| |
Main
Date: 02 Aug 2008 16:19:01
From: John Salerno
Subject: 1 ... e5
|
So I'm studying openings right now (which is interesting and at the same
time a little boring, since it doesn't seem like this is where you're
actually "playing" chess yet) and I was thinking about this move. It
seems to be the standard first move for Black (assuming, I suppose, that
White opens with e4) and I was just thinking that there seems to be
something really elegant about this move.
As simple as it is, it just seems like a beautiful combination of
offense and defense (controlling the central square, preventing White
from moving d5, opening up your king's bishop's line, and of course
blocking White on e4).
I don't know why I'm posting about this...it's just a thought. Although
I have to admit it seems a little strange to find a chess move so
fascinating. And I'm sure there are plenty of others that I'll be
impressed with too, once I start learning more. :)
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2008 11:18:52
From:
Subject: Re: 1 ... e5
|
On Aug 2, 4:19=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> So I'm studying openings right now (which is interesting and at the same
> time a little boring, since it doesn't seem like this is where you're
> actually "playing" chess yet) and I was thinking about this move. It
> seems to be the standard first move for Black (assuming, I suppose, that
> White opens with e4) and I was just thinking that there seems to be
> something really elegant about this move.
>
> As simple as it is, it just seems like a beautiful combination of
> offense and defense (controlling the central square, preventing White
> from moving d5, opening up your king's bishop's line, and of course
> blocking White on e4).
>
> I don't know why I'm posting about this...it's just a thought. Although
> I have to admit it seems a little strange to find a chess move so
> fascinating. And I'm sure there are plenty of others that I'll be
> impressed with too, once I start learning more. :)
It's not strange, it just indicates your interest in chess is deep
and genuine. Some of the questions you ask remind me of my own
thoughts when I first started studying chess seriously, in my teens
decades ago. By all means, continue to be fascinated, because that
will motivate you to learn.
Personally, I am not fond of 1...e5 as a reply to 1.e4, but this is
due to personal taste and inclination, not to any objective fault with
the move. The two main reasons are:
(1) I enjoy more the sort of game arising from the Sicilian Defense
(1.e4 c5), and
(2) To be a good 1...e5 player, one must study much more opening
theory. After 1.e4 e5, White has so many playable lines: the Vienna,
the Ruy Lopez, the Giuoco Piano, the Evans Gambit, the many forms of
the King's Gambit, the Center Game, the Goering Gambit, the Danish
Gambit, the Four Knights, the Bishop's Opening, etc. etc. You can
limit White's options by playing the Petroff (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6),
Philidor's Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6), the wild and crazy Latvian
Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f3 f5?!) or a few other oddball lines, any of which
eliminate the need to study the 1.e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 lines, but that still
leaves a heck of a lot of "book" to study. And going unbooked into
some Danish, Goering, or King's Gambit lines is like jumping into
cactus naked.
In contrast, with the asymmetrical KP lines such as the Sicilian,
French, Caro-Kann, Alekhine, or Scandinavian, you limit White's
options and thus lessen the amount of study required to play the
opening well.
But that's just my inclination and opinion. You should play and
study chess in the way most interesting and enjoyable to you.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2008 21:10:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1 ... e5
|
On Aug 2, 4:19=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> So I'm studying openings right now (which is interesting and at the same
> time a little boring, since it doesn't seem like this is where you're
> actually "playing" chess yet) and I was thinking about this move. It
> seems to be the standard first move for Black
For some time now, the favorite move has
actually been 1. ... c5, the Sicilian Defense.
In the old days, ... e5 was dogmatically
recommended and the thinking was that
Black should not be "playing to win", but
merely to equalize.
> (assuming, I suppose, that
> White opens with e4) and I was just thinking that there seems to be
> something really elegant about this move.
>
> As simple as it is, it just seems like a beautiful combination of
> offense and defense (controlling the central square, preventing White
> from moving d5, opening up your king's bishop's line, and of course
> blocking White on e4).
But what about handing the move back
to White in a symmetrical position? If
there is a win, White get's to "find it" first.
And if there isn't, then why so much
hoopla over a move which is just a copy?
Many years ago, there was a lot of yap
about how great 1. e4 supposedly was
for White; but actual results did not bear
this hype out, and in fact some moves
which had been dismissed by the talking
heads proved to yield superior results in
various objective (if imperfect) tests.
> I don't know why I'm posting about this...it's just a thought. Although
> I have to admit it seems a little strange to find a chess move so
> fascinating. And I'm sure there are plenty of others that I'll be
> impressed with too, once I start learning more. :)
Single moves can be rather dull in
comparison to combinations. But as you
seem to be fascinated with this 1. e4 e5
stuff, I highly recommend the games of
Paul Morphy, whose style (especially
with the Black pieces) was pleasing,
aggressive, energetic and yet sound. In
any case, he was a master of tactics--
and chess is, after all, 91.3% tactics.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2008 13:13:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1 ... e5
|
On Aug 3, 12:37=A0am, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > and chess is, after all, 91.3% tactics.
>
> And the rest? :)
Strategy.
Actually, I left out psychology, playing the
opponent rather than the board, and a few
other things. If you toss in psychology, the
numbers change.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2008 00:37:15
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: 1 ... e5
|
help bot wrote:
> and chess is, after all, 91.3% tactics.
And the rest? :)
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2008 01:31:28
From: ibarix
Subject: Re: 1 ... e5
|
"John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I'm studying openings right now (which is interesting and at the same
> time a little boring, since it doesn't seem like this is where you're
> actually "playing" chess yet) and I was thinking about this move. It seems
> to be the standard first move for Black (assuming, I suppose, that White
> opens with e4) and I was just thinking that there seems to be something
> really elegant about this move.
>
> As simple as it is, it just seems like a beautiful combination of offense
> and defense (controlling the central square, preventing White from moving
> d5, opening up your king's bishop's line, and of course blocking White on
> e4).
>
> I don't know why I'm posting about this...it's just a thought. Although I
> have to admit it seems a little strange to find a chess move so
> fascinating. And I'm sure there are plenty of others that I'll be
> impressed with too, once I start learning more. :)
1...c5 is batter :)
|
|
