What are some good defensive openings for white?
Sort:
Feb 28, 2012
0
#3
Do you mean defensive or do you mean solid/positional/strategic?
Is it's the latter, there are many options. One thing you could do is play through some well annotated games with good explanations to get a feel of what you like the look of and then investigate further from there.
If it's the former, you're probably playing the wrong hobby!
Yes, i mean solid and strategic or just one of them
If your idea is "I want something that ensures me a decent position out of the opening without much effort" you have tons of choices as white. A common approach is to play a system opening like the colle or the london. My suggestion instead is to play less theoretical variations of mainline openings. This has a big advantage over just choosing an unusual opening: if you later decide you want to play critical stuff, you can just slowly upgrade your repertoire without losing the work you already did. An couple of examples:
Maybe you're scared to play the ruy lopez 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, an opening with an enormous body of theory. The critical way to continue would be 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O, and this allows black a lot of very theoretical responses, such as the "open defence" Nxe4. However if you play 5.d3!? most of the theory is avoided but you're still playing a rather challenging variation (Carlsen for example has played it a couple of times) which is solid and strategical in nature, while acquiring experience in a typical ruy structure that will prove useful if you later switch to 5.O-O. 3...Nf6 4.O-O is another mainline, but again you can play in similar fashion with 4.d3.
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6/Nc6/e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 you are again entering a main variation of the sicilian. Theory might easily run straight to move 20 in ultra-shard opposite side castling variations. But instead of playing the "main mainline" stuff, you can dodge theory with kingside fianchetto setups that are still not so easy for black to face, and do not require a vast amount of opening study.
By carefully selecting "sidelines in the mainlines" you can build a solid, strategic, non-theoretical repertoire which is also upgradable if you later decide you're ready for the heavy stuff.
"By carefully selecting "sidelines in the mainlines" you can build a solid, strategic, non-theoretical repertoire which is also upgradable if you later decide you're ready for the heavy stuff."
That phrase from Bresando is basically the golden rule of how people of your rating(and mine) should treat openings.Bresando has some notation mistakes so I will repeat his line corrected:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 (instead of the usual and theoretical "heavy" 5.0-0)
I will add that the same line with almost the same ideas can be played against the very fashionable Berlin defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 a choice of many grandmasters that want to avoid the well known "Berlin endgame"(which is not actually an endgame , rather a queensless middlegame , but that is another story).It's a system that is called "The Steinitz system of the Ruy Lopez"and it goes all the way back to 1892!!! A very good system based in understanding.One thing that would worry me if I suggested Ruy Lopez is Schlieman's Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5!? ,but again 4.d3 and a lot of attention can safely navigate you to the middlegame.
Another choice is the simple Bishop's opening, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 ,which avoids Petroff's (although it's not such a problem) also played with the same ideas (d3, c3 and a later d4)
Don't memorise lines , try to understand every move you play.That is the most important.Better play a "wrong" move that you understand than a "correct" that you don't.
Good Luck!!!
Thanks, my notation was really full of mistakes, i'm correcting it now. Agreed on 4.d3 against the berlin (i suggested it in my post, but you likely overlooked it because i didn't write it in bold like the other variations). 4.d3 against the shielmann is also a good suggestion, expecially since according to the latest GM practice the "main line" 4.Nc3 is much more theorethical and complicated but not more succesfull; it looks like white is currently struggling to prove something concrete against f5 and the quiet 4.d3 is gaining popularity at every level.
@Dodle
if you want a very solid and strategic repertoire with white
a)forget it!
b) look at the Avrukh 1.d4 books.
a) is based on the fundemental observation that openings can go from quiet strategical to the absolute tactical chaotic. It's the nature of chess and one's opponent; there is no avoiding sharp positions.
b) the Avrukh books have received so many plaudits. Here is a grandmaster willing to share his ideas in a two volume repertoire book; some of those ideas have been used at top GM level! His coverage is pretty dense so it is pretty hard work. The bonus is his entire 1.d4 repertoire is based on systems where, as far as is possible, white plays a g3 fianchettoe. All the systems he proposes are excellent and solid systems and rather dangerous if black doesn't know his onions. They'll only go out of fashion; that's the "danger".
Hmmm... i honestly think it's a very bad suggestion. Avrukh work is considered outstanding, but it's directed to strong players. The variations are strategically complicated and an average amateur can't really expect to score well with these subtle systems. And since the target of the books are strong players, he doesn't offer basic explanations which would be useful for players at our leve; he suppeses that the readed already knows the basic stuff. Honestly i think that suggesting Avrukh's repertoire to someone with a <2000 elo rating is like suggesting to a child which has problems with addictions that he should study a book written for universitary math students.
