if you want to play for a win without allowing transposition to a French, and if you like the Alekhine's Defence then Ng8-f6-d5 would normally occur here too.
ECO also mentions 3.c3 Nc6 in their footnote, but gives only 4.d3 (transposing to 3.d3 coverage), but more critical may be 4.d4, when transposition to seemingly (ultimately) dull line(s) of a 2.c3-Sicilian could occur. However all the existing theory might change, and you'd need to do research and decide for yourself if you don't plumb for 3...Nf6 instead.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
at the end of every year i decide on my openings for the next year and every year i think about playing 1.e4 e5. if i were to take up 1.e4 e5 i would likely need a line against the ruy lopez...any thoughts on a good "non-closed" variation? i really dislike the black side of the exchange variation...can i get away with
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O a6 (aiming to get into an open lopez that way) if 5.Bxc6 is it better for Black than a normal exchange?
many, many moon ago in my Ottawa days at COMPAQ, me and Armando Valdizon looked at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Bc5 as a playable alternative.
maybe i should just bite the bullet and learn to take on the exchange? thoughts?
maybe i should just bite the bullet and learn to take on the exchange? thoughts?
I take it you want to play black. Try the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez. Some of the variations are "trappy". The Ruy Lopez Berlin is often used by black to get a draw.
at the end of every year i decide on my openings for the next year
I personally don't know of anyone else that takes this approach, if you mean that you adopt an entirely new repertoire every year. That would largely waste your experience with your previous openings, unless you take them up again in a future year, or unless they clearly did not suit your style, and you'd be forced to learn much each year.
I would guess that you actually mean that you may change at least some of your openings every year, probably based on your results with them. I guess I'd think about dropping an opening, for a few years anyway, if I'd played it, say, at least ten times in the previous few years and had a performance rating with it 100 points or more worse than my average rating during those years, and in my whole career.
By contrast, if my performance with an opening is positive then I'd consider making it a regular (or core) choice if it wasn't already (I don't know about you, but I have a wide repertoire, even just counting my core choices, which I've kept more or less the same for many, many years, adding occasionally to them if an experimental run with an opening proves quite successful, e.g. the Caro-Kann is a relatively recent addition). However I normally choose to drop an opening at least for the time being only because it is having a theoretical crisis that I can't solve one way or another. Fortunately that seldom happens, since for one thing I weeded out my fishiest choices long ago.
Otherwise I hope to play every core opening that I use at least once a year, with the exception of defences to flank openings (since they are less frequently used by just about everyone), so that I won't get too rusty with my core openings (if your repertoire is narrower than you can aim for 2 [or more] games with each core opening each year).
I know about how many games I expect to play in an average year, and the frequency of how often I face 1.e4 and 1.d4 on average has determined the number of my core defences to each for many years now, since I play largely the same pool of opponents for many years, and in my case at least, 1.e4 has remained 1.5 to 2.5 times as popular as 1.d4 regardless of my opposition over the years. Practically that means at the moment I could have up to about ten core defences against 1.e4, and currently I have eight.
I have chosen my openings and variations with an eye to cutting down on memory work needed to survive the opening, though experience and looking up openings after a game sees to that too. If there are positional/tactical 'traps' for my opponent that is a big bonus, even at [near-]master level. That I play so many openings means I am a lot less of a target for preparation, and can easier afford not to know some openings well, initially at least.
If there is a reason to [not] play a certain opening against a given opponent then I will, otherwise I try to make my repertoire quotas when opportunities arise. As FM Bob Morrison once told me, you've got to play with a full deck when deciding on choice of opening against a given opponent. However for that it's also good to have a universal style that comes with learning and playing both tactical and positional, and both mainline and offbeat openings reasonably well, and not everyone, master level or not, can come close to that goal.
every year i think about playing 1.e4 e5. if i were to take up 1.e4 e5 i would likely need a line against the ruy lopez...any thoughts on a good "non-closed" variation? i really dislike the black side of the exchange variation
By 'non-closed' I assume you mean a move other than 3...a6 (3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 could reasonably be called the start point of the Closed Lopez).
