How A Grandmaster Plays 1.e4
In this post I'll share with you a recent series of mine, showing you how I like to play 1.e4 in my Chess.com games!
Here is the series in video format (starting with 1.e4 e5):
In these videos I mainly focus on how my recommendations in Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4 measure up with my own practice. If you click on the top right (where it says 7/13), you should be able to see the next videos in the playlist, to play through them at your leisure. (If that doesn't work for you, click here for the full playlist).
For those who prefer to read than watch, here's a summary of my recent preferences with 1.e4 in Chess.com this year (889 games total):
Vs. 1.e4 e5
I most often played the Ruy Lopez (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) in my games, typically following up with main lines (6.Re1 in the Closed Spanish, 4.d3 vs. the Berlin). I believe it was Caruana who recently said that 4.d3 feels like a concession in the opening, because you are not putting pressure on Black's position, but that's also a testament to how reliable the main line Berlin variations (like the Berlin endgame) are for Black.
In any case, I played the Italian (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4) in nearly as many games, most often going for direct lines with 3...Bc5 4.c3 followed by d4 and 3...Nf6 4.d4. Both those lines will often transpose to my 'Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4' recommendation with 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 (which I also played in some games).
As you'll see in the free sample of the course here, I also cover the alternative of 4...Bc5 5.Ng5 (as well as my main line of 5.c3), which is an option only available via. the Scotch Gambit move order. I was inspired to add this to the course after seeing Awonder Liang's great win vs. Levon Aronian in the recent US Championship:
Vs. 1.e4 c5
The nice thing about the Be2 Open Sicilians is that while they are generally not the absolutely most critical try for an advantage, they are quite easy to play and understand, and the price of a mistake is lower than in most other Open Sicilian variations. This explains why Karpov was a big fan of these systems:
Overall, I played slightly more Anti-Sicilians than Open Sicilians, mostly going for the Alapin Sicilian with 2.c3 (or 2.Nf3 and only then 3.c3) when avoiding the Open Sicilian. This was my way of testing my recommendations in Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4, and I was indeed able to get a pleasant advantage in all my games using the ideas I analyzed in the course. (You can get the full 'Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4 course here).
Vs. 1.e4 e6
The following game of Tarrasch in his pet system is quite indicative of how Black can easily get into trouble if he plays the most obvious moves:
I also played around with a lot of different options within the Burn French after 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nf3 f5 8.Nc3 c5 (and some deviations before that), but ultimately Black is doing quite fine here with his bishop pair and central counterplay with ...c5.
Vs. 1.e4 c6 & 1...d5
I played a lot of different systems against the Caro-Kann, but the most common one (by a margin of just one game!) was the Fantasy Variation with 2.d4 d5 3.f3, which was also my recommendation in 'Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4'. Honestly, I have a lot of faith in the Fantasy as a practical weapon, even well above the 1800 level, as amateur players seem to really struggle when they can't just bring their light-squared bishop to f5 or g4. (Youtube chess fans may remember the GothamChess video with his loss to IM Ivan Schitco in this line).
For those who are rated over 2000, a small tip I can offer is that, after 3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 Bg4, instead of the most common 6.Bc4 (which I recommend in my course because most players below 1800 won't find 6...Nd7, and of those that do, most will miss the Qb3! threat after 7.c3), a small improvement is 6.c3!, intending Bd3 and 0-0 to consolidate the centre and leave the g4-bishop misplaced. Here's an instructive example from Caruana:
As for the Scandinavian (1...d5), I mostly played quite classically against it with 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3, but recently I started playing my old favourite of 3.Nf3 again, to see how my opponents would respond against my recommended setup of Be2/0-0/d4/c4/Nc3 from Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4. Most of my opponents already went wrong with 3...Qd8 or 3...Qa5, playing it as if White had played Nc3 (a pattern I also point out in my 1.e4 course), but this immediately gives White a big advantage right out of the opening.
For instance, I got to test my 1.e4 course recommendation in the Pirc with 1...d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 Bg7 5.e5 in a couple of games. While my opponent (rated 2000) didn't blunder with 5...dxe5 6.dxe5 Qxd1 and played the more circumspect 6...Ng4, I still gained an advantage in both games.
As for 1...g6, I played various setups but most often went for 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3, in order to have some flexibility with the pawn structure in case Black played a Hippo setup with ...b6. As for 3...d6, I played both the Geller System with 4.Bd3 and my Crush Sub-1800s With 1.e4 recommendation of 4.Bc4, which has also been played by Nakamura very successfully in blitz:
In that case, we see even FIDE 2700+ players getting crushed by the 1.e4 course recommendations
Most of my Alekhine opponents didn't play 3...d6 after 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4, so there are no special conclusions here.
Thanks for reading this post and I will see you in the next one!
