A New Opening Repertoire When You MUST Win With Black

When faced with the need to win with Black, this leads to a "bad" mindset i.e. I "must" play aggressively in the opening or stand worse. This may well lead to an open center and massive exchanges in the early middlegame. This is just the opposite of what the second player needs.

First of all, the most passive openings in chess some players might believe are the most aggressive i.e. immediately occupying the center, getting your Knights' to f6 and c6 so that you can contest or occupy the center. This is just the opposite of what you should try to achieve.

The most aggressive system for Black is to keep as many pawns and pieces on the board for as long as possible and never close the position

 in order to run your opponent out of time or require them to calculate long complex variations in time trouble. This is the way to force a blunder.

The system I have organized from hundreds of widely scattered games, I call the Universal Attack because it can be used against any opening system except 1.b3. The purpose of the opening is to overprotect the King. In 30 games in the Golden Knights' in 1994, I used the same first five moves in the opening. 1...g6/2...Bg7/3...e6/4...Ne7/5...O-O. Once I learned to play the system in the semifinals I learned to delay castling until my opponent declares his intentions.

If there were no other attributes this system had to offer, then just use it as an Anti-Reti opening. Black equalizes quickly and will stand better by move 10.

Rather than describe what the UA looks like, here is a critical game pitting a Classical chess player against a UA player. Since it was played against a Postal Expert, if he can get lost in the complications, think of what will happen to your opponents with the clock ticking!

This is a very interesting system. It looks pretty fun to play, and I think I'm gonna try it sometime.

that looks like fun, but heres my take for "must win" at class level-

you can play any opening (even passive) and still have shot to win.. endgame technique isnt strong enough to trade down into a draw and I think still going with what opening you know the most about is good.

looks very interesting i might also give it a go

The biggest difference in the UA is how you define time---In Classical chess time is defined as how many pieces you develop.

In Universal chess, time is defined as the acquisition of controlled space i.e. how many squares do you control behind your pawn wall. The best illustration of Universal chess is the game Karpov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993. Here both players stayed in Universal mode almost the entire game. Universal chess can be defined as having all your pieces in back of your pawns, never ahead (In universal chess there is either one open file or, at most two half open files; I define Universal mode is having all your pawns arranged so that your pawns are never overextended i.e. your opponent has no access to interior space with his/her pieces) of your pawns.

The point of the UA is that it is not Classical chess; it is not Hypermodern chess. The purpose of the UA is to secure an advantage in Classical chess i.e. you always want to look for an advantage that you can prosecute using Classical chess principles.

One of the greatest misconceptions in all of chess is that Knights are more active on c6 and f6 in the opening. This is based on the totally erroneous idea that activity is defined as ONLY the first move. Ask yourself a question, "Does a Knight on f6 have greater likelihood of winding up on e4 or g4, than a Knight on e7 has to wind up on f5?" If the Black Knight winds up on f5, which is more active, a Knight on f6 or a Knight on f5? In dozens of UA openings, I wind up with a Knight on f5

Universal positions are among the most common in all of chess. Just check 100 GM-level games and I think you will find dozens of examples of Universal chess played at the highest levels.

The Universal Attack (UA) is just a natural extension of this way to play the opening; think of it as a combination of the French and the Modern. Unlike the Pirc, Rat or Hippo, you always play d5, never d6. Probably from my experiences on line (with lousy luck I might add!) avoiding castling may lead to trouble. On line I experimented with an early d5 before castling without much success. In the order of succession from most desirable to least desirable openings to play against your opponent, then probably I would say against the Reti, then the Bird, then the English, then d-pawn openings and the toughest is against e-pawn players (Probably in the final choice, I'd stick with the Sicilian---Obviously, the d-pawn player can transpose.) I like to call this opening the Anti-Reti or the Anti-English. Here is the game Karpov-Ivanchuk.