You've mentioned the first move of the Berlin Lopez (3...Nf6, when after the usual 4.0-0, 4...Nxe4 starts things rolling), which scores reasonably good win percentages for Black in otb chess below the highest levels, and it's fully sound. IM Larry Kaufman recommended it in his 'The Chess Advatage in Black and White'. There are some fairly unavoidable dull lines, but not too dull, at our level anyway.
If you wish to be tactical and don't mind a slightly suspect theoretical verdict for a pet defence then if you don't play 3...a6 then you can't beat the Schliemann (sp?), i.e. 3.Bb5 f5. It would be a good surprise choice, perhaps. Beats the Berlin Lopez for Black win percentages at lower levels, I imagine.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O a6 (aiming to get into an open lopez that way) if 5.Bxc6 is it better for Black than a normal exchange?
Unfortunately, after 5...dxc6 you would have transposed to the sequence 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Nf6?, which isn't good for Black at all. Not only does the Kt not belong on f6 here (Black likes to be able to play ...f6, or ...Qf6, or sometimes ...Ne7/...Nh6) but without thinking about it deeply (or with a computer) I would guess, without looking at a board, 6.Nxe5 is a simple refutation, since taking on e4 apparently invites disaster on the e-file.
Similarly if 3...Nf6 4.0-0 a6 5.Bxc6 is answered by 5...bxc6 then you would have transposed to the sequence 3...a6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 (uncommon, and condemned by ECO, but Ottawa NM Wayne Barclay plays it now and then) 5.0-0 (ECO considers 5.Nc3 most precise, and says also that 5.Nxe5 good enough for a slight edge) 5...Nf6? (here 5...Qf6 is not so clear in ECO's view), when again 6.Nxe5 seems a simple refutation, 'looking' blindfolded.
many, many moon ago in my Ottawa days at COMPAQ, me and Armando Valdizon looked at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Bc5 as a playable alternative.
Here ECO gives 5.Nxe5 or 5.c3 as ultimately leading to a slight edge for White if he plays accurately. Whether you consider that a problem is up to you. Maybe the theory will change some day. Armando seldom seems to worry about what the books say.
maybe i should just bite the bullet and learn to take on the exchange? thoughts?
If you worry about theoretical equality then the Berlin Lopez seems to be the only alternative to 3...a6 at the moment.
The Exchange Lopez might pose Black a problem finding a fully reliable line that isn't also a bit too dull if White wants, in high level chess anyway (a problem for mainline Lopez' too). However there are lots of slightly unreliable ways of playing for a win, especially at our level, after the usual 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0. A look at recent database games or books may help you make a pick of one or more of them.
With my own games as Black, at master level even, after 1.e4 e5 I get non-Lopez' more than half the time, and the games that are Lopez' largely go 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4. Even those don't always go to mainline Lopez', i.e. White plays sidelines at move 5 or 6. Nevertheless, like in the Sicilian, Black should enjoy facing such second-rate stuff, especially if it's not too dull.
I play the Open Lopez and the [Anti-]Marshall as Black when I'm allowed. They're both sound and tactical 1...e5 defences. With the Open Lopez the first moves up to move 8 almost always are the standard ones, after 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4. I've scored reasonably well with it here in Ottawa. With the [Anti-]Marshall I get the Anti-Marshall most often, especially from stronger players. Streetwise players should never allow the Marshall itself unless they have significant knowledge of it. However class players are often not streetwise. So far they are the only ones who walk into it against me, and so far none have been well prepared at all either. The combination of rating difference and a sharp trappy/attacking defence has worked 100% in my favour in these games.
Having said all that I must say that although I generally liked the positions I've got against the Exchange Lopez, so far I've had disappointing results, in some cases due to narrow escapes by opponents. However, like I said, I seldom face it, so I worry less about it, and need to have very few responses prepared due to its infrequency, at least at my level. For opponents who I know are going to play it, I would prepare if I had time, or else I might avoid it (by not playing 1...e5, or playing the Petroff if a draw was ok, perhaps, or maybe even surprise my opponent with a Berlin Lopez for the first time in my life, or nowadays a Latvian, if the game meant very little), since they might have way more experience than me with such an infrequent line, for one thing. However there are very few regular Exchange Lopez players I personally face. All in all, not a good practical reason to stop me from playing 1...e5 regularly, even if I do play 3...a6.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment