Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: A couple of chess opening repertoire issues

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,760
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default A couple of chess opening repertoire issues

    I'll mention here a couple of interesting issues that can come up when forming a chess opening repertoire.

    First, there is the question of transpositional possibilities. Sometimes such may go unnoticed for years, especially if they happen fairly deep into a sequence that one hopes to utilize. There seems to be no surefire way to avoid unpleasant transpositional possibilities coming up unexpectedly, other than trying to be studious over the years. However, funny things can happen even to experienced GMs that really shouldn't. For example, there is Miles-Yusupov, Tunis (izt) 1985, where after 1.c4 c6, Black was anticipating playing a Slav, but Miles simply replied 2.e4 and he had already steered the game into Caro-Kann channels, for which Yusupov admits he was completely unprepared, not playing that defence before (though he did manage to win this game). Clearly one ought not be surprised in such fashion already at move two(!).

    Secondly, there a couple of common quandaries, perhaps, that may frequently need to be dealt with, which I'd like to mention:

    First, the case of many wanting to normally play an Anti-Sicilian as White, starting with the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3. Let's assume White likes the Rossolimo + Moscow complex (i.e. 2...Nc6/d6 3.Bb5[+]), but he may be wondering what to do in case of 2...e6. Sometimes people play 3.c4 (which might be seen as transposing to a sideline in an English Opening), or 3.b3, but let's suppose White wishes to play something a shade more respected/juicy (i.e. not clearly rather under-powered):

    I can offer 4 suggested choices: (1) 3.c3 is a line of the Alapin Sicilian (2.c3) where Black has already made more of a commitment (...e7-e6 early) than White's Nf3 move, which is almost always his preferred way to proceed (and it never really hurts much that it was played, either); this may even be of consolation to those who already play 2.c3 and who otherwise were hoping for acquiring another Anti-Sicilian system that's totally independent of the Alapin; (2) 3.d3 intending a King's Indian Attack is possible, where once again we note that Black has made his commitment to ...e7-e6 here already; those who already play a KIA via e.g. 2.d3 can take a similar consolation to some Alapin players here too; (3) 3.Nc3, normally intending g2-g3 next, with a sort of Closed Sicilian, is possible (White might also play d2-d4 next, with an Open Sicilian of some sort coming, after seeing what further commitment Black may make at move 3); (4) 3.d4, even, is possible too, heading for an Open Sicilian where Black is commited to ...e7-e6 and White still has the possibility of advancing his c-pawn later on (unlike after 3.Nc3 intending d2-d4); granted, it may be mostly experienced players who have both Open Sicilians and Anti-Sicilians in their repertoires, or who might wish to have both.


    Second, the case of what to play vs. 1.Nf3 with Black. A lot can depend on one's exact repertoire, but let's suppose that against 1.c4 you really like 1...e5, and 1...c5 is your second choice (with possibly in addition some 'Universal System' choices you might like such as the Slav + Caro-Kann). That means against 1.Nf3 you'll want to include 1...c5 (or at least 1...Nf6, and if 2.c4 c5, depending if you don't want to allow White to transpose to a Sicilian). The problem may be that now it seems there's no obvious match to 1.c4 e5, as far as when facing 1.Nf3. Here I can offer a number of ideas: (1) 1...g6 can transpose to a number of openings, where White is committed to Nf3, which may be a consolation if you already play an early ...g7-g6 vs. just about every first move (compare the discussion of the Alapin Sicilian in the above paragraph); (2) You can play 1...d5 hoping to transpose to a Queen's Gambit Accepted (even if you don't play that vs. 1.d4, at least White is already committed a bit by playing Nf3) - vs. 2.c4 you can play 2...d4/...dxc4, while vs. 2.g3 you might play 2...Nf6 3.Bg2 Bf5/Bg4 and perhaps not use e.g. a Slav formation just to be independent-minded of it; (3) You can play 1...f5 and have a Dutch where White is committed to Nf3, again a consolation even if you don't use the Dutch vs. other first moves; (4) You can play 1...d5 and hope for, e.g. 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 with the so-called Ragozin Defence, thanks to the fact White has committed to Nf3 early; note that White might instead try to play something like a Catalan or English with ...e6 played, though (at least vs. the former there's the choice of the Open or Closed sorts of variations, if you want to think you have an independent system in case you already allow the Catalan vs. 1.d4, and vs. 1.c4/1.Nf3, if you play e.g. a QGD + French as a universal system, too); (5) You could simply just use 1.Nf3 c5, still, but drop the idea of playing 1.c4 c5 - the latter allows White to avoid playing Nf3 if he wishes, and 1.c4 e5 scores more wins percentage-wise for Black at the elite level than 1.c4 c5 does, at least, if you're looking for a justification. Then 1.Nf3 c5 would become the matching choice to 1.c4 e5.
    Last edited by Kevin Pacey; 07-23-2018 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Grammar
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,222

    Default

    I don't know openings as well as you do, but regarding 1.Nf3, doesn't Black also need to take into account White's opportunities to slip into a King's Indian Attack?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,760
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Yes Black does need to take it into account, though against a KIA Black can at least choose from many defensive formations that are arguably independent system possibilities of each other, as far as at least Black is concerned. I was concerned chiefly with transpositional possibilities to 1.d4, 1.c4 or even 1.e4 openings by White (plus having a matching system to 1.c4 e5 in particular, if he uses that [as many do], when facing 1.Nf3). These are things Black needs to take into account when constructing his repertoire.

