Problem with it is that it leads to all the different pawn structures.. Benoni, isolated, hanging and so on. This is ALOT of learning and you'll lose a lot of games until you know all these. Also you rarely get a mainline at a lower level and is very likely to have to face both the Catalan or some Bogo Indian variations. At the GM level it's the best opening but for us mortals it's a different story.
@danielholta5721 the point of the Nimzo-Indian is that it leads to a lot of pawn srtuctures, so it's a great way to learn to play completely different positions, and actually improve instead of just winning.
@@joycongripyou sound like a 1300, probably won a few games with it and you think it’s godly. definitely not, anyone above 1700 will easily be able to take advantage of it with a kingside pawn storm or other attacks such as the grand prix or pirc defense etc. the opening, though it may seem structurally sound, it has major flaws in areas that aren’t overlooked by 1700+.
One question: this list is for beginners, intermediate, advanced or master players? Feels like you've mixed perspectives of the different level players. In my opinion, it is strange to put theory-heavy Grunfeld as no.1, but rank Semi-Tarrasch, Ragozin and Nimzo-Indian lower than top 5.
NO WAY!! The Polish defense is ABSOLUTELY NOT D-Tier. I played almost 50 games with this opening (yes I checked), and I won 33/48 of them. Its harder to study compared to other openings but if you know it well u can play it commonly against D4. Cmon, give it AT LEAST a B+
Idk where to rank it to be honest. Though I will tell you, the polish is not a good opening. But at 99.99% of the rating ladder. If you know how to play it and your opponent doesn’t it is like Sicilian tier.
Not definitely bad tier list to see from other perspectives than I have. I can clearly see, that you are player, which doesn't like hypermodern approach that much as normal big center fights. For instance classic queen's gambit declined, tarrasch, ragozin, semi slav or slav and so on are more fighting approaches with trying maintaining center and somehow making symetrical positions. On the other hand Indiana games, modern defense, benoni and so on are more hypermodern games, where you try chop whites center and attack it from flank with c,b,f,g pawns or just with fianchetto bishops. Your tier list more prefers those classic openings, which is fine, still when you look at how strong openings are and what they give you, you can clearly see that for example Nimzo-Indian is much less risky to play and more solid in it's nature than for example King's indian defense or Grunfeld. Ragozin is more risky but more ambitious way to play than for example semi-slav defense, because of more open position with your pieces already developed and maintained in attack. Playing black is usually about getting things in control, you always start one move after white so obviously white has upper hand. Your main objective as black is trying to get things in control and focus on stability of your position. That's what many people forget and that's why you can say things like modern defense is a boring way to play. Yea, it definitely isn't as attractive as queens gambit declined and so on, but it is solid, it follows principles and in fact having a center can be a disadvantage when your opponent is gonna chopping it from flanks. So yea, in fact okey tier list, Ragozin is definitely higher, it is in fact one of the most ambitious and good ways playing gueens gambit, all indiana games are at least top 15, because they are all solid, maintain many moves, which you can play and in Bogo-Indian you showed not the best move, the best move after bishop d2 is usually retreating it on e7 and just develop, because white made a move and after knight f6, they usually wont got for bishop g5, because it is next move with bishop and knight is already defended by e7 bishop. All in all okey tier list, I like others people perspectives and I also sub you just for Mexican defense being so high, Black knights tango is definitely in my top 5 openings for black's, I'm mainly indiana games player, so I really prefer those kind of openings, very underrated opening with great ideas in mind. 😇
Big disagree on the QGA. Some grandmasters, like Vachier-Lagrave, play this (with classical time control) and the engine gives an evaluation on par with most popular defense. It's perfectly good.
The Greco Variation is probably the most dangerous line in the QGA to face as white and one of the best ways to play for a win as black at a high level (assuming your opponent plays 3. e4). Additionally, the QGA as a whole is incredibly practical as you'll get in almost every 1. d4 game and it avoids the Catalan and other annoying systems.
the point of haurtlaub-charlick gambit is to play Nc6, Bg4, Qe7, and O-O-O. one trick they might fall for is Bxh2+ and you grab the queen with your rook and if they dont fall for it you can go h5 and start a big attack and you can use the bishop as a fishing pole too if they play h3. and if they dont play nf3 in opening and play ne2 instead then you will have a high chance of greek gift sac, and in the opening you always play the same setup i mentioned before. all in all its a great long term attack gambit.
This is an excellent video, but I have to disagree with you on the Albin Countergambit. I managed to draw an IM with it and the d4 pawn was a huge asset that actually allowed me to have a winning position (I blundered it into a draw, sadly). Also, playing e3 or e4 isn't easy to achieve for white, which is why the mainline is g3 or a3
I agree with this, but I do believe the Dutch Leningrad deserves a much better ranking- the bishop might not have the world's best future, but if you carry out the king side attack( Dutch Leningrad theory) correctly, there is a 0% chance that white will survive.
The win rate with black against 1500's are very high according to lichess statistics. So it belongs very far up. Even that gothamchess guy changed his mind about this after he made his "mediocre" opening tier list video with Hikaru.
@@mullerreus145 if you're a beginner then it doesn't really matter what opening you play. My opponents are all booked up, and I play some sideline of the Grunfeld that my opponents probably wouldn't have looked at, giving me a strong advantage.
@@PickleCODM-hw6cj It sort of matters from my experience of starting out. Most beginners learn dubious traps that are very easy to fall into, but easy to refute when you learn them. Overall, though, it is tactics that will win and lose you games.
@@Sparta-hg1pl the grunfeld is a more direct and sharp way to attack the centre, but the modern is much more complex and undetermined. Grunfeld has a lot of theory because it is so sharp
I'm sorry but the Englund Gambit at 47 is way too low on the list. I won many games using it. It throws d4 players off balance by creating a more open game with attacking lines they're not used to seeing.
Bro just read anything on the modern defence. It's not comparable at all with the pirc. It's easy to transposition between them and pawn break ideas can be similar but the modern has many more crazy ideas. Try playing it a little
Lil bro likes the benoni but doesn't like the modern 💀 even though the benoni doesn't necessarily lead to the position he likes whereas you could guarantee it with the modern, bruh. Please read up on the modern
When people play nf3 instead of nc3 so I can’t play the nimzo I’ll play b6 and then you can transpose into lots of nimzo Indians bc they play nc3 a lot of the time and a common idea in the nimzo Is fianchettoing the light squared bishop anyways
