Aggressive non-gambit opening for white?

Sort:
Oldest
RussBell
MitchCanadian12 wrote:

Try the bishops opening! It's not too agressive, and and the same time quite solid. With the early bishop you can produce many great attacks.

The Bishop's Opening.  I very much agree with this suggestion, although I would say that while the B.O. can and does allow for many aggressive attacks, it is not what one would typically call a "crazy-aggressive" opening system... 

In fact the John Emms book "Attacking With 1 e4" which I had mentioned in my earlier post features the Bishop's Opening (heading towards a King's Gambit Declined setup) is the repertoire's suggestion against 1.e4 e5.  It is an aggressive setup, and is focused on a Kingside attack for White.

Another excellent book on the Bishop's Opening in general (which I highly recommend) and the different openings and variations  it can evolve into (Italian Game, Vienna Game, King's Gambit Declined, etc.) is...

"The Bishop's Opening Explained" by Gary Lane

http://www.amazon.com/Bishops-Opening-Explained-Gary-Lane/dp/0713489170/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453520634&sr=1-9&keywords=bishops+opening+chess

A related book by Gary Lane is "Vienna Game"....

http://www.amazon.com/Vienna-Game-Gary-Lane/dp/1857442717/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453520992&sr=1-1&keywords=vienna+game

Another excellent book which features using the Bishop's Opening move order to go into the Italian Game is....

"Beating 1 e4 e5" by John Emms....

http://www.amazon.com/Beating-1e4-e5-Repertoire-White/dp/1857446178/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453521064&sr=1-3&keywords=john+emms

For a nice, quick initial exposure to the Bishop's Opening, is this Kindle edition by Jon Edwards...(its cheap, and you can download the free Kindle reader app for both PC and mobile from Amazon).....

http://www.amazon.com/Bishops-Opening-Chess-Fun-Book-ebook/dp/B006JBY8U2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453520634&sr=1-1&keywords=bishops+opening+chess

RussBell

More on Bishop's Opening....

Tim Harding's article "What Exactly Is The Bishop's Opening?"...

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708075140/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz27.txt

An excellent site for Bishop's Opening...

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/index.html

a Chess.com article on Bishop's Opening...

https://www.chess.com/article/view/openings-for-tactical-players-the-bishops-opening

Nelly_Gan

e4, main lines

X_PLAYER_J_X
lolurspammed wrote:

Not all gambits are just losing endgames though. For example the Benko is designed to get to a superior endgame a pawn down with good open files and activity. Practicality is important. You shouldn't play trash like the Halloween gambit against players you respect in skill, but the kings gambit or the Evans gambit/smith morra/ geller gambit are not at all forced losses.

WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW

Do not go around insulting the Halloween's Gambit SIR!

It can be extremely dangerious.

Black has to be very careful.

Black in 90% of all cases gives back the gambit knight for a better end game pawn structure.

Needless to say there is alot which can happen before an endgame ever shows up.

lolurspammed

I play c6 and d5 against it.

kareldevries
lolurspammed wrote:

Not all gambits are just losing endgames though. For example the Benko is designed to get to a superior endgame a pawn down with good open files and activity. Practicality is important. You shouldn't play trash like the Halloween gambit against players you respect in skill, but the kings gambit or the Evans gambit/smith morra/ geller gambit are not at all forced losses.

 

What I try to do is playing openings matching my skills but also the skills of my opponenent. On chess you can look at bit at the games of your opponenent, see if he likes agrressive games or not.

I dont mind playing theoretically unsound gambits against players who dont like gambits!

Most of the times I win those inferior openings.

So what does it mean that an opening is unsound it it fits my skills, if I enjoy the game much more than a theoretical win at move 100 and still score 80% with them?

Duck_Of_Doom
Dark_Falcon wrote:

Iam almost always playing unsound openings and dubious gambits like Blackmar-Diemer-, Gibbins-Weidenhagen-, Soller- or Latvian-Gambit.

And below 2000 i rarely met well prepared players, even in correspondence chess (iam playing on a 1900 level in OTB matches).

When i look at your rating of 1300 in blitz, you shouldnt be scared of "well prepared opponents" among patzers.

