'With 1.e4 e5 white can simply play boring chess like Ruy Exch etc... it is a symetrical openning not an unbalanced one (like the sicilian is)'

How typical to think like that, dude, if you cant play symetrical positions then how do u think ur understanding of more complicated positions is?????

If you have no idea how black can play for a win in the bishops opening or the KG then sorry, go play 1.e4 e5 and try to figure it out. All time you spend on the sicilian is a waste of time untill then.

FFS where is the logic in: 'I dont understand the simple stuff so ill make it complicated enough my opponent wont understand it either' ?? Every game is a lotery both sides can win or lose.... no fun if you are trying to improve.

'You talk down to the beginner, and invite him to progress slowly, having little or no confidence in his abilities.'

Dude it's pure logic. If I want to explain this to you, I will have to go down to 'you will have to know X to do Y' same with the sicilian.

When you are talking about chess improvement it's pretty obvious to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just saying, show them the world and they will learn, the hard way. In practise they have no idea what is right and what is wrong cuz they have no reference points, they will never learn unless their name ends with 'Kramnik'.

It just makes me wanna cry, if you say 'I understand chess' (a bit) it makes me wanna call u a fraud.

"Dude" this and "Dude" that--great, I'm talking to, what, a surfer? Bart Simpson? Look, Matt, you're being insulting and as for logic, you don't have much command of it.

By the way, the "Reshevsky" typo has been amply covered in a series of posts between RB and I. But how convenient of you to borrow his nonsense to inject into your own skimpy posts.

You give "reliable" a meaning it can't bear. No opening will reliably draw. On the way to the Lopez after 1 e4 e5, there are many ways for Black to go wrong. Many masters and GMs play strong attacking chess using gambits ranging from the King's Gambit to the occasional Evans Gambit. Knowing the theory behind all of these gambits, out to the middlegame and beyond, is impossible, even for Kramnik. For example, in a little known game between a fairly obscure player named Landa and Kasparov, the latter, having had to defend against the Smith-Morra Gambit, played some pretty well-recommended theoretical moves--and was lost by the 19th move. His opponent did not scalp Kasparov, but the point is, he could have, and Kasparov in his day was the world's most theoretically sharp GM. So if he could be surprised, anybody could be. And this is no less true of openings like the King's Gambit, the Evans, and many others.

Far from doing beginners a service, you are in fact flat out telling them something that is manifestly false when you tell them that any opening is "reliable". A good player can play even inferior openings and produce excellent results.

Case in point: here is a game in which one of the all-time greats inflicts a crushing defeat using 3...f5?! (or possibly, depending upon the time control, ?).

Balla-Reti, Budapest, 1918, Ruy Lopez:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5?!/?

A popular beginners book (I study such books since I am writing my own book for beginners as well as more advanced players), Understanding the Chess Openings by IM Sam Collins (Gambit, 2005), includes the following comments:

"This is the Schliemann Defence. Always regarded as too dubious for regular top-level practice (the weakening of the a2-g8 and h5-e8 diagonals can lead to big problems), it has been the darling of correspondence players who seem to devote years of analysis to junk lines. The Schliemann hasn't quite been refuted yet, but White has a pleasant choice of lines all of which maintain at least an edge."

Notice two things: one, it's dubious--for the elite. What percentage of chess players comprise the elite? Answer: they can be counted on your fingers! What the elite do is NOT, repeat NOT relevant for beginners. Such knowledge can at most be a distant, almost imperceptable reference point for years later, assuming that they've kept up with chess and got up to at least master--which isn't likely. Millions take up the game and remain class players, and still get plenty of pleasure out of it. Two, "hasn't quite been refuted yet" is sly, since something is either refuted or it isn't. With chess theory extending for centuries, and with modern theory going back, depending on your vantage point, anywhere from 50 to 150 years, there has certainly been a lot of time (and effort--don't forget all those correspondence players!) spent on refuting the Schliemann; so why isn't it refuted yet? And look at what White gains if he knows his stuff--IF, mind you, he knows it--he gains lines which "maintain at least an edge". An edge! Let's be blunt--that's +=, a slight advantage, and in some lines, up to a clear advantage. Does that mean that players of the White pieces will always know what to do with the advantage? And what about facing this line in a rapid game, against a good player who specializes in the Schliemann. Think you could "reliably" bust it? In game after game, against opponents in your rating category?

Let's see how Reti pulled it off:

4 d3 Nf6
5 0-0 Bc5?!
6 Bc4? d6
7 Ng5? f4!
8 Nf7 Qe7
9 Nxh8 Bg4
10 Qd2 Nd4
11 Kh1 Nf3!
12 Qa5 Nxe4!
13 g3 Nxf2+
14 Rxf2 Bxf2
15 Kg2 fxg3
16 hxg3 Bxg3!
17 Qb5+ c6
18 Qb4 Qh4
19 Bf7+ Ke7
20 Qxb7+ Kf6

White resigns. 0-1

I have put the bulk of the game score in column formation for ease of reference.

Instead of the usual annotation, I give only a small hint of the critical moments of the game. The student, particularly of the Lopez, should study this game and see why Black won, and moreover, what White did wrong.

And he should ask questions, such as:

What is wrong with White's sixth move?

After Black's 9...Bg4, why is White's queen compelled to move away from the protection of the king?

What would have happened if White had accepted the bishop sacrifice (on g3)?

The beginning student of chess will learn more from the analysis of a game like this, won by a player using an inferior defense against a major opening, than by memorizing or in other ways studying the theory of top-level GM defenses to the Lopez. If he ever does study such defenses, he will know better why they are top-level defenses, and more to the point, why the Schliemann is so poorly regarded.

If any fellow ninjas who are beginners wish to discuss this game with me, please do. Post relevant diagrams or the position after a certain move, and present your answers to the questions I have posed, backed up of course with variations. I guarantee that you will learn something very valuable from even a slight analysis of this hugely instructive game!

Now, here's another question, for you, Matt: if RB is correct, and I'm so stupid and ignorant about chess history (and, he has implied, theory, too), then how come I was able to come up with this game, in addition to my own game in the earlier post, so quickly? Do you believe I need to resort to search engines and chess sites? Perhaps ransack my library for suitable material? I took this one right out of my head, and I have not checked the score against the book. I have the knowledge of thousands of such games, as well as my own corpus of games, and so I DO know what I'm talking about, which is one reason I'm writing a book for beginners and posting stuff from which my fellow ninjas can actually learn (like instructive games, full quotes from relevant books, etc), while you can do no better than snide remarks, and empty assurances that a particular sequence of moves or a certain opening is reliable.

I suggest you study more and insult less; I suggest you know more about a fellow ninja's actual chess strength and knowledge before seeking to impugn him.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Still no real name with a rating that is checkable.....

I like your 3...f5?!/? remark, why is it dubious if a clear path to a white advantage hasn't been worked out yet? Doesn't sound logical to me.

'The beginning student of chess will learn more from the analysis of a game like this, won by a player using an inferior defense against a major opening, than by memorizing or in other ways studying the theory of top-level GM defenses to the Lopez.'

Proves my case that you have no idea what you are talking about. Current theory is based on the logic that other openings are more or less bullet proof. That's why the Ruy Lopez is so topical (Kasparov proved for a while that there were unawnsered questions in the scotch/Evans sure - they are solved now).

'A fairly obscure player named Landa' ! you quote Sam Collins in the Jeanisch as something to take serious and (GM) Konstatin Landa is an obscure player? Are you kidding me?

'If any fellow ninjas who are beginners wish to discuss this game with me, please do. Post relevant diagrams or the position after a certain move, and present your answers to the questions I have posed, backed up of course with variations. '

Yeah let's..... DeepNf3 will copy paste another wonderfull Rybka piece... wow. Stop trying to give people fish and teach them how to fish. OFcourse if you cant fish yourself... then whats the point?

'Perhaps ransack my library for suitable material? I took this one right out of my head, and I have not checked the score against the book.' IF you are proud to remember one game.... You remind me of a 1700 player who reads all the books he can find without improving himself one bit. Some people just dont have the brains to figure out what it takes to improve your chess. You spend time, but you dont make any progression. I have tried to put together a course where progress is inevitable. If you had cared to read that you would have seen that 1.e4 e5 is the best to start off with. If you can't understand the complexity of ideas in 1.e4 e5 vs the sicilian and just why beginners should avoid the sicilian then... well I dont know, then you are inable to comprehend stuff like this.

Sorry but every post you write trying to explain <anything> i get really annoyed. Don't try to be anything you are not.

'and empty assurances that a particular sequence of moves or a certain opening is reliable.'

WHy are they empty? Please dont come with EMPTY accusations I am fully convinced that the variations I play are bullet proof.. <post repertoire to proof it... soz no can do>

C_K as long as you are unwilling to show your real identity, I have no choice then to threat you as a Class Z player, you certainly talk like one

Matt, watch the tone and language PLEASE. You can make your point - in fact you would make it much more convincingly - without resorting to name calling or bad language. Thanks.

So you never lose?

To me a beginner should go for openings that suit their style. I am a very aggressive atacking player, so I took up the Sicilian immediately as a beginner, and I don't regret it at all. I have won far more than I have lost with it, on both sides, and I still play it. I fondly recall many of my wins with the Sicilian, including a thrashing of Tal Shaked in around 23 moves.

No openings are bulletproof. The very idea is ridiculous.

That's IM Sam Collins to you, and he's written a book to back up his claims, and I've read it, so at least I know what I'm talking about. What's your claim to glory? No, wait, don't anwer that; you're in too deep already; just work on pulling your foot out of your mouth. That should keep you busy--for years.

The variation mentioned in my post is the Schliemann, not the Jaenisch. You still can't read. I'm considering starting a thread for ninjas who have a problem reading English (possible suitable title: Bare Bones English for the Textually Challenged).

Compared to Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, etc, GM Landa is an obscure player.

As for your estimate of me as a player: that's about as important to me as my estimate of you--i.e., totally unimportant. The games I post, few though they are, do my talking. You can hide behind numbers or titles or bull**** assertions--doesn't matter to me.

I play the games, I write the factually correct posts, and I am writing the book. When it's published, you can badmouth me some more, but, ah, the good part--then I can really let fly in response. I guarantee you won't like it. And you might consider whether or not I've already included some of the games you've posted--in my book, as examples of very poor play. Like another kid said, keep it up and "I'll make you famous."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please quote any 2700+ player who ever seriously said that ANY opening is "bullet proof." If that were the case, then NO GM would EVER get a worse game within the first twenty moves, but it happens all the time!

'The variation mentioned in my post is the Schliemann, not the Jaenisch. You still can't read.'

It's another name for the same variation... strange you didn't know