As a certified peasant who's tried a lot of things, a club player's main task should be to pick openings that grow with you. David's idea of playing everything sounds awesome, but - with so many holes in our chess - opening study yields less growth per hour than endgames, puzzles, or game collections. So you choose openings that will follow you forever. At 1100, the king's gambit will score easy points....but when you're 1500, black has a pet weapon, your positions are bad, and you'll need to spend 20 hours learning something else. Learn the Ruy at 1100, and it's usable at any level; those 20 hours can be spent doing something else OR just going deeper into the Spanish which has plenty of depth to plumb. Gimmicks have a ratings-based expiration date. Main lines are evergreen.
I’ve played the King’s gambit from under 1000 to almost 1800. I spent most of my time doing tactics that arise at all King’s gambit lines because chances are, your opponent doesn’t meet people who play it often so they’re not prepared
I think it's a totally valid philosophy. But I take a middle ground myself. The counterpoint is that strong gambits or slightly subpar openings can teach us a lot (given that we enjoy their essential nature), and 20 hours is not that much in the grand scheme of things. Depends how much time someone plans on devoting to chess throughout their life...but life is long. I've started with gambits up to 1600 and I'm only now slowly introducing the solid cousins to my gambit lines (from scotch gambit to knight attack, from Evans to the modern Greco non-gambit attack, from Stafford to Petrov). Plus, it's not like I don't play solid lines against many other openings: Against d4 or white's gambits, for example, I often play solid or the sharpest refutations. In that way, I like the idea of polarity in my openings. My repertoire's variety affords my many learning opportunities.
I love how you guys all have different strong personalities and approach your content differently. The dynamic between the 3 of you is so entertaining!
As you didn't explicitly cover the Petrov, an opening I picked up recently (yes I am boring that way), I have tried to come up with my own answers: David: 5 d4 mainlines like Kasparov used to play them. Jesse: 5 Qe2: Endgame repertoire, baby! Kostya: 5 Nc3 and opposite side castling. Eugene: for pros, 5 Nc3 and for peasants Bishop's opening or 4 knights with fianchetto. How did I do?
I like it. But it's not like you can see the Nf6 and take back a move to go into the bishops opening. (Or did you mean the "Russian Italian" game as some people call it?)
I think the reason the Ruy no longer features very much c3-d4 is because black figured out that they never had to allow it. Trying to shoot for it with 6. Re1 will usually run into the Marshall, and the Anti-Marshalls inherently avoid c3-d4 as a matter of course. The 8. h3 Anti-Marshall can also run into various d5 sacrifices where white often fails to prove anything with the extra pawn, and the 8. a4 Anti-Marshall is largely neutralized by 8...b4, at least in my own analysis. The main problem in most Anti-Marshalls is that since white gives up on c3-d4 and so the center stays locked for longer, black can find ways to engineer situations in which one of white's moves was a waste of time. In the 8. h3 Bb7 9. d3 d5 line, h3 is the waste of time since black's bishop has left the relevant diagonal. In 8. a4 b4 9. a5 d6 10. d3 Bd6, it's Re1 that was the waste of time, as evidenced by the following alternative line: 6. d3! b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a4 b4 9. a5 d6 10. Nbd2 Bd6 11. Nc4! -- we reach almost the same position as before, but white is "a tempo up" in a sense, since Re1 hasn't been played and can therefore avoid exchanging the bishops. So, the "Carlsen Ruy" is just where white acknowledges that if he tries to engineer the efficient c3-d4 plan, black will disallow it -- the moral of the story is in some ways that there are no seriously constructive moves on move 8 in 6. Re1 other than 8. c3 should black choose the (probably superior) Marshall Move Order -- and hence just gives up on the plan much earlier with the useful move 6. d3. In many variations, you can actually win the tempo back if black allows you to pull the bishop on a4 back to c2 in one move instead of two, and eventually engineer the classic c3-d4 type positions anyway. I was analyzing lines here at one point and even found a possible transposition to the old main lines (specifically the Zaitsev) out of 6. d3. Black has to play in a very specific way to achieve meaningfully *different* positions and claim to "exploit" the move order 6. d3 -- in most cases you just end up getting improved a4 Anti-Marshalls with Re1 omitted, direct transpositions to healthy a4 Anti-Marshalls, transpositions to actual mainlines, or acquiring thematically similar but fresh mainline-ish c3-d4 positions. On this basis I actually switched from 6. Re1 to 6. d3 myself recently.
Oh no, you guys missed the best response against 1.e4 - Alekhine Defense... In all seriousness though, this is great stuff. I'm a bit surprised no one mentioned the Austrian Attack against the Pirc, especially David who seems to be all about the most critical lines. Thank you all for the content!
I just found this channel and LOVE it! it would be very interesting to see this format from blacks pov (discussion for responses vs 1.e4 and vs 1.d4,..)
Here's my take on the matter, I think for ruy lopez you shouldn't play it under 1800 but if you want to... be prepared, and mess around with it and see what variations you like from white the most. For the najdorf, I agree with kostya, the h3 lines are nice and not as dangerous as Bg5, but a safer route is the way jesse approached it, for the french I recommend the Nd2 line for non ambitious, but for ambitious players Nc3 is just better. For the caro, I'd recommend the exchange for under 1800 and for more ambitious I'd recommend advance for all but when you pass 2000 I'd recommend the classical, against the scandi, I'd agree with kostya. For the pirc, I'd recommend the austrian attack or 150-attack Against the dragon I'd recommend a levenfish style attack on it, and for e6 sicillian I'd recommend what david said or playing grand prix
Many players will have a mixed strategy and focus on some lines deeply while using quick-and-easy options for other defences, especially those less often encountered. I wonder about offering different advice to players who are starting out but have high ambitions. They are still starting out and still have much to learn. And opening selections could depend on the openings others play. If a club rival always plays the Najdorf and is delighted to get the practice, you could learn a line in the Najdorf and safely ignore other main-line Sicilians.
I switched to 1.d4 two months ago after years of playing 1.e4. I very rarely played mainline stuff, I was usually drawn to less common openings. - Against 1...e5 I played the Scotch - Against 1...c5, 2...d6 I usually tried to play Qxd4 instead of Nxd4 to avoid theory - Against the French I played the two Knights variation, 2. Nf3, 3 Nc3 - In Caro-Kann I actually played advanced Short variation, the mainline Nf3, Be2, 0-0, as people at my level (1800~) often misplayed it and got in trouble quickly (mostly when trying to save the bishop by retreating it to g6, giving me time to play c4 opening the position. - Against Scandi I played 2. Nf3 - Against the Pirc, Modern and e6 I played mainline stuff. Now it's all 1.d4 and almost always main lines :)
@@luka_fn1879 I disagree. At a low level a lot of caro players just haven't seen it and blunder into the bishop trap. and even if they have, you can play for e6 push and get a really great position. its kinda cheesy and dubious but its effective at low levels.
@@citizen6458 from my experience 90% of players at lower level will play h5, 9% play h6 (so you play h5 e6) and 1% will blunder their bishop. I don’t think its ideal as you won’t improve your own gameplay by just playing tricks but in a tournament or for fun I can understand it. The short variation is more challenging on a higher level, though.
I’m really interested in the idea of expanding opening knowledge by following the history of opening popularity. (Basically starting out with gambits and moving on to positional, etc.). Would love to hear that expounded on a little more. I sometimes wish I’d just picked one opening but to study, but I’ve realized my personality is drawn to having a large garden of openings
Jesse, I agree on the Fried liber, but not the Fried Liver (4.Ng5 Attack). Evans is principled. Ng5 attack is not principled and only works because of concrete theory, which isn't the best use of novices' time. If you do get 3...Nf6, the best approach (for novices) is 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0.
What do people think about (occasionally) playing openings you know very little about in order to test yourself, or learn about the "essential nature" of opening play?
If you really want to understand chess at a fundamental level, then I recommend every 3-6 months switching up your openings. That is long enough that you get to a reasonable understanding of the opening (vs. just playing it a few times randomly, where you will not develop any real knowledge), and frequent enough that you don't fall into ruts, and over time really get a full sense of the game.
@@chesscomdpruess Ah, that seems like a nice middle ground. So you're saying every 3-6 months you suggest really committing to a new opening as opposed to just winging it randomly.
I agree with Jesse and Eugene on the 2.Nc3/Grand Prix Option but disagree on the Choice of Fried Liver. The Fried liver is a very concrete system where White's position is practically much harder to play than Black's. Theoretically 3.Nc3 is strongest against the French, but the Tarrasch is easier to play and less risky while still retaining decent winning chances. It's weird that the Advanced Caro is considered best although Black easily develops his light squared Bishop after this, yet against the French hardly anyone rates the Advance that highly, this is a contradiction I wish the panel addressed, for the record I like the 2 Knight's line against the caro. Finally I like Jesse's way to handle the e6 Sicilian with a couple modifications, for instance: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 is a very interesting line or 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 a6 4.g3!? a very cagey approach retaining the option to switch to an Open Sicilian at a moments notice or staying in Closed Sicilian waters depending on what Black does, this way of playing is very flexible and very dangerous for Black to face.
@@owencrawford5984 The contradiction is that the structure is more or less the same but their theoretical status is completely different. Actually before Nigel Short put the Advance Caro on the map, very few strong players rated it that highly. I find it quite ironic that the Advanced French is considered toothless while the Advanced Caro is seen as almost a refutation, even Alanis Morissette would find it hard to disagree. :-)
@@owencrawford5984 The point or observation I was trying to make is that it is curious that the advanced caro is so much more highly regarded than the advanced French, even though conventional wisdom taught us that the ability for Black to develop his bishop outside the pawn chain should ease his defensive task somewhat. This was more or less the accepted thinking till Nigel Short rehabilitated the advanced caro in his match with Seirawan, before that the Adv Caro was generally considered even more harmless than the advanced French. The above begs the question as to what really determines what, Theory over Practice or vice versa, just another paradox to ponder when considering what lines are best to play. :)
I switched over to the Fried Liver (which really should be called the Knight Attack) from the Scotch Gambit, and yes it's a completely different beast since it's basically that black is playing a sound gambit and you have to catch up in development. But after studying some of the strongest lines for white, I've found it not only interesting but very testing to black (I'm talking 8.Bd3! or 8.Qf3?!): After all, the onus is on black to prove compensation for the pawn. Keep in mind that many intermediates don't seize the initiative well with the black pieces. Furthermore, most beginners and intermediates still play Nxd5 in which case you do get the Fried Liver/Lolli Attack and a completely different and fun variation that teaches white how to keep the initiative. I'm learning a lot so far!
Great info in this video! If I can make one observation about the video not the content of it. You could make the screen with cams and the table so we can see your faces while you talk.
As a beginner (~1400) I thought I would pick up the Caro-Kann but the advance variation always leaves me cramped. Should I just try and learn theory or should I leave the Caro until I get better in general? I really like the pawn structure I get from the main line variation so maybe I could try a Scandinavian?
