It depends on your playing style. If you like attacking, play 4.c3. If you're more of a positional player, play 4.d3. Both lines are played successfully by GMs. Another line is the Four Knights with 4.Nc3. You can try all the lines and pick the one you like best.
What is the best opening after e4 e5 nf3 nc6 bc4 bc5?
Sort:
It's called the Molar
I also like the move d3 and nc3, but I just love this trap of the moler
Possibly helpful:
My First Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Vincent Moret
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings
A SIMPLE CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE by Sam Collins
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Simple_Chess_Opening_Repertoire_for_White.pdf
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/A-Simple-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-for-White-76p3916.htm
Winning with the Slow (but Venomous!) Italian by Karsten Müller and Georgios Souleidis
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9037.pdf
e4 e5 nf3 nc6 bc4 bc5 O-O nf6 d4! exd4 e5! max lange attack!
Chris Baker's A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire
http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/more-nco-gambits-and-repertoires
Jan 10, 2018
0
#9
whats wrong with marshall stuff? these days become very popular . i cnt remember the line but hard of it.
The Marshall attack can only be played in a ruy Lopez. However, I believe b4 can be played here. Evans gambit I believe
The best way to learn a opening to get a book; MCO ( Modern Chess Opening) is good start. Unlike the internet database games, you can view the games but like a opening book there is no explanation the pros and cons of particular opening.
Jan 10, 2018
0
#12
yureesystem wrote:
The best way to learn a opening to get a book; MCO ( Modern Chess Opening) is good start. Unlike the internet database games, you can view the games but like a opening book there is no explanation the pros and cons of particular opening.
I couldn't disagree more.
I prefer Petrosian's recommendation of playing through at least 50 GM games in a given opening to learn the basic ideas and the general placement of the pieces. Petrosian wasn't the first to mention this method, but he recommended it in a lecture that has been published in English (see Petrosian's Legacy).
I'm with Pfren in preferring the 0-0 and d3 systems. The way top GMs have been playing the Slow Italian lines has a lot in common with the Breyer system of the Spanish. White slowly prepares for the thematic d4 push while striving to limit Black's options.
One should refer to general opening books only after they've done some research on their own. Blindly following MCO is a great way to reach a BAD position in the opening! This is especially true in correspondence, but it's also true in serious live tournament experience. Most strong players have their own opening repertoires that take advantage of lacunae in those one-volume opening books.
As an aside, the old Evans Gambit is still interesting, and useful in fast time control games.
Max166 wrote:
In my opinion, it is this:
Molar sucks stupid head
yureesystem wrote:
The best way to learn a opening to get a book; MCO ( Modern Chess Opening) is good start. Unlike the internet database games, you can view the games but like a opening book there is no explanation the pros and cons of particular opening.
"... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
MCO15 is now nearly a decade old.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626165820/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen110.pdf
yureesystem wrote:
... Another way is repertoire book on the opening or defense with complete games and with annotation. I love to see low rated amateur go through fifty GM games one particular opening without any annotation, it won't never happen, they can't even go through an opening repertoire book with explanation and annotation; because its left on the shelves collecting dusts. Is this the joke for today.lol Its not April Fools 4-1-2018.
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
Ooooookay
Still molar is stupid Max or was it sucking maximo
That's not NICE you stupid BUM ya suck
Fromper wrote:
Before I give my own response, let me point out that I disagree with the question in the thread title. Until your first name is "Grandmaster", there's no such thing as "best". It's all a matter of what you want to play.
I don't like the 4. d3 stuff that's popular with GM's these days. If I wanted slow maneuvering that way, I'd play the Ruy Lopez. I go for the Italian to play aggressively, so I play the c3 and d4 line. But I go with Sveshnikov's e5 sideline instead of the usual Moller Attack, just because it's less well known.
I have Pinski's book on the Giuoco Piano and Evans Gambit, where he says this isn't good enough. He's probably right, but that's GM level theory. Below master level, it's certainly playable, and most opponents don't know it, so I always get a good game. When I used to play the Moller, I had a couple of games that stayed in book 10-12 moves, because people memorize that as the main line, but I didn't know how to proceed from there. In this, I know the most common responses after move 6, and most of my opponents are improvising, so that gives me an advantage from knowing the opening better than they do.
I've tried the Evans Gambit (4. b4) here and there over the years, just for variety. But opponents are more likely to know how to handle it, so it requires more study than I'm willing to commit.
the max lange attack that i had said:)
Jan 12, 2018
0
#20
yureesystem wrote:
...
MCO has summary about opening or defense and going through the lines you be familiar with pieces placement and pawn structure and one or two model games and a player will have some understanding. Another way is repertoire book on the opening or defense with complete games and with annotation. I love to see low rated amateur go through fifty GM games one particular opening without any annotation, it won't never happen, they can't even go through an opening repertoire book with explanation and annotation; because its left on the shelves collecting dusts. Is this the joke for today.lol Its not April Fools 4-1-2018.
I'm going to guess that the way you learned your first openings was either because somebody showed you some interesting openings or you saw some complete games that were annotated in a book. Those games could have come from Chernev, or as it was in my case, games from Spassky-Fischer 1972 and Alekhine's Greatest Games book.
I sincerely doubt very many players who first came to chess by looking at opening books ever became expert strength players. I can't imagine a player falling in love with the game enough to study it in depth by opening MCO.
Petrosian's recommendation of studying complete games, and others' recommendations of finding well-annotated games in a given opening are excellent and time-tested methods. Resorting to reference material on a specific opening should be one of the last steps in choosing a repertoire, not a first step. The reference material will help the player to solve specific move-order issues, but they aren't a substitute for experience.
There's an old criticism of COTAP (Chess Openings: Theory and Practice by Horowitz) and MCO that is still pertinent:
Those books will give you just enough information to get into trouble, but not enough to get out of it.
What is THE BEST way to continue e4 e5 nf3 nc6 bc4 bc5? In my opinion, it is the one above. What do you think it is?