If you're willing to read a bunch of books and theory to learn a "defensive" opening, then by all means go for it. Personally, I'm not.
Here's what I recommend:
1. e4 and 2. Nc3
1. d4 and 2. Nf3
You have a pawn controlling the center, and the knight reinforces the pawn. That's all you need to know. After that, the rest of your moves are natural. You still need to watch for stuff where Black attacks your pawn on the first move (i.e. 1. e4 d5), but otherwise you should be good.
I will agree again with Bresando.Avrukh's books is a very bad suggestion for anyone that is under 2000.I will give a different example , it's like not knowing driving and you try to learn in a Formula 1 car or like not knowing the numbers and try to read Algebra.
Thanks for submitting a better example, my poor english prevented me from finding an adequate one :P
Yes, that was my point. Arvukh's very high quality book is full of comments like "if 13...f5 instead 14.Be2 movesmovesmoves 18.a4 with a slight pull for white due to the weak e5 square." Enlightening if you are already a strong player, but for patzers like us it's not that easy to figure out how to use that fu***ing weak square in an effective way. Just a random example.
I would suggest Avrukh to somebody which says: "i'm working very hard on my chess, studying a lot of tactics, middlegame and endgames. I now want a book on the openings which goes beyond the basics, and i'm willing to put a lot of time and effort in it. I want to press for an advantage in the opening, not just a playable position, and I understand that this means memorizing quite a bit of theory. My goal is archieving >2000 elo. What do you recommend?".
But for someone which asks for a solid reliable way to open the game as white, the goal being simply to get a playable game, i would never consider it.
You can play a Reversed Schlecter Gruenfeld against anything that Black can throw at you. This "formation" has a (white) kingside fianchetto, plus Nf3, plus pawns on d4 (your first move), and c3.
It's a perfectly solid (and quite restrained) way to start a game from the white side.
You are playing for equality, smooth development, and for getting through the first 20 moves without any big surprises or blunders. Then you are on your own.
Why the hell would you wanna play defensively as white? I can't believe people really want stuff like this.
Playing reversed black systems with the white pieces saves immense amounts of study time on openings. Besides, your first order of business is learning to win with the black pieces. So you must "build a repetoire" for black first, and then afterwards move onto your repetoire for white.
You can (sometimes) just turn round those black systems, and your opening prep for white is basically done. Tony Kosten's, Dynamic English (1999) is a good example.
On balance, it's a better (and more efficient use of your time) to study tactics, strategy, middlegames, and endgames when your rating is below 2000 USCF. Instead, new players typically spend entirely too much time studying openings.
And you can always expand your white opening repetoire (later) when you become a stronger player.
It may save you time,but you are defentely not going to get any advantage out of the opening. Call me weird,but when I'm white, I prefer to have an edge out of the opening,at the very least, a position that is even and that I know how to play. Playing defensively as white, to me,is an insult to the fighting spirit of chess, an aberration,and a shows a complete lack of character and cowardice from the opponent.
Chess should be about both side trying to imbalance the position,both sides aggresively seeking plusses and provoking weaknesses,not about playing defensively in such a way that you are safe,but have nothing to play for.
I don't even know why i bother,people who play in this manner never get past B class. Once you get good at chess,you'll see how black will rip you to pieces if you play anything too passive.
"is an insult to the fighting spirit of chess, an aberration,and a shows a complete lack of character and cowardice from the opponent."
"Fighting Spirit of chess"???aberration???? cowardice????
We are not talking about Shaolin Kung Fu or arena gladiators, we are talking about chess.
You slightly misunderstood us.No one told him not to play for win.But playing to win and spendin your time to memorise lines you don't understand, just to get a slight edge, is quite different.The goal of every chess player is , I think , to improve.He will improve by devoting as much as possible from his time to middle-game and endgame.So he only needs openings that will bypass safely the opening and offered him a decent middle-game position.In other words he needs a shortcut.
Getting a slight edge in opening has nothing to do with the "fighting spirit of chess" or being brave,and it is actually completely useless if you are not Kramnik .People spend so much time memorising lines, just to get a slight edge they don't know what to do about it. How many times have you won by exploiting the theoretical slight edge of a position?I really doubt if it is even one.
Thanks everyone :)
"We are not talking about Shaolin Kung Fu or arena gladiators, we are talking about chess."
As far as I know,chess is a game were the spirits and minds of two people fight it out. Even if you view it as a "game",the goal is still to beat the other guy.
What are some good defensive openings for white?