- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Classifying openings: sharp and theory-heavy vs slow, quiet and theory-light

#1

I tried to classify all openings in three categories:

  • Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal)
  • Intermediate and balanced
  • Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves)

I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White.

Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy.

For White:

  • Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light.
  • 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4.
  • Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy.
  • f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy.
  • An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average.
  • g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light.

White plays 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2
French 3.Nc3
Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Scotch
Ruy Lopez
Italian
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Four Knights
6.Be2 Open Sicilian
3.Bb5 Sicilian
Closed Sicilian
Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3
Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2)
French Tarrasch (3.Nd2)
French Exchange

Black against 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Sicilian
Pirc-Modern
Alekhine
Philidor
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
French
1...e5
Sicilian Taimanov
Sicilian Kan (Paulsen)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Caro-Kann
Scandinavian

Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Gruenfeld
Modern Benoni
KID
Semi-Slav
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Nimzo
QID
King's English (Reverse Sicilian)
QGA
Slav ...Bf5
Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
QGD
Symmetrical English

I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness.

Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list.

I tried to classify all openings in three categories: - Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal) - Intermediate and balanced - Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves) I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White. Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy. For White: - Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light. - 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4. - Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy. - f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy. - An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average. - g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light. White plays 1.e4 --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2 French 3.Nc3 Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 --- Intermediate and balanced --- Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack Scotch Ruy Lopez Italian --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- Four Knights 6.Be2 Open Sicilian 3.Bb5 Sicilian Closed Sicilian Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3 Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2) French Tarrasch (3.Nd2) French Exchange Black against 1.e4 --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- Sicilian Pirc-Modern Alekhine Philidor --- Intermediate and balanced --- French 1...e5 Sicilian Taimanov Sicilian Kan (Paulsen) --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- Caro-Kann Scandinavian Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- Gruenfeld Modern Benoni KID Semi-Slav --- Intermediate and balanced --- Nimzo QID King's English (Reverse Sicilian) QGA Slav ...Bf5 Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6) --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- QGD Symmetrical English I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness. Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list.
#2

You have made your own Opening Classification system instead of using existing ones which means I now dub' thee' an Oening theortician of the modern era ... well anyway it sounded good ... On the bright side it shows you are thinking about the differences in Opening play however I must ask if you also Study The Endgame & Middlegame as well & Play alot of Chess watch Chess videos & Study Chess books ? @Alcadeias

You have made your own Opening Classification system instead of using existing ones which means I now dub' thee' an Oening theortician of the modern era ... well anyway it sounded good ... On the bright side it shows you are thinking about the differences in Opening play however I must ask if you also Study The Endgame & Middlegame as well & Play alot of Chess watch Chess videos & Study Chess books ? @Alcadeias
#3

@Alcadeias said in #1:

I tried to classify all openings in three categories:

  • Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal)
  • Intermediate and balanced
  • Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves)

I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White.

Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy.

For White:

  • Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light.
  • 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4.
  • Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy.
  • f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy.
  • An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average.
  • g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light.

White plays 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2
French 3.Nc3
Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Scotch
Ruy Lopez
Italian
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Four Knights
6.Be2 Open Sicilian
3.Bb5 Sicilian
Closed Sicilian
Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3
Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2)
French Tarrasch (3.Nd2)
French Exchange

Black against 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Sicilian
Pirc-Modern
Alekhine
Philidor
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
French
1...e5
Sicilian Taimanov
Sicilian Kan (Paulsen)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Caro-Kann
Scandinavian

Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Gruenfeld
Modern Benoni
KID
Semi-Slav
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Nimzo
QID
King's English (Reverse Sicilian)
QGA
Slav ...Bf5
Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
QGD
Symmetrical English

I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness.

Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list.

This is the open Sicilian's: r1bqkbnr/1p1p1ppp/p1n5/4p3/4P3/1N6/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6 hope it helps.

@Alcadeias said in #1: > I tried to classify all openings in three categories: > - Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal) > - Intermediate and balanced > - Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves) > > I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White. > > Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy. > > For White: > - Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light. > - 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4. > - Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy. > - f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy. > - An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average. > - g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light. > > White plays 1.e4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2 > French 3.Nc3 > Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack > Scotch > Ruy Lopez > Italian > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > Four Knights > 6.Be2 Open Sicilian > 3.Bb5 Sicilian > Closed Sicilian > Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3 > Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2) > French Tarrasch (3.Nd2) > French Exchange > > Black against 1.e4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Sicilian > Pirc-Modern > Alekhine > Philidor > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > French > 1...e5 > Sicilian Taimanov > Sicilian Kan (Paulsen) > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > Caro-Kann > Scandinavian > > Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Gruenfeld > Modern Benoni > KID > Semi-Slav > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > Nimzo > QID > King's English (Reverse Sicilian) > QGA > Slav ...Bf5 > Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6) > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > QGD > Symmetrical English > > I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness. > > Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list. This is the open Sicilian's: r1bqkbnr/1p1p1ppp/p1n5/4p3/4P3/1N6/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6 hope it helps.
#4

@ThunderClap said in #2:

... however I must ask if you also Study The Endgame & Middlegame as
well & Play alot of Chess watch Chess videos & Study Chess books ? ...
I must ask if you have some sort of authority as inspector in charge of appropriate chess study?

@ThunderClap said in #2: > ... however I must ask if you also Study The Endgame & Middlegame as > well & Play alot of Chess watch Chess videos & Study Chess books ? ... I must ask if you have some sort of authority as inspector in charge of appropriate chess study?
#5

@Alcadeias said in #1:

I tried to classify all openings in three categories:

  • Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal)
  • Intermediate and balanced
  • Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves)

I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White.

Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy.

For White:

  • Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light.
  • 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4.
  • Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy.
  • f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy.
  • An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average.
  • g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light.

White plays 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2
French 3.Nc3
Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Scotch
Ruy Lopez
Italian
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Four Knights
6.Be2 Open Sicilian
3.Bb5 Sicilian
Closed Sicilian
Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3
Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2)
French Tarrasch (3.Nd2)
French Exchange

Black against 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Sicilian
Pirc-Modern
Alekhine
Philidor
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
French
1...e5
Sicilian Taimanov
Sicilian Kan (Paulsen)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Caro-Kann
Scandinavian

Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Gruenfeld
Modern Benoni
KID
Semi-Slav
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Nimzo
QID
King's English (Reverse Sicilian)
QGA
Slav ...Bf5
Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
QGD
Symmetrical English

I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness.

Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list.

This is the open Sicilian's: r1bqkbnr/1p1p1ppp/p1n5/4p3/4P3/1N6/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6 hope it helps.@Alcadeias said in #1:

I tried to classify all openings in three categories:

  • Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal)
  • Intermediate and balanced
  • Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves)

I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White.

Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy.

For White:

  • Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light.
  • 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4.
  • Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy.
  • f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy.
  • An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average.
  • g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light.

White plays 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2
French 3.Nc3
Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Scotch
Ruy Lopez
Italian
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Four Knights
6.Be2 Open Sicilian
3.Bb5 Sicilian
Closed Sicilian
Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3
Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2)
French Tarrasch (3.Nd2)
French Exchange

Black against 1.e4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Sicilian
Pirc-Modern
Alekhine
Philidor
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
French
1...e5
Sicilian Taimanov
Sicilian Kan (Paulsen)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
Caro-Kann
Scandinavian

Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4
--- Sharp and theory-heavy ---
Gruenfeld
Modern Benoni
KID
Semi-Slav
--- Intermediate and balanced ---
Nimzo
QID
King's English (Reverse Sicilian)
QGA
Slav ...Bf5
Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6)
--- Slow, quiet and theory-light ---
QGD
Symmetrical English

I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness.

Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list.

Sry, grabbed the wrong one so had to start again - the Open Sicilian's: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 (2... Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 (5... e6) (5... e5) 6. Bg5 (6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3) 6... e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O h6) 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 (4... g6) (4... Nc6) (4... a6) 5. Nc3 a6 (5... g6) (5... e6) (5... Nc6). HIH's. H