On this level a pawn down means nothing, because players on this level will blunder more than a pawn during the game 

And being a pawn down with the advantage of bringing your opp out of book in the second or third move means a lot more...

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to do (or maybe I presented my question wrongly).


I'm not trying to go all out, I'm trying to put a steady pressure on my opponent but not at cost of material. Main difference is that in this case, I have a back up plan to fall back on. I can defend myself quite solidly against counterattack even if my king castled queenside.

 

That said, I got what I was looking from this post, I am very grateful to the guy who suggested Vienna, English and Yugoslav, as it allows me what I want to do, and there are different ways I can get there, usually with Bishop's opening (thanks to MitchCanadian12 :) )

Chessmater grinds me down still with best moves (even suggested by Chessmaster for my side :) ), but with some strange, very non-human moves.

I understand how gambits work, however, it's not for me. I think we can leave it at that. I consciously understand that one pawn is nothing if exchanged for positional superiority, however, I am constantly emotionally burdened to reach this positional superiority that I often bring myself into a worse one because of it.

That's what they call irony.

 

I also understand that my level of play brings many blunders and major strategical errors, however, I really have a desire to become a lot better, and in order to do so, I need optimal opening which I am comfortable with, that I understand, and which would allow me to win the game even if opponent understand my general plans and doesn't blunder a piece.

Duck_Of_Doom

Slight offtopic, I do love myself a piece sacrifice if I can see imminent compensation in any form, tactical or material one. In fact, I always look for those during the game, just not long term, strategical one at the cost of material I guess.

Dark_Falcon
Duck_Of_Doom hat geschrieben:
Dark_Falcon wrote:

Iam almost always playing unsound openings and dubious gambits like Blackmar-Diemer-, Gibbins-Weidenhagen-, Soller- or Latvian-Gambit.

And below 2000 i rarely met well prepared players, even in correspondence chess (iam playing on a 1900 level in OTB matches).

When i look at your rating of 1300 in blitz, you shouldnt be scared of "well prepared opponents" among patzers.

On this level a pawn down means nothing, because players on this level will blunder more than a pawn during the game 

And being a pawn down with the advantage of bringing your opp out of book in the second or third move means a lot more...

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to do (or maybe I presented my question wrongly).


I'm not trying to go all out, I'm trying to put a steady pressure on my opponent but not at cost of material. Main difference is that in this case, I have a back up plan to fall back on. I can defend myself quite solidly against counterattack even if my king castled queenside.

 

That said, I got what I was looking from this post, I am very grateful to the guy who suggested Vienna, English and Yugoslav, as it allows me what I want to do, and there are different ways I can get there, usually with Bishop's opening (thanks to MitchCanadian12 :) )

Chessmater grinds me down still with best moves (even suggested by Chessmaster for my side :) ), but with some strange, very non-human moves.

I understand how gambits work, however, it's not for me. I think we can leave it at that. I consciously understand that one pawn is nothing if exchanged for positional superiority, however, I am constantly emotionally burdened to reach this positional superiority that I often bring myself into a worse one because of it.

That's what they call irony.

 

I also understand that my level of play brings many blunders and major strategical errors, however, I really have a desire to become a lot better, and in order to do so, I need optimal opening which I am comfortable with, that I understand, and which would allow me to win the game even if opponent understand my general plans and doesn't blunder a piece.

OK, ive got it now :-)

But take the advice from me, not to count material on the board too often, cause most amateur games will be decided in the middlegame, so its all about tactics (regardless if you play a dubious gambit or a sound standard opening).

You cant buy nothing for being 3 pieces and 4 pawns up, when your king is lonely and and surrounded by the remaining enemies pieces.

I dont say, that i win every game with a glorious kings attack, sometimes ill win 2 pawns, being a pawn up in total and exchange pieces and going to the endgame, when i dont see any chances for a kings attack.

Sometimes you will lose in the endgame being that gambit pawn down, but this rarely happens on low and mid level.

Have fun and food luck further, mate!

Poryg

You may want to consider Queen's gambit as well. As White regains the pawn back, it's not a real gambit :) and the pressure White can get is considerable... But the dark side is, the positions are often balanced and symmetrical.

lolurspammed

Dark Falcon, it happens all the time on any level. The losses will come just as easy as the wins playing some class A and B players

Forums
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic