How do you respond to 1. e4?
Sort:
Ì use Giuoco pianissimo.
daveesh1208 wrote:
Ì use Giuoco pianissimo.
Play the Philidor Defense instead.
1...c6
Mar 11, 2020
0
#46
I play e6.But sometimes I change to d6.Here is one of my game in the French
Finally I have found someone who uses the Giuoco too! I use a slight variation of it though.
The way I play it is kind of like a London but mirrored and with black, which is odd but brings results!
Mar 15, 2020
0
#49
Definitely try 1...Nf6 when against weaker/marginally stronger opponents to win/make a draw
I play Dragon and sometimes the Taimanov. Both gives interesting positions where black gets winning chances
Mar 15, 2020
0
#51
Bossinater43 wrote:
I'm just curious as to why people play different moves. When you have the black pieces, what's your favorite response to 1. e4 and why?
Personally I love the French Defense (1... e6) because it opens up the Queen and dark-square Bishop but also allows me to push d5 and normally c5 even.
I think you should just resign when you see someone play 1. e4!!! Fischer said it was best by test.
Mar 15, 2020
0
#52
Morphys-Revenge wrote:
Bossinater43 wrote:
I'm just curious as to why people play different moves. When you have the black pieces, what's your favorite response to 1. e4 and why?
Personally I love the French Defense (1... e6) because it opens up the Queen and dark-square Bishop but also allows me to push d5 and normally c5 even.
I think you should just resign when you see someone play 1. e4!!! Fischer said it was best by test.
Fischer also claimed that he might have to admit that the Winawer is sound, but doubted it, and made claims that it was anti-positional and weakened the Kingside.
Fischer had no clue what he was talking about, and lost more to the French than any other defense in his games as White.
French Rules! Give me White (with 3.Nc3 or 3.e5) or Give me Black (ALMOST any line) and I'll destroy you!
Indeed. It's weird people think and say ad hominem RJF had a major problem with the French Winawer. Sure, the Winawer was & is very stout: incorporating many Nimzo traits but at Fischer's Level I hardly think it was "major". It was mostly recommended that you play that way and also play wild & complicated too (when facing him). Geez, but is it viable nowadays? Of course, my friends! No need to hype it up. I just have a problem bringing up Fischer in past tense and using that as a platform. Indeed. Like I said, it doesn't matter the defense to e4: you just have to acquire the mindset of a defensive player, period. Equalize first, then fish for something. Learn prophylactic skills, keep your head on a swivel. Learn positional & endgame themes. Best wishes my friend✌🏽
Mar 19, 2020
0
#54
najdorf96 wrote:
Indeed. It's weird people think and say ad hominem RJF had a major problem with the French Winawer. Sure, the Winawer was & is very stout: incorporating many Nimzo traits but at Fischer's Level I hardly think it was "major". It was mostly recommended that you play that way and also play wild & complicated too (when facing him). Geez, but is it viable nowadays? Of course, my friends! No need to hype it up. I just have a problem bringing up Fischer in past tense and using that as a platform. Indeed. Like I said, it doesn't matter the defense to e4: you just have to acquire the mindset of a defensive player, period. Equalize first, then fish for something. Learn prophylactic skills, keep your head on a swivel. Learn positional & endgame themes. Best wishes my friend✌🏽
What is your issue with bringing up Fischer? I was merely countering another poster's "Best by Test" comment, and yes, Fischer had more trouble against the French than any other opening.
I can't help it if you think Fischer was god. He was a lame, good for nothing chess player who had a major mental disorder, had one lucky match against Spassky after being a turd about it by forcing the change in setting and purposely forfeiting round 2 after making the dumbest blunder in world championship history round 1.
Karpov would have cremated him. He then proceeds to break the law by going into a forbidden country in 1992.
Fischer was a useless, lame, good for nothing overhyped chess player that was lucky in one match that was basically tampered by playing mind games with Spassky and the directors. Nothing more than gamesmanship. It was not skill that won him that match.
Fischer was a disgrace to chess.
Chessmetrics Fischer rating and 2nd-best rating
December 1968: 2795 2782
December 1969: 2787 2776
December 1970: 2834 2769
December 1971: 2895 2749
December 1972: 2865 2754
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=196805SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100
e5 or d5. Or probably Nf6. Or Nc6. Or c6, while i rarely play caro-kann
It's a coin toss between d5 e5. If my knightey-sense tingles I go e5, if not then D5, hoping for a pawn trade that puts queen front and center. risky but it tends to play for me at my rating.
after e5, if opponent plays knight f3, i go queen f6. if I end up in that position, my next two moves are almost always pawn b6 and then knight c6.
21 hrs ago
0
#58
ThrillerFan wrote:
najdorf96 wrote:
Indeed. It's weird people think and say ad hominem RJF had a major problem with the French Winawer. Sure, the Winawer was & is very stout: incorporating many Nimzo traits but at Fischer's Level I hardly think it was "major". It was mostly recommended that you play that way and also play wild & complicated too (when facing him). Geez, but is it viable nowadays? Of course, my friends! No need to hype it up. I just have a problem bringing up Fischer in past tense and using that as a platform. Indeed. Like I said, it doesn't matter the defense to e4: you just have to acquire the mindset of a defensive player, period. Equalize first, then fish for something. Learn prophylactic skills, keep your head on a swivel. Learn positional & endgame themes. Best wishes my friend✌🏽
What is your issue with bringing up Fischer? I was merely countering another poster's "Best by Test" comment, and yes, Fischer had more trouble against the French than any other opening.
I can't help it if you think Fischer was god. He was a lame, good for nothing chess player who had a major mental disorder, had one lucky match against Spassky after being a turd about it by forcing the change in setting and purposely forfeiting round 2 after making the dumbest blunder in world championship history round 1.
Karpov would have cremated him. He then proceeds to break the law by going into a forbidden country in 1992.
Fischer was a useless, lame, good for nothing overhyped chess player that was lucky in one match that was basically tampered by playing mind games with Spassky and the directors. Nothing more than gamesmanship. It was not skill that won him that match.
Fischer was a disgrace to chess.
I'm not a huge fan of Fischer myself (mainly I think he was too arrogant / overhyped due to his reign being very short-lived, though he was dominant for its duration), however... you do take Fischer hatred to a whole level beyond what I've seen before.
21 hrs ago
0
#59
These days I'm feeling the Taimanov sicilian more. And I'm back to the Van Geet as well. Nothing so far has really matched the Van Geet in its ability to turn otherwise well prepared players into bumbling confused 7 year olds. Though I'm playing the Veresov with it, not the Jobava... and not the 2 knights.
But against 1. d4... I'm not entirely satisfied yet. I have the QGA and the slav, but I don't like the exchange slav... and I wish I had something more original. But for now that's what I do.
I thought you were serious for a little lol