@Alcadeias said in #1: > I tried to classify all openings in three categories: > - Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal) > - Intermediate and balanced > - Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves) > > I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White. > > Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy. > > For White: > - Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light. > - 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4. > - Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy. > - f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy. > - An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average. > - g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light. > > White plays 1.e4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2 > French 3.Nc3 > Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack > Scotch > Ruy Lopez > Italian > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > Four Knights > 6.Be2 Open Sicilian > 3.Bb5 Sicilian > Closed Sicilian > Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3 > Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2) > French Tarrasch (3.Nd2) > French Exchange > > Black against 1.e4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Sicilian > Pirc-Modern > Alekhine > Philidor > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > French > 1...e5 > Sicilian Taimanov > Sicilian Kan (Paulsen) > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > Caro-Kann > Scandinavian > > Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Gruenfeld > Modern Benoni > KID > Semi-Slav > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > Nimzo > QID > King's English (Reverse Sicilian) > QGA > Slav ...Bf5 > Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6) > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > QGD > Symmetrical English > > I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness. > > Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list. This is the open Sicilian's: r1bqkbnr/1p1p1ppp/p1n5/4p3/4P3/1N6/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6 hope it helps.@Alcadeias said in #1: > I tried to classify all openings in three categories: > - Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal) > - Intermediate and balanced > - Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves) > > I'm only talking of statistical averages here. Like, for example, I put the Sicilian in the category "sharp and theory-heavy", which means that on average the Sicilian generally tends to lead to sharp positions, most variations of the Sicilian are very theory-heavy. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Taimanov and the Kan (Paulsen) for Black, the 6.Be2 Open Sicilian and the 3.Bb5 Sicilian and the Closed Sicilian for White. > > Almost all gambits are very sharp and theory-heavy. > > For White: > - Systems tend to be slow, quiet and theory-light. > - 1.e4 tends to be a bit more sharp and theory-heavy than 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4. > - Three Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4) and Four Pawns Attack (f4, e4, d4, c4) are very sharp and theory-heavy. > - f3 (e.g. KID Saemisch) tends to be sharp and theory-heavy. > - An early Nf3 while the f-Pawn is still on f2 tends to be a bit more slow, quiet and theory-light than average. > - g3 (Fianchetto variation) is slow, quiet and theory-light. > > White plays 1.e4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Open Sicilian all variations except 6.Be2 > French 3.Nc3 > Caro-Kann Advance 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack > Scotch > Ruy Lopez > Italian > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > Four Knights > 6.Be2 Open Sicilian > 3.Bb5 Sicilian > Closed Sicilian > Caro-Kann Exchange 4.Bd3 > Caro-Kann Advance Short (4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2) > French Tarrasch (3.Nd2) > French Exchange > > Black against 1.e4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Sicilian > Pirc-Modern > Alekhine > Philidor > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > French > 1...e5 > Sicilian Taimanov > Sicilian Kan (Paulsen) > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > Caro-Kann > Scandinavian > > Black against 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4 > --- Sharp and theory-heavy --- > Gruenfeld > Modern Benoni > KID > Semi-Slav > --- Intermediate and balanced --- > Nimzo > QID > King's English (Reverse Sicilian) > QGA > Slav ...Bf5 > Slav Chebanenko/Chameleon (4...a6) > --- Slow, quiet and theory-light --- > QGD > Symmetrical English > > I not only classified the openings in three categories, but I also classified them in descending order of sharpness and theory-heaviness. > > Tell me what you think. Do you agree? Which openings do you think I misclassified? I am particularly uncertain about the openings that I put in the "Intermediate and balanced" category. You can post your own list. Sry, grabbed the wrong one so had to start again - the Open Sicilian's: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 (2... Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 (5... e6) (5... e5) 6. Bg5 (6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3) 6... e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O h6) 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 (4... g6) (4... Nc6) (4... a6) 5. Nc3 a6 (5... g6) (5... e6) (5... Nc6). HIH's. H
#6

@kindaspongey said in #4:

I must ask if you have some sort of authority as inspector in charge of appropriate chess study?

Fight, fight, fight (as they would say in the school yard).

@kindaspongey said in #4: > I must ask if you have some sort of authority as inspector in charge of appropriate chess study? Fight, fight, fight (as they would say in the school yard).
#7

@Alcadeias said in #1:

I tried to classify all openings in three categories:

  • Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal)
  • Intermediate and balanced
  • Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves)
    ... Ruy Lopez ...
    Part of the problem with this sort of project is that opening names are, to a large extent, the result of historical accidents and not necessarily well suited to classification. All of these would be considered to be a Ruy Lopez:
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3
    However, I would imagine that the classification would be very different for the individual lines. “Statistical averages” are not really appropriate for this issue. If you have decided to ALWAYS react to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 with 5 d3, then THAT is what will happen in YOUR games and it will be largely irrelevant to consider the results of the various habits among the multitudes of Ruy Lopez players.
@Alcadeias said in #1: > I tried to classify all openings in three categories: > - Sharp and theory-heavy (the openings where one single mistake can be fatal) > - Intermediate and balanced > - Slow, quiet and theory-light (the openings that anyone can play without needing to study them and memorize tons of moves) > ... Ruy Lopez ... Part of the problem with this sort of project is that opening names are, to a large extent, the result of historical accidents and not necessarily well suited to classification. All of these would be considered to be a Ruy Lopez: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3 However, I would imagine that the classification would be very different for the individual lines. “Statistical averages” are not really appropriate for this issue. If you have decided to ALWAYS react to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 with 5 d3, then THAT is what will happen in YOUR games and it will be largely irrelevant to consider the results of the various habits among the multitudes of Ruy Lopez players.
#8

@Alcadeias Honestly I think you spend way too much time with openings. Why would you do that? To achieve what? I don't see the purpose. As @kindaspongey statet correctly, the lines deviate. There is the very calm russian defense in e4 e5 openings and there are super aggressive London system lines with Qf3. There are calm dutch defense openings with the pawn on f5 where you claim it being on f2/f7 would be much quieter. You call e4 theory heavy, while in fact d4 and c4 are just as theory heavy. People don't lose quickly in e4 openings, because they don't know theory, but because they blunder pieces - the same thing happens in d4 games aswell, just later on when the position is getting more complex or opening up - it has nothing to do with the opening itself. So good work I guess, but I think you should rather focus on middle and endgame as @ThunderClap pointed out.

@Alcadeias Honestly I think you spend way too much time with openings. Why would you do that? To achieve what? I don't see the purpose. As @kindaspongey statet correctly, the lines deviate. There is the very calm russian defense in e4 e5 openings and there are super aggressive London system lines with Qf3. There are calm dutch defense openings with the pawn on f5 where you claim it being on f2/f7 would be much quieter. You call e4 theory heavy, while in fact d4 and c4 are just as theory heavy. People don't lose quickly in e4 openings, because they don't know theory, but because they blunder pieces - the same thing happens in d4 games aswell, just later on when the position is getting more complex or opening up - it has nothing to do with the opening itself. So good work I guess, but I think you should rather focus on middle and endgame as @ThunderClap pointed out.
#9

@kindaspongey said in #7:

Part of the problem with this sort of project is that opening names are, to a large extent, the result of historical accidents and not necessarily well suited to classification.
All of these would be considered to be a Ruy Lopez:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3
However, I would imagine that the classification would be very different for the individual lines. “Statistical averages” are not really appropriate for this issue. If you have decided to ALWAYS react to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 with 5 d3, then THAT is what will happen in YOUR games and it will be largely irrelevant to consider the results of the various habits among the multitudes of Ruy Lopez players.

Knowledge is power though, apparently.

@kindaspongey said in #7: > Part of the problem with this sort of project is that opening names are, to a large extent, the result of historical accidents and not necessarily well suited to classification. > All of these would be considered to be a Ruy Lopez: > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3 > However, I would imagine that the classification would be very different for the individual lines. “Statistical averages” are not really appropriate for this issue. If you have decided to ALWAYS react to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 with 5 d3, then THAT is what will happen in YOUR games and it will be largely irrelevant to consider the results of the various habits among the multitudes of Ruy Lopez players. Knowledge is power though, apparently.
#10

@CheerUpChess-Youtube said in #8:

@Alcadeias Honestly I think you spend way too many time with openings. Why would you do that? To achieve what? I don't see the purpose. As @kindaspongey statet correctly, the lines deviate. There is the very calm russian defense in e4 e5 openings and there are super aggressive London system lines with Qf3. There are calm dutch defense openings with the pawn on f5 where you claim it being on f2/f7 would be much quieter. You call e4 theory heavy, while in fact d4 and c4 are just as theory heavy. People don't lose quickly in e4 openings, because they don't know theory, but because they blunder pieces - the same thing happens in d4 games aswell, just later on when the position is getting more complex or opening up - it has nothing to do with the opening itself. So good work I guess, but I think you should rather focus on middle and endgame as @ThunderClap pointed out.

Can't hurt to have some form of framework in place though.

@CheerUpChess-Youtube said in #8: > @Alcadeias Honestly I think you spend way too many time with openings. Why would you do that? To achieve what? I don't see the purpose. As @kindaspongey statet correctly, the lines deviate. There is the very calm russian defense in e4 e5 openings and there are super aggressive London system lines with Qf3. There are calm dutch defense openings with the pawn on f5 where you claim it being on f2/f7 would be much quieter. You call e4 theory heavy, while in fact d4 and c4 are just as theory heavy. People don't lose quickly in e4 openings, because they don't know theory, but because they blunder pieces - the same thing happens in d4 games aswell, just later on when the position is getting more complex or opening up - it has nothing to do with the opening itself. So good work I guess, but I think you should rather focus on middle and endgame as @ThunderClap pointed out. Can't hurt to have some form of framework in place though.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.