The Black Lion - Aggressive?

I saw the opening before, but had to look at it again... it seems ok, imo a weird KID approach without the f-pawn break for the attack, but you still get the other pawns in on the attack and can try to overwhelm white on the kingside.

Not a big fan of holding off castling, and I don't think this is a beginner opening because of that... its just begging to be assaulted, and if white knows it probably knows some tricks and traps to spring (which GM Williams shows in one video). Speaking of castling, I would think that black could queenside castle at some point if white tries to put its forces on the kingside and keep pressure over there, but I think white would likely exert pressure on the queenside and break it down since black will be breaking down its own kingside (if white identifies the Black Lion is being played and knows the idea of its kingside pawn setup/attack)... I suspect the best way to attack it is from the queenside and center and sweep back to the kingside.

I also watched Dereque Kelley's video on the Philidor, and he made an interesting observation... if white goes into a queenside castle after treating the opening like a Sicilian, the attack (with blacks e-pawn off the board) would be brutal. Now imagine that coming at the even slower Black Lion... not good. :P Black would be scrambling to figure out how to alter his plans, and the longer he takes the castle (or doesn't castle at all as GM Williams points out) the more white will gain advantages and eventually crush black.

(Just my evaluation of the defense... its probably good, but also probably not one I'm going to use. ;}

Carlsen preferred to castle:

Black was Ok till the blunder 40...Rf8?.

@tpr Your game on post #10; I don't think anyone below 1700 is going to run that line, sac'ing their N to get that attack going. They immediately give up their N for a pawn. I would always attack with the g pawn as shown. That's at my level, below 1600.
Almost all the players I play, at below 1600, because of the novelty and unknown territory, don't know what to do. Some try to attack down the middle, a few on their Q side as White, with not good results. When I lose with the Black Lion, it's because I missed a tactic. But yes, it does seem to be a slow, defensive game often.
One 1700 player I play (hey, that's big around here) always castles Q side with White, never king side against me when I use the Black Lion. And makes a tough game out of it. Then I try to castle long, like @SuedeStonn said, to go after him there.
I'm still learning and working with it.
Why don't I use standard defenses? Lately I do, against standard openings. I tried the Black Lion against some kind of Nimzo Modern (looks like a double Sniper Opening) and got crushed quickly. Should have pushed both pawns out instead; as Black.
I'd like to see GM Williams use the Black Lion against that funny chubby guy in the upcoming Oct match.

You should try to play well regardless of your opponent. In the above game #10 ...g5 was clearly a mistake, as white could launch an attack against the black king in the centre. Correct would have been ...Ng6 intending a later ...Nf4.
Castling queen's side o-o-o is risky for white, as after ...c6, ...b5 black can get a counterattack going. After white has played a4 to stop an immediate ...b5 the white king is not safe after o-o-o.

#9: Of course there's some relation between effective playing strength and opening choice. The Ruy Lopez will, all else equal, get you better results than 1. g4. I don't deny that taste and familiarity with the resulting positions does matter, but come on. There's a reason GMs play the openings they do and spend so much time preparing them, and it's not just aesthetic preference. It's because they want the best chances of winning.

It's strange to use Fischer as an example to support your case because he did exactly what I suggest: learn a single set of GM-quality openings.

It's also strange to use Carlsen as an example because his choice of openings is largely dictated by meta-game considerations, and he can get away with weird stuff because he's literally the best player in the world.

In the realm of sub-2000 players on lichess, this doesn't matter. There is no meta-game. Your opponents will be out of the book before move 8, easily. It may be true theoretically speaking that chess is a draw and several openings suffice for a draw as white, but we are playing people, not textbooks. These people often do not study and will reliably permit you an opening advantage if you book up a bit.

Further, it is not so hard to pick good openings that aren't theory intensive. You can learn enough of the Scotch to play it online without getting in trouble in an afternoon, for example. The only problem spot is the ...Qh4 line. The rest is quite natural and easy to remember. I am happy to send you my notes (a whopping page long) if you doubt this is the case.

"The Ruy Lopez will, all else equal, get you better results than 1. g4." I doubt that. I have witnessed IM Michael Basman winning an open tournament with grandmasters playing 1 g4 with white and 1...h6 and 2...g5 with black in every game. You can better play a "bad" opening well than play a "good" opening badly.

"he can get away with weird stuff because he's literally the best player in the world" If Carlsen, who plays for a living, can play "weird" stuff, then the amateurs may do so as well.

"Your opponents will be out of the book before move 8, easily." No, there are weak players here who are very strong in opening theory, having memorized lines up to 30 moves deep.

"You can learn enough of the Scotch to play it online" The Scotch was an example of a subpar opening, until Kasparov started playing it and did well, largely because of the surprise effect. The seconds of Karpov raided all book stores in town for books on the Scotch as they did not know how to handle this weird opening. By the way the Steinitz variation 4...Qh4 poses no problem at all: white loses a pawn, but black loses the right to castle.

0-0-0 for White. Here's an ex as best I can remember what he did in our last game...



Now what? for Black. Push c6 now? and try to get in b5? Kick his dark B with h6? So he takes my N, then I take back with B or N? I don't know. B probably, to save my N to attack his K?

#16: The key words here are again "all else equal." Are you seriously doubting that 1. g4 gives worse positions objectively and practically than the Ruy? We can check both engines and master game databases to see this is the case. Down wth anecdotes, up with empiricism.

I think you misunderstand my point about Carlsen. I meant that he's good enough that he doesn't necessarily need to fight for an edge in the opening. The rest of us need all the help we can get.

I have not met weak players who know many moves of opening theory here, unless you are counting correspondence games where databases are provided by lichess. However, if you feel the meta-game is such that you're better off playing sidelines or objectively subpar openings, then go for it. My only request is that people think clearly about what choice of opening gives them the best chances of winning/drawing (within certain practical constraints like time spent learning theory) and not get suckered in by cheesy marketing for an opening that is very rarely played by GMs. Databases and computer evaluations seem to indicate the "black lion" is probably not a good fit for this standard.

Regarding the Scotch, I addressed this already in my initial post. And I realize 4...Qh4 is fine for white. I merely meant it could pose problems to someone who tries to work the best continuation out over the board for white. I certainly got flustered the first time I met it, when I was not prepared.

#17 Here is an example. Black did well before he went astray.

Only because white did not play well in the opening!

As I have said already, we can each cherry-pick games to support our points. This is pointless. If you want to argue that empirically/practically this opening is just fine, let's look at databases. After Nc3 in the lichess database, white wins 37% of the time and draws 38% of the time. The sample size is over 30k master games, which I regard as reliable.

Or is there a particular line for black you would like to look at?

(edit: I see now the above post was not directed at me, but I think this response makes a good point nonetheless.)