White: Closed Sicilian, Bishops Opening, 2. Qe2 French, 2. c4 Caro-Kann
Black: ...a6/...b5
1800-2000 level player here.. how do I avoid opening theory?
Sort:
Dec 28, 2017
0
#3
In today's generation, there is no such thing as tricking people with "offbeat" lines. As a 2080 player over the board currently, I can explain to you theory on theoretically dense lines like the King's Indian Mar Del Plata to the low-theory lines like the Colle Zukertort or Torre Attack to the completely offbeat like the Sokolsky or Norfolk Gambit. Play what you understand and instead of just pouting that you are no good at openings, take the time to study. Pick up a few theoretical books on specific openings, not those generic opening books that don't cover cr*p like MCO. There are entire books on just the Marshall Gambit and Anti-Marshall.
And in response to post 2, I play 2...c5 (after your 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2) - There is no tricking a booked up French player - Next?
Dec 28, 2017
0
#4
System-like openings are fine for beating 2000s if you get comfortable enough with them. Not Qe2 French (I mean, it's playable, but so are most openings) - hopefully the inclusion of ...a6/...b5 for Black was enough to convey that it wasn't completely serious...
Someone who's 2100ish has no need to (and probably doesn't) to know the ins and outs of openings across the spectrum though.
If you want to avoid opening theory then do the following two things at the same time.
1.Try to play wacky moves.
2.Try to play good moves.
If a large percentage of your moves get a checkmark for both conditions then tada you have successfully avoided opening theory.
Dec 28, 2017
0
#6
That's good advice, @Dale! I know of a NM who does this, but very few players below master strength are capable of such original and strong thought. It's easy to play wacky moves, but much harder to find good wacky moves.
I think it was Ivanchuk who said that Jobava's style is extremely difficult to play because he has to do so much extra work to find interesting new openings and then to test them enough to where they are more or less water-tight.
The impression I had is that avoiding main lines (theory) is not practical since you have to be prepared against what stronger players will play, and they play main lines for a reason. So while it is okay to pick something that is less trendy or current (old main lines), it is not a good idea to 'avoid theory'.
If you dont adapt the modern state of the game, and its openings, then you'll hit a wall before 2000.
IMO, this is due to the more positional nature of the game as its played currently.
I used to play the Benoni and Dragon and the attacks would fly on both sides. But now the computers have snuffed out most of the fun of those. So i play Nimzo-Indian which hasnt missed a beat. But I usually see 3Nf3 so I rarely get to play it...people play what would have been considered boring moves.
Dec 28, 2017
0
#9
nighteyes1234 wrote:
If you dont adapt the modern state of the game, and its openings, then you'll hit a wall before 2000.
IMO, this is due to the more positional nature of the game as its played currently.
...
The "modern state of the game" is such that almost every opening that is not outright refuted is playable. Top players are beginning to settle into a pattern where they are content to play main lines as Black, but will play almost anything as White. This is why the greatest opening theoretician of all time, Vladimir Kramnik, now plays 1.d4 and 2.Bf4 so much as white! And of course, Carlsen plays just about anything, especially when facing players rated more than 100 points lower than him.
The Modern Benoni is probably more sound than the Dragon, but below ~2700 the Dragon should be fine even as a repertoire choice. Gawain Jones has used it repeatedly. I don't trust it, and the very top players don't trust it for anything more than a surprise weapon. But if you trust it and understand it, you should be able to score well with it.
"The modern state of the game" is such that any opening that gives you a playable position that you understand is acceptable.
You could play 1...b3 as White. If it's good enough for Naka then it's good enough for pretty much anyone.
Players like Larsen and even Fischer played 1.b3 before Naka was even concieved
SmyslovFan wrote:
The "modern state of the game" is such that almost every opening that is not outright refuted is playable. Top players are beginning to settle into a pattern where they are content to play main lines as Black, but will play almost anything as White.
I think there is a misunderstanding here...because the main lines of yesteryear are not the same as today. You can source a 100 page on book on hobbling through it but...the sharp counter-attacking game and the sacrifices and all the rest are gone. The fact that you can still muddle your way to a draw with tactics in the center was not the reason for playing it back then.
Kramnik is a great example, because he was a killer attacker and avoided draws. But now he has this positional game. Hes adapted. Old Kramnik comes to todays game and meets new Kramnick, old one sees 2Bf4 and says 'thats what I become? Shoot me now.What a wuss.'...but then sees the whole game and then is 'hmm..pretty good actually'.
Everything depends on Your preferences. For white, you can build a low-maintenance opening repertoire based on 1.Nf3. Then the main choice to make is whether against ...d5 systems You want to aim for the Catalan, King's Indian Attack, or a Reti with double fianchetto.
Otherwise, there are low-maintenance 1.e4 repertoires, where against ...e5 You play Italian/2 knights with a small center (d3 and c3), or a Scotch. You add some respectable anti-sicilians (Rossolimo, Bb5+, King Indian's attack), and against French/Caro-Kann you exchange on d5 and play c4.
Dec 29, 2017
0
#15
Chess is a wonderfully rich game. Sure, you can build a nice and simple opening repertoire with a one size fits all responses criteria. It will even be marginally successful in casual games such as those that are usually played here.
But if your goal is to be a successful tournament player, that repertoire won't be good enough.
Before you decide on a repertoire, it's a good idea to figure out what your goals in chess, at least for the next few years, are.
One thing that Mango Carslen has proved is that you can play practically anything within reason. He has played the London system at both blitz and classical at the highest level, he has played the Colle in a world championship match, he played wing gambits against the Sicilian, he has played 1.Nc6 against the King pawn, anything will do if it gets you a playable game.
Just my two cents...The best way to avoid opening theory is to play (non-engagement) opening systems. Non engagement means do not confront the enemy, at least in the beginning...Therefore there are few if any forcing variations to learn. For myself I've settled on playing g6 as black and if white opens with b3 or b4, I'll play e5. When playing white I'll play g3 or d3. I could go on but the object of the opening is to get you into positions you like to play from. I don't like to memorize theory so I avoid it if I can.
Play the London System. There's a lot less theory to learn and it usually becomes a strategic battle where knowing theory is less important then understanding the position.
The London System is great. If you don't like it, check out some of the ones in this article: http://chesswinning.com/10-best-chess-openings/
Okay so I was always bad at opening theory, but I also haven't played chess in a long time making me even worse.
Can you guys suggest some nice systems or openings that aren't main lines, that can help me keep as many chances I can for an exciting middlegame? (I'm an attacking/tactical player)
(either color is fine!)
(the openings I used to play are main line ruy lopez as white; marshall gambit / benko gambit as black)