View Full Version : e5

18-03-2006, 11:43 PM
whats an opening in response to e4 as black which does not have much theory? (im thinking pirc? i dont know what im talking about here, lol) hows scandinivian? does that have much theory? whats the ideas behind that?

19-03-2006, 01:50 AM
1... h5 doesn't have much theory, nor does 1... a5. Unfortunately both are cr*p. ;)

19-03-2006, 07:38 AM
While the amount of theory in an opening is relative to the standard of play; the higher the ELO of the opponent in general the harder it is to get them out of of theory, I would suggest Alekhine's defence [1...Nf6] as being the best attempt that doesn't get into unsound territory. Also worthy of consideration, though less sound, is the Nimzowitch defence [1...Nc6] to avoid theory.

19-03-2006, 02:06 PM
Keep in mind that it's much easier to get a difficult position in the abovementioned openings

19-03-2006, 04:54 PM
There is lots of theory on the Alekhine. Die Aljechin-Verteidigung by Siebenhaar/
Delnef/Oddstadt has 670 double column pages on half of the opening. All the other books on the opening written since this book that I have seen to a large extent summarise this book, errors and all. There is one gross blunder repeated
in various books.

I watched David Smeeden at Ergas suggesting to the juniors that they should have the Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2. exd Nf6 as a back up opening as there is not that much theory to learn. My only suggestion is that as the Jadoul Gambit is under a cloud they should learn the transposition to the Panov-Botvinnick attack.

If you want a sound but less theoretical opening then the opening which has more names than the inland taipan springs to mind

1.e4 g6 - the rathole, modern, slime, or one particular variation is called the Gurgenidge or blockade on the white squares. To play this opening well you need to be s sneaky as a numbers man from the Labour Party.

Southpaw Jim
19-03-2006, 04:58 PM
Pirc is a good solid defence, but I'm a beginner - I only know what I've been told. Apparently the idea is to essentially induce white to overextend themselves, like the KID against d5. I play it, but like every other aspect of the game, I'm still getting to grips with it.

19-03-2006, 05:02 PM
I went through a period of playing 1....b6 Yes, it has a name...the Owens Defence I believe.

Didn't have too much luck with it, my opponents always seemed to get their pawns on c4, d5 and e4, leading to a very cramped position for me.

Tomas Kessler
24-03-2006, 05:02 PM
Hanks-Jamieson Melbourne Winter Inter-club 1978
1 d4 b6 2 e4 Bb7 3 Nd2 e6 4 Bd3 c5 5 c3 Nc6 6 Ngf3 d6 7 0-0 Nge7 8 Qe2 g6 9 d5 ed: 10 ed: Ne5 11 Bb5+ Nd7 12 Ne4 Resigns
A spectator quipped to Jamieson after the game "Why didn't you just play e5"
Given that the spectator was a Melbourne Chess Club member at the time,"Jammo" seems to have never forgiven the Melbourne Chess Club since.

Ref. Chess in Australia May 1978 p 126