Here in microcosm is how you can turn out good novelties in seconds just using the UA. In the games. The following position was reached directly or by transposition in Korchnoi-Short, Skelleftea, 1989, Sherbakov-Rusian, Berdichev, 1990, Litinksaya-Zayec, Azov, 1991, Nogueiras-Arenciba, Capablanca, Memorial, 1991 or Wojkiewicz, Koen, Katerini, 1993.

Here is a good way to play the Reti-UA from Prosch-Weyrich (Next game will be Karpov-Kasparov!)

The next game is Karpov-Kasparov, 1985 World Championship, Game 24. This started out as a routine Najdorf, until Kasparov more or less transposed to the UA!

I fail to see why the knight is better placed on e7.  The knight has little influence there as he is blunted by friendly pawns.  On the b4 post the knight is very strong assisting in the queenside pressure and on the center as well.  White is under great pressure to make great moves otherwise he will be at a huge disadvantage against Kasparov.

Anyways, how can you criticize Kasparov, he is much stronger than either of us.  There is always a strong plan behind his moves. 

The knight has more activity on b4 than on e7 and has more defensive capabilities because the knight is not passive.  Where would it go after e7?  Hopefully not c6 as then you blunt your only positional compensation.

This thread is exactly like the thread you made at chesspub!

Now for a list of quotes you have made in your rather optimistic thread "The Refutation of the Two Knights Defence"

It is always good to get constructive criticism but some post members seem to be more interested in being consistently negative. I leave it up to the other members of the chess community to engage in a productive dialog. Here is a reason why the UA can be considered an Anti-English opening; you will note that after White plays c4/d4/e4/Nc3 & Black plays e6/Ne7/d5 that if White tries 6.cxd5 exd5 7.exd5 then Nxd5 restrains the isolani with excellent chances. Here is a game featuring the English UA. Here is Gabriel-Jonas giving the reader an idea just how sharp the English UA can become.

Interesting...

There are times where you want the pawns in front, sometimes the pieces. It depends on the position and opening choice, but the line you're showing with ...d5 and a fianchetto is just an inferior french type structure.

if this is a choice for when you must win, why not choose a defence where black has atleast 20% or more win percentage?

I've played against this several times now, and I've actually found this system to be fairly weak. Usually, I can pounce with moves like Bg5 and take total advantage of his dark-square weaknesses. So black better be careful when he plays this.

 Did you win this highly favorable position ?  Why not show us the game ? 

You sound like you're so sure of yourself but I'm not convinced at all. The whole stuff where you suggest not to occupy the center, not play Nf6 and Nc6 and refrain from open positions doesn't make any sense to me. I'm afraid your confident & assertive tone in your post doesn't match the level of your chess experience.

White contests the center immediately with an early d5 which is not true of a Rat or a Hippo. What makes the UA good for a beginner is that they can always get to a middlegame after the following five move I played with Black in all my games in the 1994 Golden Knights: 1...g6/2...Bg7/3...e6/4...Ne7/5...O-O. I have now reluctantly concluded that Black should try to reach universal structures by contesting the center immediately i.e. meet 1.d4 with 1.d5 (This actually will tend to be a UA by transposition after say 2.c4 c6 & see whether the UA structures are possible.

Against Fritz 8 (129/40) today, I thought I'd see how an Accelerated Dragon would work out but first I disabled the computer's book to see what "natural" attacking plans it would try.

Here is a line that I tried today against Fritz 8. I disabled the computer's opening library to see what natural moves Fritz would make. This Accelerated Dragon was played at 120/40. Black could try for an Accelerated Dragon, but then it might be necessary to defend against the hit on d6.

     If beginners want to try the Universal Attack with the starting moves outlined above, then any theory spent on the opening should focus on the Kingside pawn pushes i.e. h4/h5 or h4/g4; don't worry about piece play; the harmony of the Black minors and Black's solid pawn structure will allow you to meet any frontal attack.

     To answer a post question above, this is what happens when I decided to test the limits of the UA against FM Rudy Blumenfeld in the 1994 Golden Knights.