    In my case, the defences which I use regularly that match 1.c4 e5, which I also use regularly, are 1.d4 Nf6 intending the [Neo-]Grunfeld, 1e4 d6 intending the Pirc (plus 1.e4 e5 thrown in too for good measure) and at the 1.Nf3 'level', 1...g6 hoping for the [Neo-]Grunfeld (via 2.d4 or 2.g3) or the Pirc in case of 2.e4 or if 2.c4 I can play a Modern Defence where White is committed to Nf3 (or I can play 2...Bg7 and if 3.Nc3 c5 with a Symmetrical English where White's committed to both Nf3 and Nc3 [perhaps more importantly, in this position I can stop him from trying to transpose to an Accelerated Dragon Sicilian, with the strong Maroczy Bind setup in particular, after 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4, i.e. I play 5...Nc6 before he gets to play e2-e4, properly preparing for the move Be3], though I already have 1.Nf3 c5 in my repertoire, so this is not quite an independent possibility of that, while if 3.d4 Nf6 I can hope/steer for a [Neo-]Grunfeld, so I clearly have a reliable backup to the truly independent, but perhaps slightly fishy, option of a Modern Defence in case I play 1...g6). Note I also play the Sicilian and Modern Benoni (via 1...Nf6/c5/e6) as Black, fitting in with Symmetrical Englishes. That's on top of some universal systems such as 1/2...d5+2/1...e6, if you're curious how it is I'd possibly hope/steer for a Modern Benoni via 1.d4 e6 at times.

    Note that 1.g3 allows Black ample room for choice of defensive systems, which is a major reason why the move is not so popular as, say, even 1.Nf3, though 1.g3 can be used by White players who are happy to delay or omit Nf3 at times, or to decide on whether to play c2-c4 or e2-e4 only after Black gives them a piece of information/'commitment' or two of some sort (though g2-g3 itself already is a sort of big commitment, by White, the other major reason why 1.g3 isn't so popular).
    Last edited by Kevin Pacey; 07-23-2018 at 05:17 PM. Reason: Grammar
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,760
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    To add to the last paragraph of my previous post, I can offer a couple more possibly ticklish issues White may consider if deciding whether to play his most respectable flank moves at move one (besides 1.g3), namely 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. That is, after 1.c4 e5 in the event of 2.Nc3 or 2.g3 (2.Nf3 is less attractive, but would avoid the following), Black can simply play 2...c5 in either case, usually aiming to play the solid/dull Botvinnik System (a formation, not a concrete set of moves by both sides necessarily) with the Black pieces (that is, ...Nc6, ...g6, ...Bg7, leaving a hole on d5 in order to strongpoint against d4, for one thing). This system is used to this day at elite level on occasion, especially with Black, who usually feels happy if White plays Nf3 early on before ever pushing his f-pawn (if allowed, Black happily plays the system vs. 1.Nf3 after say 1...c5, as it does okay then, even at elite level, though in case of 1.c4 e5 Black may have other ways to play that are even more interesting and better scoring at elite level).

    The other issue I had in mind for White to consider is if he plays 1.Nf3, especially if he hopes to transpose to a 1.d4 opening later, while avoiding certain 1.d4 defences that he may wish to (e.g. 1.d4 c5 when 2.d5 would be clearly objectively best, but then White needs to face Benoni lines of a sort). A possible problem is, even if White gets what he wants (e.g. a Grunfeld variation where he has included Nf3), at some future point there may be a problem in that Nf3-Grunfeld variation he currently wants to play, say a theoretical crises or poor practical results; if he cannot find another variation of the Grunfeld that includes Nf3 that he can switch to, he's got a problem with playing 1.Nf3 (unless he avoids the Grunfeld with a 1.Nf3 flank opening sideline, which he may not wish to do either). Furthermore, this dilemma could happen to him if he also likes to use a 1.d4 Nf3-King's Indian variation via 1.Nf3, and so on depending how many 1.d4 Nf3-variations he is willing to allow to arise. So, 1.Nf3 could be seen as a pretty inflexible move that commits him worse than if he played 1.d4 (though a big saving grace is that many 1.d4 openings with Nf3 included as a move are currently considered quite reliable, but not much consolation if White has a lousy score with any he uses).
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •