Solid openings requiring less theory for low ranked?

My study on the English opening is just about complete...

Again, I would definitely recommend the English as very solid and not based on memorizing lines as much as most other openings. It has some nice winning percentages in the databases, too.

I would not recommend English to this player as
1) he already plays London which is solid and requires less theory and
2) he does not play the Sicilian with black, which I would not recommend because of the huge amount of theory.

I have briefly looked at your study and at least for the 8th match game Fischer-Spassky your comments are inaccurate. 15...b5!? may have been the strongest move in the position, a positional exchange sacrifice. The real mistake was 19...Nd7?, which should have been 19...Qh5. You may want to look at published analysis to correct your study.

Thanks, @tpr (I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything. Thanks for real.)


The reason why I called it an error was because the Stockfish "score" went from -0.2/-0.3 to +0.8. I'm not saying that Stockfish is perfect, but that does seem to be a fischy (couldn't resist that) move. But I have looked (er, glanced, to be honest) at pro studies and I was aware of Nd7?? being the big kicker. Do you have the URL to any specific studies?

Oh, and you're right about the English and Sicilian working best in conjunction with each other. That really does help me, since I play both. I just figured that if he really wanted something new, (besides the London) then the English would be interesting.

#24 There are may books written on that match: by Gligoric, Timman, De Bruycker, Evans... and the games have been analysed in chess magazines 64, Schachmatny and in newspapers. "My Great Predecessors" by Kasparov is also authoritative.
Smyslov recommended 15...Bd7, Gligoric 15...Rc7, Flohr 15...Qh5.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.