The slander must end!

Introduction

I feel like 1.e4 e5 is maybe the most misunderstood opening in chess, and I thought I'd write a blog post defending my darling. In short, the two main pieces of misinformation spread about it are, that...

1. 1.e4 e5 is somehow more theoretically intense than other options, and
2. you're simply passively reacting to what the opponent is doing, instead of playing "your game".

I really don't think either of these claim really holds much water.

What's in a name?

Honestly, I feel like there is a fairly simple (and a bit silly) reason for people having weird ideas about 1...e5: it doesn't have a set name, unlike basically every other reputable option. There's the Sicilian, the Caro-Kann, the French, the Scandinavian, the Pirc... and 1.e4 e5. Some might call it "Open Game" or "Double King's Pawn" but not only have these names not really stuck, they lack personality.

Thinking it's "not an opening" causes people to inflate the amount of required opening theory and complexity greatly. People seem to think there's a set amount of complexity, uniqueness or must-know theory connected with anything called an "opening", but that's simply not a case — it's just a generic term for a set of chess moves. When beginners ask how many openings they should learn, I almost want to go full Jordan Peterson on them and ask what they mean by "opening".

And, since White's move is usually the one to define the opening's name, and people think White is dictating the direction the game will take more than in other defences, which is simply not true. For example, you've staked a solid claim in the center and stopped White from playing d2-d4, unlike in many other 1.e4 defences, and opened up your bishop and queen for your own activity. You're fighting White on equal terms, not just passively letting him take over the center!

For just a moment, imagine that 1.e4 e5 is called e.g. the Anderssen Defence, and everything we now call openings under it are called variations. There is no Spanish Game: there are just the Spanish, Italian and Scotch Variations, with which White tries to deal with the tough and assertive Anderssen Defence. Feels different, doesn't it? Now you're forcing White into your game and HE has to react to it: and all we've done is change the name.

Why doesn't it have a name, then?

The sole reason for the lack of a common name for 1.e4 e5 is that it was the way to play the game back in the olden days of Morphy and Anderssen. Even in the first official world championship match between Steinitz and Zukertort in 1886, 11/20 games started with 1.e4 e5, and greats like Paul Morphy played it semi-universally.

The French and Sicilian were occasionally seen as well from fairly early on in chess, but especially the Sicilian was played quite dreadfully in those days — the theory simply wasn't there yet. Speaking of which...

"It's too much theory!"

The most common complaint about 1.e4 e5 is that there is too much opening theory to study, especially compared to other 1.e4 defences, so let's make a small comparison of the more relevant lines.

1.e4 e5

• Spanish
• Italian
• Scotch
• Bishop's Opening
• King's Gambit
• Vienna
• Four Knights

2...d6 Sicilian

• Open Sicilian
• Moscow
• Closed Sicilian
• Grand Prix Attack
• Alapin
• Smith-Morra Gambit

Caro-Kann

• Advance
• Classical
• Exchange
• Fantasy
• Panov Attack
• Two Knights

Does any of these lists seem particularly more daunting than the others? Not to me, especially when you take into consideration the huge amount of pawn structures, positional ideas, and tactical themes the Spanish, Italian and Bishop's Opening share with each other.

Of course, each of 1.e4 e5, Sicilian and Caro-Kann have many, many more random sidelines White might play, and listing sub-variations might take a year — the Advance Caro branches into the Short, Tal, and various other lines — but I tried to narrow each list down to distinct, semi-challenging lines you'll face pretty regularly.

Basically, what it seems to me to boil down to is that there are a couple of serious tries for an objective advantage, a handful of reasonable lines where Black should equalize reasonably early, and then a bunch of mediocre lines. White, having the first move can mess around if he likes, and unless he does something particularly stupid, he's at worst just equal.

Yeah, but it's more common so they'll know more theory!

Maybe, but I haven't really noticed a difference in my games playing the three openings. I would say knowing more is also in a way necessary, as 1.e4 e5 is the defence where White has the hardest time proving an advantage. That's sort of the equilibrium of chess: you study openings in proportion to how much you struggle with them and how often they show up. The Spanish is the most troublesome line by far, but Black can even play for equality with the Berlin if he wants to, and there are many other good variations (of course with their small defects, as in any mainline) if he wants to play for a win.

Another important point is that equality and/or refutation to 1.e4 e5 lines is usually just decent calculation and active, practical play. In most gambit lines, for example, Black can either take the offered material and try to hold it, or refuse or return the pawn for a good position, and in a lotof lines Black basically just has to play ...d5 at a reasonable moment. For some examples:

To me, the treatment of sidelines in, again, the Sicilian and Caro-Kann is notably more difficult — Black has already played one slow move, and can't afford too many more if White plays energetically.

Are there entire libraries of theoretical analysis on 1.e4 e5? Yeah, absolutely, as with every single mainline opening. Does any of it really matter for a random Patzer like me or (most likely) you? No, not really.

In conclusion...

I really don't think the reputation 1.e4 e5 has as some "theory fiend" opening is at all warranted, and there's no real reason to think it lets White dictate the direction of the game any more than in other lines. It's a great opening for all levels of play, and in my opinion the by far best option for learning players.

Thanks for reading! Leave a like if you found this useful.
— Numerot