< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|Jan-04-06|| ||KingG: <foolishmovesss> Yes, many players use the Nimzo and the QID as a complete repertoire against 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3.|
|Jan-04-06|| ||foolishmovesss: So is the QID a good way to play against the London Torre Colle systems? These give me a lot of problems compared to Queens Gmabit positions. I don't know why, I think its just because the lines seem to drawish and I try to attack when there is nothing to be attacked. Also the reason I want to play QID is because against those 3 systems I have problems finding ways to activate my light squared bishop. Any thoughts? King, I believe you are right about KID, however its just not my cup of tea. Nothing wrong with it I just don't seem to fully grasp the concepts behind it. I have been told that at my level (around 1600 UCSF) that KID is to advanced, and is not really a good choice. Maybee later in my carrer I will begin trying to use it. Thanks.|
|Jan-04-06|| ||Dudley: Yes you can use a Queen's Indian method against all of those systems (Colle, etc.) I have a game collection "Colle System Classics" that has a few examples of Q Indian vs. Colle and I am sure you can find quite a few with the Opening Explorer. It is difficult to find dynamic ways of playing vs. the QP game because White risks nothing and is very solid. The Q Indian line is as good as anything else, but there is no really fun aggressive way of playing vs. these openings. You have to outplay White patiently and positionally.|
|Jan-04-06|| ||refutor: <kingg> my anti King's Indian bias is showing ;)|
|Jan-04-06|| ||csmath: <Yes, many players use the Nimzo and the QID as a complete repertoire against 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3.>|
That is not complete repertoire since Queen Pawn is easy alternative (and a very dangerous one for black) in case you want to bust centerless defence players. There is psychological advantage to use it as these players are probably not used to it. Ordinarily they will respond with centerless version 1. d4 ... Nf6 2. Bg5 ... Ne4 and this is very sharp and dangerous for black. Michael Adams uses it often but I've seen computers using it with deadly precision. I had so much problems against QP until recently (still didn't test my analyses though) that I started to play Slav to avoid it. I used to be QID-NID player most of the time.
|Jan-04-06|| ||KingG: <csmath> Yes, unfortunately you need to be prepared for this kind of rubbish. When i said 'complete repertoire', i meant against normal openings.|
I also play the Slav, but then you need to deal with more rubbish like the Colle, Stonewall, etc. I sometimes use the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4(i hope) c6 3.Nf3/Nc3 d5, which means i also have to sometimes face 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5.
Honestly, i think some people choose these openings just to annoy their opponents.
|Jan-04-06|| ||Dudley: Oh rubbish! They choose them so they are not walking into someone's pet defense all the time. I went through a phase when I was younger where I wanted to play the Queen's Gambit but this expert at the club kept playing the Budapest which was kind of off topic, so I learned the Colle System as a sort of beginning QP opening. Considering that I had only played 1. e4 up to that point, it was a good intermediate to understanding positional chess. I suspect that the real reason that people seem to hate these openings so much is that that they don't have the patience to play positionally, or want to rely on memorized theory instead.|
|Jan-04-06|| ||KingG: <Dudley> No offence was meant, i freely admit to having an irrational prejudice against these openings.|
I have to disagree with <I suspect that the real reason that people seem to hate these openings so much is that that they don't have the patience to play positionally, or want to rely on memorized theory instead.> though. For example, i don't think Queen's Gambit players lack the patience to play positionally(if they do, they are playing the wrong opening), and this isn't a particularly theoretical opening either. The same could be said for the Nimzo and the QID.
|Jan-04-06|| ||Dudley: Even though I have played a number of these systems , I must admit that as Black I too am annoyed by the type of player who just establishes the formation and then just sits there shuffling pieces back and forth as if saying "come and get me!" When I played these systems, I definitely was looking to do some major damage- I just wanted to do it on my own schedule.|
|Jan-04-06|| ||foolishmovesss: Its just odd that white would want to play such drawish openings. I guess Black should just go along with whites idea and play for a draw as well. Black should be happy with a draw.|
|Jan-04-06|| ||misguidedaggression: Happy with a draw against the Colle, London, etc.? I'm not. The major positional weakness in these openings is the lack of pressure on d5 (due to the lack of the c4 pawn) though the Bg5 systems have some indirect pressure. This can be exploited by not playing ...e6 and allowing the c8 "problem" Bishop to be developed outside the pawn chain. (Note that with a pawn on c2, Qb3 attacking b7 is out of the question.) Of course, I usually play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 hoping to transpose into a QID or Bogo after 3.c4, as I assume most people looking at this page do, so that piece of advice is useless...|
|Jan-05-06|| ||Eric Schiller: <misguided> John Watson and I just finished a book (How to Succeed in the Queen Pawn Openings) with recommendations against all of the systems and formations and sharp lines of the Closed Games (1.d4 d5). We often give 2 lines, a simple equalizer and a more ambitious plan for players like you who want to confront these openings, not just swim in equality. I'll be posting excerpts online fairly soon, as the book goes deeper into production. We gave the same treatment to 1.e4 e5 games in Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings.|
It is important to have such lines in your repertoire. You can easily get into trouble against a Colle or London if you play too passively. You are more likely to run into these at the board than to reach a precious position at move 22 of the Semi-Slav where you have prepared a nice new move!
