The sharpest or most tactical d4 opening? - Chess Forums - Page 3

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

Sep 29, 2009

0

#41

pentagram wrote:

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

Check out my games from the tournament and see!

I ended up choosing this for white:
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Nd5 Nxf3+ 6.gxf3 Qd8

And this for black:
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7

What's kind of cool about that tournament is that each player did a little bit of investigation at the beginning and chose some line. Then you can play through their games and see how well their choices did "under duress".

Thanks, without knowing any theory in this "half"-Budapest line, I guess I would pick some sort of Bf4 setup, like the Rubinstein-Budapest line, so that after ..Bb4+ Nd2 wont block the c1 bishop. However here, since only one knight is attacking the pawn, I am not sure this is necessary. E.g. if instead of 3. ..Qe7 Black plays 3. ..Bb4+ 4. Nbd2 4.Qe7 a3 5.Bxd2+ Bxd2 (Ba5, b2-b4 and Bb2) 6.Bxd2 Nxe5 7.Nxe5 Qxe5 8.Bc3 looks unpleasant.

One of the whole points of why this "opening" is so much worse than the Budapest (seriously - anything "much worse than the Budapest" has to be pretty gosh darn bad) is because white's c pawn is on c2. So after Bb4+ white can just play c3 (a useful move anyway).

hackattack

Sep 29, 2009

0

#42

Gonnosuke wrote:

ouachita wrote:

Gonnosuke wrote:

ouachita wrote:

...wouldn't play, any line of the Dutch because it offers black very poor chances.

I used to feel the same way until I noticed the Dutch had the highest winning % of any of the major defenses in high-level (2200+) correspondence games from 2006-present. When I say highest winning % -- I'm not limiting the scope to 1.d4 openings -- higher even, than the Sicilian, which is quite astonishing.

A closer inspection of the data show the Leningrad Dutch is responsible for almost all of blacks success. Comparing variations, it had a higher winning % than the Najdorf but scored slightly lower overall. Of course, it isn't played as frequently as the Najdorf but nevertheless there are enough games to conclude that the Leningrad Dutch is an excellent choice for anyone interested in fighting chess.

This was a real eye opener for me.

What is the source of these data? my d/b shows that f5 has a 42% success rate.

The UltraCorr2 db augmented with monthly updates of recent ICCF/IECG games and filtered to only include games played between 2006-2009 where both players were 2200+.

where do you get this ultracorr2db from?

JG27Pyth

Sep 29, 2009

0

#43

Gonnosuke wrote:

hackattack wrote:

where do you get this ultracorr2db from?

http://www.chessmail.com/

UltraCorr3 is the latest release.

what db program do you use gonnosuke?

Dakota_Clark

Sep 29, 2009

0

#44

I like the Dutch.

pentagram

Sep 29, 2009

0

#45

Gonnosuke wrote:

For the more adventurous there's also the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit. Risky in correspondence play but very effective OTB if you don't play it often enough that your opponents will see it coming. Black can score a lot of quick wins with this sort of alchemy not to mention that the fun factor is very high.

Kaissiber 31 is required reading for anyone who wants to make a habit of playing the VHS.

Any literature suggestions for the White side? I am guesstimating White players can confine themselves to something lesser (and preferably free!) as they could choose to avoid many lines.

hackattack

Sep 29, 2009

0

#46

boy678 wrote:

that is how to get the center in only about six moves.

like this

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-h-file-operation-in-the-dutch-defence-by-gm-magesh-and-gm-arun

CarlMI

Sep 30, 2009

0

#47

Boy 678 might I suggest you check a couple opening references as well as some on the hypermodern movement. Occupying the center just to be a target does little good. I was especially impressed with your opening example that had Black moving first.

All Kudos to Tim Harding and the UltraCorr project, of which I've been a customer for sometime. OTOH picking an opening just by dBase percentage is not a wise concept.

IMHO the Dutch is an acceptable Black defense but it really doesn't work the best for me. OTB is really doesn't work for me. This should probably be a separate thread but it seems to me that openings get grouped in rating bunches. Below 1800, 1800-2200, 2100-2400, 2400-2600, 2500+ and yes there is overlap. You have to account for those moving up, those who hope to move up, those maintaining and those playing up/down. What a 2200 plays against an 1800 is often different than what he plays against a 2200 or a 2500 and so on.

Broad outlines: Below 1800 you see a lot of trappy openings or those that restrict the other players options, Englund, Caro, French, Tromp, etc. At the top you see THE openings: Najdorf, Nimzo, Slav, Ruy, etc.

hackattack

Sep 30, 2009

0

#48

CarlMI wrote:

Boy 678 might I suggest you check a couple opening references as well as some on the hypermodern movement. Occupying the center just to be a target does little good. I was especially impressed with your opening example that had Black moving first.

All Kudos to Tim Harding and the UltraCorr project, of which I've been a customer for sometime. OTOH picking an opening just by dBase percentage is not a wise concept.

IMHO the Dutch is an acceptable Black defense but it really doesn't work the best for me. OTB is really doesn't work for me. This should probably be a separate thread but it seems to me that openings get grouped in rating bunches. Below 1800, 1800-2200, 2100-2400, 2400-2600, 2500+ and yes there is overlap. You have to account for those moving up, those who hope to move up, those maintaining and those playing up/down. What a 2200 plays against an 1800 is often different than what he plays against a 2200 or a 2500 and so on.

Broad outlines: Below 1800 you see a lot of trappy openings or those that restrict the other players options, Englund, Caro, French, Tromp, etc. At the top you see THE openings: Najdorf, Nimzo, Slav, Ruy, etc.

wouldn't french and caro be at the top?

CarlMI

Sep 30, 2009

0

#49

Check the numbers. Although Caro and French are played at the top it tends to be dominated by Sicilians. Lower rated players like the Caro and French because it really limits what White can play. Higher rated players like the Sicilian because it gives more opportunities. I'm not saying the Caro and the French are bad, I've played them, used to really like the French but at club level White always plays the advance variation. I got bored.

hackattack

Sep 30, 2009

0

#50

KingStreets wrote:

RainbowRising wrote:

French and Caro not at the top? Are you crazy?

Nahhhh....

Pickles are better. I don't like carrots or French Vanilla Ice Cream as much.

lol

pentagram

Sep 30, 2009

0

#51

CarlMI wrote:

Broad outlines: Below 1800 you see a lot of trappy openings or those that restrict the other players options, Englund, Caro, French, Tromp, etc. At the top you see THE openings: Najdorf, Nimzo, Slav, Ruy, etc.

This is also a matter of fashion, when Kasparov was playing allot of KIDs & Grunfelds these were allot more popular, by using the same methodology back then you would say the same but replace the Slav with Grunfeld or KID and maybe the Najdorf with Schevy. Fashion is not the only criterion.

How come the French and the Caro are in the same bunch with Englund? French/Caro were played by the likes of Karpov, Botvinnik, Korchnoi, Petrosian, not to mention a long list of players who did so before them.

hackattack

Sep 30, 2009

0

#52

[COMMENT DELETED]

CarlMI

Sep 30, 2009

0

#53

Englund is with Caro/French not based on soundness but on the concept of limiting White's choices. You can also throw in the Scandinavian.

d4 d5 there are many paths, d4 e5 the paths are much more limited.

hackattack

Sep 30, 2009

0

#54

back to the OP, hehe, is the gruenfeld any sharp?

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

Sep 30, 2009

0

#55

The Englund is terrible. If you must play something which limits white's choices, instead play 1.d4 g6 or 1.d4 d6 or 1.d4 b6, even 1.d4 a6.

Anything but 1.e4 e5 -- I think this is the worst defense to 1.d4 there is.

CarlMI

Sep 30, 2009

0

#56

If you want to limit White vs. d4 I'd look at c5 or f5. If you want to confuse him I would consider e6 which puts the onus on White again while leaving open many choices for Black. It is highly unlikelly a d4 player will follow up with e4 unless he knows you and what you play in which case e6 doesn't keep him guessing anyway.

Grunfeld is a fine opening with a greater emphasis on piece play than the KID.

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

Sep 30, 2009

0

#57

I used to like the Gruenfeld, but don't anymore. I love playing it from the white side.

But Kamsky likes it with black so it can't be all bad, right? I wouldn't call it terribly tactical though, unless white just has no idea what he's doing.

pentagram

Sep 30, 2009

0

#58

ouachita wrote:

I've studied 2...d5 for over 50 years and see no reason to change at this late date.

Your birthday is 1968, now we have 2009. 2009-1968 = 51, did you just say you started studying opening theory at the age of 1?

PrawnEatsPrawn

Sep 30, 2009

0

#59

pentagram wrote:

ouachita wrote:

I've studied 2...d5 for over 50 years and see no reason to change at this late date.

Your birthday is 1968, now we have 2009. 2009-1968 = 51, did you just say you started studying opening theory at the age of 1?

That's why he's so good !

hackattack

Sep 30, 2009

0

#60

ouachita wrote:

I've studied 2...d5 for over 50 years and see no reason to change at this late date.

2..d5 in which opening?