MaxG31i wrote:
?
?
MOST ANNOYING OPENINGS
Sort:
i just get out of the book theory straight away with 1 e4
ThrillerFan wrote:
pcalugaru wrote:
Sebu13 wrote:
Which openings do you find the most annoying to play against?
For me they are:
With black:
1.d4 followed by 2.Nf3. It's annoying, because I don't know what I'm playing against. Is it a London, a Queen's Gambit, a Colle? Maybe even Catalan? Who knows?
Pretty much why I play it. lol...
1.d4 2.Nf3 I usually plan to play a Colle but I'm booked up on a lot of reversed Queens Gambit lines also. i.e. I'm actually looking to play.... Reversed QGA if Black plays an early ...d5 and ...c4 or ... or...because I play the Koltanowski var with c3, a reverse Semi-Slav lines with dxc5 holding on to the pawn and playing Bb2.. even started playing 1.d4 2. e3 and 3.Bd3 Hey... if I'm allowed to play the Stonewall Attack Bonus! but what I really expecting is to see some form of anti Stonewall move order allowing me to play a reversed Noteboom variation (or transpose into some solid version of a Chigorin or QG)
Are these theoretical? Heck no...!!! but.. gets people in my back yard where at least I will have a chance of knowing what the keck is going on .. lol
Colle only really works against Nimzo and QGD setups.
If the Bishop come outside, specifically known as the Anti-Colle, anything other than c4 and White is worse, and so 4.c4 almost has to be played, when 4...c6 puts you in a Slow Slav.
If Black does not play ...d5 or ...Nf6, but does play ...e6, the Colle still isn't very good. The whole point behind the Colle is to take advantage of his control of the kingside light squares (especially an attack on h7). So when the Bishop is behind the pawn chain AND you have a clear path to h7, the Colle is a useful weapon (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3! Or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3!).
But against other lines, it's trash.
Anti-Colle - 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Bd3? Or 3...Bg4 4.Bd3? - in both cases, the only move is 4.c4 or else White is worse.
Dutch - 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3? - this is completely ineffective. First of all, the f5-pawn stops you from eyeing h7. Against the Dutch, White's attack isn't even on the kingside.
But also, 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3?! e6, Black's Bishop is HORRID on c8. Black would love nothing more than to get that Bishop on the long diagonal. 4.Bd3?! b6!!
Instead, after 1.d4 f5 or 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5, the Colle is garbage. You want to keep that e-pawn back and play 3.g3! Even with the Knight there, after 3...Nf6 4.Bg2, 4...b6 is too dangerous, and 3...b6 is no good as Black has yet to establish control of the light squares without having played ...Nf6 yet.
Anyone that plays the Classical or Stonewall Dutch knows that first they must establish firm control of the central light squares with f5, e6, and Nf6, and then after that, if he can play it, he wants to play b6 and Bb7. If White beats him to the long diagonal, then Black must resort to a Classical or Stonewall.
So the Colle is just as ineffective vs the Dutch as it is the Anti-Colle.
Thanks for taking the time with your post!
Yes Sir... that what I do... I play the pawn to c4 transpositioning into a Queen's Gambit where prudent.
Lately, I've been plaiying an old school (pre WWII) line against the Dutch Stonewall which entail playing c4, b3 , leaving the Knight at b1 and playing Ba3, exchanging Black's DSB, neutering his attacking chances on the king side, then attacking his queenside with pawns and minor pieces. Analyzed a game by Salomon Flohr, where he used the plan. Is it theoretical? No... Yet, it's a decent (for my level) love essaying old school lines!
ThrillerFan wrote:
I still get the Exchange French sometimes today via 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3?! Nf6 6.d4 d5.
6...Be7 is less symmetrical and equally good if played properly.
The generic idea is castling, and then playing ...h6 first and then ...c5 (when white cannot use the d4-d5 and Bxh7+ trick if Black takes the pawn). Also ...h6 may help the bishop to stand comfortably at e6. Sample:
Massive discovery: You can counter Fried Liver
Defends the pawn and stops the knight.
Stops the knight without obstructing your own.
Stops the bishop from even coming in the first place.
1 hr ago
0
#27
For me it'd be the London. Not because it's good, but because it's very boring and uninspired. Black has to go to great lengths to make the game interesting at all. Especially after 1... d5.
Which openings do you find the most annoying to play against?
For me they are:
With black:
1.d4 followed by 2.Nf3. It's annoying, because I don't know what I'm playing against. Is it a London, a Queen's Gambit, a Colle? Maybe even Catalan? Who knows?
Pretty much why I play it. lol...
1.d4 2.Nf3 I usually plan to play a Colle but I'm booked up on a lot of reversed Queens Gambit lines also. i.e. I'm actually looking to play.... Reversed QGA if Black plays an early ...d5 and ...c4 or ... or...because I play the Koltanowski var with c3, a reverse Semi-Slav lines with dxc5 holding on to the pawn and playing Bb2.. even started playing 1.d4 2. e3 and 3.Bd3 Hey... if I'm allowed to play the Stonewall Attack Bonus! but what I really expecting is to see some form of anti Stonewall move order allowing me to play a reversed Noteboom variation (or transpose into some solid version of a Chigorin or QG)
Are these theoretical? Heck no...!!! but.. gets people in my back yard where at least I will have a chance of knowing what the keck is going on .. lol
Colle only really works against Nimzo and QGD setups.
If the Bishop come outside, specifically known as the Anti-Colle, anything other than c4 and White is worse, and so 4.c4 almost has to be played, when 4...c6 puts you in a Slow Slav.
If Black does not play ...d5 or ...Nf6, but does play ...e6, the Colle still isn't very good. The whole point behind the Colle is to take advantage of his control of the kingside light squares (especially an attack on h7). So when the Bishop is behind the pawn chain AND you have a clear path to h7, the Colle is a useful weapon (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3! Or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3!).
But against other lines, it's trash.
Anti-Colle - 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Bd3? Or 3...Bg4 4.Bd3? - in both cases, the only move is 4.c4 or else White is worse.
Dutch - 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3? - this is completely ineffective. First of all, the f5-pawn stops you from eyeing h7. Against the Dutch, White's attack isn't even on the kingside.
But also, 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3?! e6, Black's Bishop is HORRID on c8. Black would love nothing more than to get that Bishop on the long diagonal. 4.Bd3?! b6!!
Instead, after 1.d4 f5 or 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5, the Colle is garbage. You want to keep that e-pawn back and play 3.g3! Even with the Knight there, after 3...Nf6 4.Bg2, 4...b6 is too dangerous, and 3...b6 is no good as Black has yet to establish control of the light squares without having played ...Nf6 yet.
Anyone that plays the Classical or Stonewall Dutch knows that first they must establish firm control of the central light squares with f5, e6, and Nf6, and then after that, if he can play it, he wants to play b6 and Bb7. If White beats him to the long diagonal, then Black must resort to a Classical or Stonewall.
So the Colle is just as ineffective vs the Dutch as it is the Anti-Colle.