A few questions about 1...e5

Just a few simple questions about 1...e5 response to e4. 

1. Are there any examples of how to make common variations sharp. For example: the Schliemann to the Ruy lopez, two knights defence to the italian, and ponziani. 

2. Any book reccomondations for people wanting to play 1...e5. All i have is Kaufman really.

3. is it somehow less ambitious then say the french and sicilian? The sicilian smack puts an imbalance on the board for the first move and then theres so much theory. But the french and sicilian are both ambitous.

4. I understand that playing 1...e5 is logical but it cant hurt to study some lines right? Even though im a rather weak player.

5. For a begginer to 1...e5 what is the best major variations to combat the italian and the ruy lopez that will lead to "logical" positions. For instance, it i said against the italian the giucoo piano is good for begginers because the set ups are logical. Against the Ruy: Chessexplained said its a good idea to start with the cordel defence, get familiar with the positions and then maybe sharpen it up with say the schliemann or the Archangel.

i personally think that it would be very important to learn the petroff defence it is a great drawing weapon and can be useful and means that you can avoid openings like the rup lopez or the scotch game where white can play for the advantage 

You don't need to do anything to make those lines in point #1 "sharp." They are sharp enough as it is.

Beginners should not worry about learning specific lines of this or that opening, since the amount of stuff to memorize is pretty large and will just overwhelm most novices.

Besides, trying to play something like 3...Bc5 against the Italian will just run into someone's prepared Evans Gambit...one more thing to try to memorize.  

Italian or Petrov or Scotch or....

Possibilities are endless!

1.) I think you pretty much found some of the sharpest lines already. Which lines exactly do you think are not sharp enough? Also which colour is trying to play a dull line, black or white?

2.) I only have local or general books on that sorry. If you really think you need another book, see what others have to say.

3.) With ...e5 black is insisting he has an even game. Then white proceeds to attack the spearhead and black defends. Some of these lines can be really dull and torturous for black. On the other hand, white has the least to work with.

The halfopen games are riskier, but the pay off is also better. There is more leeway to outplay the opponent because more pieces are on the board and the plans on both side are not identical.

4.) Known openings are all logical. It can never hurt to look at lines, just remember it is ample to develop your pieces. If you don't understand what a move is for just develop.

5.) No idea. I always played the 2 knights with black because it attacks e4 right away and it enables d5. (In case of the c3 Italian) I played the Ruy main lines with white and black. (Usually I got a Chigorin) Again, there is no such thing as illogical mainline theory. That book just wants you to play sharp and active lines. If you already have the book, why not play it? 

1) Openings that give you sharp lines from the start with black often lead to a disadvantage because you are behind in development so white is better positioned for a tactical slugfest. 

2) Estragon is ofcourse right when he says that openings at your level are largely irrelevant. However if you do what to learn 1. .. e5 i strongly recommand the dvd's from Jan Gustafson. It shows about every opening and always has a good reply. Also he explains the ideas (the why you play a move) this helps you react when white does not play accoording to your book (and this is very often at your level)

3) Ambition is not the result of an opening but a state of mind. You are the person winning or losing. e5 in general often leads to more positional based games (spanish, slow italian games) where understanding is important 

4) e5 is a very logical answer. It direcly states a claim on the center and stops white's center from gaining  more space. There is ofcourse nothing wrong with all major opening systems. 

5) Personally i like the Italian game a little more then the 2 knights defence. I do have a slight distrust for the posisitons that arise and it oftens ends in pawn loss for compensation. It is also quite theory heavy and not an ideas open. 

The italian game consists of 3 important opening systems you all need to know and understand. 

1) The Grecco variation (with 4. c3 and 5. d4) is quite tactical but black optains an equal position in all variations. 

2) Giuco Pianissimo (with 4.d3) is probably the most complex variation of the italian game and looks a bit like the quite systems of the ruy lopez. In my opinion this is the best chance for white to an advantage 

3) The evans gambit (4 b4) a very strong and quite dangerous gambit you will have to learn. If you know it it leads to an equal game. But white does have compensation !

Well all i wanna do as a chess player is improve. Are you guys reccomending to go back to 1.e4 instead of 1.d4 or can i continue to play 1.d4? which one plays more logical chess and is less sharp. Of course thats a rough question because 1.d4 has stuff like the botvinik of the semi slav and the gruenfeld. while 1.e4 has the ruy lopez if i choose that variation and the sicilian.

But if i forget to study openings and just read my endgame books, my positional and tactical books, and analyze my games. Is that the key?

To 1) Sure you can play 1.d4, but then I highly recommend you understand it. Playing with an isolani is no picknick and there are also lines with the backwards d-pawn. So I predict if you play the proper lines you will not enjoy it.

2) I can't decide that for you. When I was a teenager I knew the pawn stabs with the knight jumps in the Ruy to some 15 moves deep. That's because it's all part of a normal strategy. It's hard to think for me how I would have played it otherwise. I say it is totally OK to develop and to have the seeds of a middle game plan. If you can't get that then in my opinion your understanding is no good.

The key is analyzing your own games, at least sufficiently to figure out why you lost the games you lost. I doubt it'll be the opening.

1.d4 and 1.e4 are both very logical openings and they contain myriad sharp and dull lines, it's purely a matter of taste in my opinion.

Instead of reading like 10 books, pick one book and really study it deeply for half a year or so. Then move on to the next book.

I would personally suggest the workbooks of the "Steps Method", 1 to 5. If you can do the exercises in step 5 correctly, start working on the Yusupov books.

Agreed. The steps method is awesome for learning tactics, assuming it is easily available. 

Hi chessteenager! Looking at the list of your threads, I get the feeling that you´re searching for that foolproof opening or variation which will always give you an advantage. I was on that path myself for a while, but I got thoroughly disillusioned and bogged down by the sheer mass of material. I found and studied openings and lines which appealed to me; the problem was practising them, because 95% of my opponents just didn´t stick to my plans.

So I did that which is constantly being recommended in this forum - concentrate on tactics and the basic endgame forms. And it worked. I tried to simplify my opening repertoire as much as possible and concentrate on reaching the middle game without damage; then it´s tactics all the way for me, but always trying to keep an eye on the pawn structure for the endgame. 

I always play 1.e4 als white. Against 1... e5 I always play the King´s Gambit, which is mostly a tactical slaughterhouse - perfect for practice. Against Sicilian always 2.c3 (Alepin) which a) often throws opponents, and b) often transposes into the French, which cuts down the learning. Scandinavian, Caro-Kann and the rest I play by ear.

As Black I always play 1... e5 against 1.e4. This simply because I´m familiar with most of what can follow in the next 3-4 moves, and because I don´t see any point in trying a new reply or specialising until I´m starting to get through ALL (or at least very nearly all) my games without making mistakes or blunders. I´m still working on it, but get the feeling that I´m slowly getting there.

What I´m trying to say is: Ithink that trying to cram as much opening information as possible into your memory is counter-productive at our level (I fluctuate between 1400 and 1500 in Standard). I find I develop better if I practise tactics (chesstempo.com!) for 30-60 minutes before playing a game, rather than trying to brush up on (for me) new opening theory.

That having been said, there is of course no drawback in having as much opening theory memorized as you can! I think every individual has to find the right balance between tactics, openings and endgame theory when starting out; I´d definitely make a strong plea for tactics as number 1!

You really think so? That consoles me, because I´m hardly able to memorize any opening theory at all. What I meant was - if you have a brain that soaks up and retains lines and possible traps, then it´s probably no disadvantage, as long as you continue to actively play rather than just reproduce. The hard disc in my head won´t do that, so I´m happy to be out of it and just play.

(1)(2)(5)Some dude named KATAR made a complete e5 repertoire http://katar.weebly.com/black-vs-1e4.html (3)obviously e5 is the most ambitious response of black(4)it can't hurt but i think -best case secnario- the main thing not so great players like me pick up from it are some common tactical motives instead of specific openinglines. if i want to play a certain specific opening i lose..

I know the feeling ... nothing to worry about, so does Magnus Carlsen, sometimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD2Heem_3_4