|Jan-05-06|| ||Dudley: The most effective attacking opening that I have been able to come up with to bust an ultracautious QP player is a kind of delayed Dutch Stonewall. Ex: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 f5. Sometimes Black can change into the formation even if ...Nf6 is played by moving the knight to e4 and then ...f5. Of course this applies mainly to the Colle system, and there's always the chance that White intends the same thing.|
|Jan-05-06|| ||misguidedaggression: I've been trying to cook up a gambit with: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nbd2 d5 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Qc7 7.O-O g5!? 8.Nxg5 Rg8. Unfortunately, 9.f4! seems to bust it, so I'm working on 8...e5 Still haven't had a chance to spring it on anyone though... I got the idea from the Shabalov-Shirov gambit in the semi-slav. The difference in reversing the colors is that white's extra tempo is 7.O-O causing the king to end up on the half open g-file. It might not be sound, but it looks fun!|
|Jan-05-06|| ||Dudley: Goodnight we are getting way off topic. Another Q Indian type of opening is the English Defense with ...e6 and ...b6 which can be played vs. almost anything. Against 1.e4 it's called Owen's defense I think. When properly followed up with ...c5 it can be a good counterattack. The only thing is that I think you have to be very careful about castling K side in this setup, very vulnerable to the famous Bxh7 sac after the KN gets pushed off with e5.|
|Jan-05-06|| ||Ybrevo: <Dudley> The opening you mention (Owens Defence or Hedgehog) is a good alternative for Black to avoid more common QI setups - especially in blitz and rapid chess. One line goes: 1. c4 b6 2. d4 e6 3. e4 Bb7 4. Bd3 (better than 4. Nc3 Bb4) Qh4!? 5. Nf3 Qg4 6. Qe2 f5 with attacking possibilities for Black. I refer to the game Riveiro-Giardelli, Buenos Aires, 1978. Among great players who occasionally have used this system are Korchnoi, Speelman, Keene, Miles and Larsen.|
|Jan-05-06|| ||foolishmovesss: So what are some of the middle game stratagies for black in the QID? I am not really sure what the game plan should revolve around. Clearly control of e4, but is this a more positional opening or is it used alot for attacking? Could someone shed some light on the black stratagies here for me please. Thanks.|
|Mar-03-06|| ||foolishmovesss: Just an update. I have been using the Tarrasch as my way of dealing with the QP openings. I have found it helps stop white from getting into the zukertort line because c5 is played so quickly. White will get into their beloved Colle system, but my pawn on c5 will always allow me some counter play. Basically the Tarrasch is great because you can play it against anything except e4 really. Of course alot of times the isolani will kill you in an endgame. Simple way to avoid that is just dont get to an ending. Wishful thinking I know, but your activity should help make your structral weakness less oof a problem. nd get you to an endgame where both sides have some structural weaknesses. Peace.|
|Mar-04-06|| ||Dudley: That's an excellent idea. Using the Tarasch move order also makes it difficult to play the Torre attack (1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5? Be7) or the London system ( 1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Bd6!) effectively.|
Also you can play the Tarasch vs. 1. e4, eg. 1.e4 e6 2. d4 c5?! when White can play it like a Sicilian or a Benoni. Its probably not that good but it is playable.
|Mar-04-06|| ||Dudley: Well its Tarasch like, anyway. If you move... d5 in this setup its a French of course.|
|Mar-06-06|| ||foolishmovesss: Well, the Tarrasch is proving to be quite useful. The main problem now is the move order of d4 d5 e3 e6 be3 c5 f4. The stonewall attack!! I know its not a forced loss or anything, but for some people myself included the Stonewall can be one though bastard. I don't see this to much but it has cropped up a few times. I have problems with the Duthch Stonewall, so it is no surprise that I have trouble against the Stonewall attack. I see no way to avoid this if the Tarrasch is going to be my weapon. I guess I will have to deal with it as it comes. Later.|
<Dudley> I agree that it can be played against e4, but as you stated its only really logical if you intend to head for a French. The other to way like you stated (Bennoni, Scillian) i don't find particularly effective. I play openings that I can play against any setup. For example, I in fact play the Colle system for white. I prefer the Zukertort, but like this discusion says I have to be prepared to face the Tarrasch, and I actually play the Stonewall attack aginst it. As black against anything but e4 I play the Tarrasch, and against e4 I play the Qd6 Scandanavian(some people may laugh, but it is surprising how similar the positions are to the Najdorf, and I like it and am comfortable with it. and thats the point. Anyway getting kinda long, coffee hasnt kicked in yet. Later.
|Mar-10-06|| ||Kelvieto: What books do you suggest to read to learn how to play Queen's Indian|
|Mar-10-06|| ||Mating Net: <Kelvieto> The Queen's Indian by Yrjola and Tella from Gambit publishing is a really good book.|
Just remember, the most important thing to remember as a QI player is, and it has been stated on previous kibitzes, you can't play the QI if White plays 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3!? you have to meet that line with 3...Bb4, the Nimzo Indian. Going into the QI with 3...b6 is bad because of 4.e4 and Black has failed because the main point of the QI is to control e4. This line is covered in the book along with all the typical QI lines.
|Apr-07-06|| ||melianis: <KingG: Honestly, i think some people choose these openings just to annoy their opponents.> LOL, the only thing missing in that was ''inferior' openings' to make that one a beautiful quote!|
|Aug-14-06|| ||alphastrike20: Does anyone know of any aggressive systems for black in the queen's indian and the nimzo indian?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·