lichess.org
Donate

The Best White Opening at YOUR ELO: A 71-Million Game Analysis

Question is the danish playable at 1600-2000?

Question is the danish playable at 1600-2000?

""what's the best opening for my current opponents?""

  • I believe this is the wrong question. You should ask instead:
    'What is the best opening against the strongest opponent I will ever face in my life?'
    It is a loss of time and effort to change openings like every 200 rating.
    It is much better to start with solid openings right away. Then you can keep accumulating experience.
    Every game you play then becomes a preparation for that one game you will play against the strongest opponent you will ever face.

If an opening is good enough against 1000 rated opponents does not mean it is good against 2000 rated opponents.
But if an opening is good enough against 2000 rated opponents, then it is also good against 1000 rated opponents.

""what's the best opening for my current opponents?"" * I believe this is the wrong question. You should ask instead: 'What is the best opening against the strongest opponent I will ever face in my life?' It is a loss of time and effort to change openings like every 200 rating. It is much better to start with solid openings right away. Then you can keep accumulating experience. Every game you play then becomes a preparation for that one game you will play against the strongest opponent you will ever face. If an opening is good enough against 1000 rated opponents does not mean it is good against 2000 rated opponents. But if an opening is good enough against 2000 rated opponents, then it is also good against 1000 rated opponents.

So... at what rating levels are 1. d4, 1. e4 or 1. Nf3 best?

So... at what rating levels are 1. d4, 1. e4 or 1. Nf3 best?

@Lukeysh said ^

Question is the danish playable at 1600-2000?

Yes.. The Danish if you take serious can take you to 2300. But I am not sure I would take it that serious. And what I mean by take it serious is, you learn the true theory. This includes but not limited to, forcing variations, common tactics, positional themes. When most people study the Danish, they only study beginner tactics and then a few forcing variations. And then they hope the person falls for a trick. If you are going to play a gambit, you need to understand why it works, not just hoping someone falls for your prepped line.

@Lukeysh said [^](/forum/redirect/post/02m6MaPi) > Question is the danish playable at 1600-2000? Yes.. The Danish if you take serious can take you to 2300. But I am not sure I would take it that serious. And what I mean by take it serious is, you learn the true theory. This includes but not limited to, forcing variations, common tactics, positional themes. When most people study the Danish, they only study beginner tactics and then a few forcing variations. And then they hope the person falls for a trick. If you are going to play a gambit, you need to understand why it works, not just hoping someone falls for your prepped line.

@MyChessPosters said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/mychessposters/blog/the-best-white-opening-at-your-elo-a-71-million-game-analysis/2zaE3MBm

A general comment for your post. Theoretically the Fried liver attack is considered drawish. This has been true for as long as I can remember, like back in 1989. Most people who fall into theoretical losses are the ones who never seen it and didn't take 30 min to find out the modern handling of the opening. There is a recommendation a while back by GM Jesse Kraai who says you might be able to inject new life into the Fried Liver by using it's ugly cousin, the Lolli attack. IE 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4!? <-- I use to play this back when I was around 1900. The only reason I stopped playing it was because I played it in the 45 45 team league and the guy I played thrashed me. Claimed he was lucky and chose to study this special game the night before. And I went into the analysis. There was two problems. 1. It was stupid long analysis. You had to have known a lot to get to that point. 2. I never openly played that opening on that site at the time. I prepared it on ICC for like 8 months. And I "used" it as a surprise weapon in the FICS team league. So it's literally impossible to get that lucky.

Anyway.. For the most part I like the presentation. It's light and it gives "decent" advice. The only thing really I would "Change" is, I agree with tpr in that you logically should study an opening you plan to take to master or higher. The most proper way to study openings for someone who truly wants to get to master is to study "Classical openings" that have low tactical tension. This is almost a direct quote from GM Igor Smirnov, who stated it in his openings 1 course. Suggested things like the Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit/QGDE, Shirov's Ruy Lopez/Guicco piano where he plays d3. Systems like Colle Zukertort/Koltanowski, Stonewall, London. I would likely stay away from most hyper-modern style openings until at least 2000 on here. You can do the French and Triangle slav for black, or the Caro Kahn. I don't suggest 1. e5 for most people only because in order to control the game it requires a lot more study than it would be for a classical counter attacking opening like the Caro and French.

The last problem I see here is, and I hate to say it this way, but 1800 is where the chess starts tightening up on lichess. And when you hit 2000+ you are finding people who are likely closer to their true rating. So doing your analysis where it stops at 2000 and stating 1600 is where tricks stop working is unfair. From my point of view, 1600-1800 is likely still in the beginner stages, and 1800+ you start getting "stronger" like stated earlier. You might find your analysis sharply changes at 2000+. Gambits need more understanding. One of the best gambit lines in 2000+ is the Morra. Unfortunately the Stoddard? I think that is what it's called? It's similar to the Fishing pole. It has better stats than it deserves. Again.. The higher you go, the tighter it gets. So theoretically all the unsound gambits do worse. There is a new trend that people are doing the Englund Gambit. I personally think the Englund gambit is an insult to chess. It's theoretically refuted. And anyone over 1800 should be able to make short work of it. For some reason at the lightning time controls, it's has gotten extremely popular. So if you are playing 1. d4, you want to look at the Englund Gambit's refutation closely.

People should just ignore openings and learn real chess. Those are not my words. The exact quote is, "I will give one free analysis on any game you want if you promise me you will forget openings and learn real chess." - Jesse Kraai to my question about how to study the Sicilian Najdorf, because there was little to no coverage of it on chesslecture.com at the time. Also I asked how to study the white openings easier. That was his whole reply. I went from 1600 to 2000 rather rapidly after that.

@MyChessPosters said [^](/forum/redirect/post/wvD3PU6q) > Comments on https://lichess.org/@/mychessposters/blog/the-best-white-opening-at-your-elo-a-71-million-game-analysis/2zaE3MBm A general comment for your post. Theoretically the Fried liver attack is considered drawish. This has been true for as long as I can remember, like back in 1989. Most people who fall into theoretical losses are the ones who never seen it and didn't take 30 min to find out the modern handling of the opening. There is a recommendation a while back by GM Jesse Kraai who says you might be able to inject new life into the Fried Liver by using it's ugly cousin, the Lolli attack. IE 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4!? <-- I use to play this back when I was around 1900. The only reason I stopped playing it was because I played it in the 45 45 team league and the guy I played thrashed me. Claimed he was lucky and chose to study this special game the night before. And I went into the analysis. There was two problems. 1. It was stupid long analysis. You had to have known a lot to get to that point. 2. I never openly played that opening on that site at the time. I prepared it on ICC for like 8 months. And I "used" it as a surprise weapon in the FICS team league. So it's literally impossible to get that lucky. Anyway.. For the most part I like the presentation. It's light and it gives "decent" advice. The only thing really I would "Change" is, I agree with tpr in that you logically should study an opening you plan to take to master or higher. The most proper way to study openings for someone who truly wants to get to master is to study "Classical openings" that have low tactical tension. This is almost a direct quote from GM Igor Smirnov, who stated it in his openings 1 course. Suggested things like the Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit/QGDE, Shirov's Ruy Lopez/Guicco piano where he plays d3. Systems like Colle Zukertort/Koltanowski, Stonewall, London. I would likely stay away from most hyper-modern style openings until at least 2000 on here. You can do the French and Triangle slav for black, or the Caro Kahn. I don't suggest 1. e5 for most people only because in order to control the game it requires a lot more study than it would be for a classical counter attacking opening like the Caro and French. The last problem I see here is, and I hate to say it this way, but 1800 is where the chess starts tightening up on lichess. And when you hit 2000+ you are finding people who are likely closer to their true rating. So doing your analysis where it stops at 2000 and stating 1600 is where tricks stop working is unfair. From my point of view, 1600-1800 is likely still in the beginner stages, and 1800+ you start getting "stronger" like stated earlier. You might find your analysis sharply changes at 2000+. Gambits need more understanding. One of the best gambit lines in 2000+ is the Morra. Unfortunately the Stoddard? I think that is what it's called? It's similar to the Fishing pole. It has better stats than it deserves. Again.. The higher you go, the tighter it gets. So theoretically all the unsound gambits do worse. There is a new trend that people are doing the Englund Gambit. I personally think the Englund gambit is an insult to chess. It's theoretically refuted. And anyone over 1800 should be able to make short work of it. For some reason at the lightning time controls, it's has gotten extremely popular. So if you are playing 1. d4, you want to look at the Englund Gambit's refutation closely. People should just ignore openings and learn real chess. Those are not my words. The exact quote is, "I will give one free analysis on any game you want if you promise me you will forget openings and learn real chess." - Jesse Kraai to my question about how to study the Sicilian Najdorf, because there was little to no coverage of it on chesslecture.com at the time. Also I asked how to study the white openings easier. That was his whole reply. I went from 1600 to 2000 rather rapidly after that.

Honestly I think aggression is encouraged at every level - you're playing to have fun, not to maximimze wins, and I believe aggressive chess is the best way to achieve this. I play King's gambit / Grand prix as white and Stafford / Dutch as black and though I'm at 1800 it's always a blast.

Honestly I think aggression is encouraged at every level - you're playing to have fun, not to maximimze wins, and I believe aggressive chess is the best way to achieve this. I play King's gambit / Grand prix as white and Stafford / Dutch as black and though I'm at 1800 it's always a blast.

@Toadofsky said ^

So... at what rating levels are 1. d4, 1. e4 or 1. Nf3 best?

i would say e4 as the best move at any level

@Toadofsky said [^](/forum/redirect/post/lf9QEytM) > So... at what rating levels are 1. d4, 1. e4 or 1. Nf3 best? i would say e4 as the best move at any level

@MeWantCookieMobile said ^

Question is the danish playable at 1600-2000?

Yes.. The Danish if you take serious can take you to 2300. But I am not sure I would take it that serious. And what I mean by take it serious is, you learn the true theory. This includes but not limited to, forcing variations, common tactics, positional themes. When most people study the Danish, they only study beginner tactics and then a few forcing variations. And then they hope the person falls for a trick. If you are going to play a gambit, you need to understand why it works, not just hoping someone falls for your prepped line.

Thx

@MeWantCookieMobile said [^](/forum/redirect/post/FXeSfAPN) > > Question is the danish playable at 1600-2000? > > Yes.. The Danish if you take serious can take you to 2300. But I am not sure I would take it that serious. And what I mean by take it serious is, you learn the true theory. This includes but not limited to, forcing variations, common tactics, positional themes. When most people study the Danish, they only study beginner tactics and then a few forcing variations. And then they hope the person falls for a trick. If you are going to play a gambit, you need to understand why it works, not just hoping someone falls for your prepped line. Thx

@tpr

That's a valid long-term perspective! But the data tells a nuanced story:
1/ "Solid" isn't universal — the Italian scores +2.1% at 1800+ but only +0.3% at 1200. Same opening, different effectiveness based on opponent mistake patterns.
2/ Practical wins matter — most players plateau. Optimizing for your actual opponents (not a hypothetical 2000+) is rational, not a waste of time.
3/ Chess should stay fun — exploring openings keeps the game fresh and builds broader pattern recognition.
Your approach is theoretical (prepare for the ideal future). Mine is concrete: what actually works at your level, backed by 71M games. Both valid — depends on your goals!

What opening did you choose? French?

@tpr That's a valid long-term perspective! But the data tells a nuanced story: 1/ "Solid" isn't universal — the Italian scores +2.1% at 1800+ but only +0.3% at 1200. Same opening, different effectiveness based on opponent mistake patterns. 2/ Practical wins matter — most players plateau. Optimizing for your actual opponents (not a hypothetical 2000+) is rational, not a waste of time. 3/ Chess should stay fun — exploring openings keeps the game fresh and builds broader pattern recognition. Your approach is theoretical (prepare for the ideal future). Mine is concrete: what actually works at your level, backed by 71M games. Both valid — depends on your goals! What opening did you choose? French?