Answers.Body: <p>What about slow plan (1.e4, Nf3, Bc4, d3, c3, 0-0, Nd2), then depending on what the opponent does, you can play d4 or move the knight on d2 -> f1 -> g3 (and potentially f5) and make something happen on the king side.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-30T12:12:25.270Z
Answers.Text: I second this recommendation. There are no strict theoretical lines to be feared (comprehension > memorization), while at the same time you have a lot of latent attacking potential against the opponent's centre and/or king (which weaker opponents will frequently underestimate - e.g. h6/h7 bishop sacrifices are always in the cards).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-30T03:52:17.420Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-30T16:53:29.853Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-01-30T16:53:29.853Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.Body: <p>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4</p>
  
  <p>First: Giuoco piano translates to "quiet game" so you have an odd expectation.  There are plenty of ways to make it sharp however.  You mentioned the Evan's gambit, but there is also the 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 gambit (which I played a ton of as a kid, but the name escapes me).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:35:14.757Z
Answers.Text: @ Ywapom Thanks for the very good suggestion. It's the Max Lange (or Deutz) gambit. It does have the same downside for me, that I won't ever really get good positions without memorizing more moves than my opponent. 
  
  Maybe I should just go for the Max Lange, I just feel less motivated to study an opening that I don't feel like it's one of the best options, even if it will perform well against humans.
  
  As for having odd expectations, I don't decide to play the Giuoco piano, Black does I'm very happy to play against the sicilian and the Two Knights Attack, that's why I play 1. e4 and 2. Nf3
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alex Lulu
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-30T20:34:44.157Z
Answers.Text: @AlexLulu Lulu In that case you can look to other move 2's for White against 1...e5.   There is 2.d4 which is not as bad as it's reputation.  2.Nc3 going toward Vienna game.   Heck, even Nakamura played 2.Qh5 a few times -- it just leads to an equal position but you are out of book.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T16:17:22.757Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-29T16:17:22.757Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Body: <p>Does anyone have advice to give against the giuoco piano ? I find this opening boring for white after 3... Bc5 and I'd like to find a way to keep playing the italian without risking to play a boring game. I know the Evan's gambit, but I'd rather develop a repertoire on openings I can comprehend instead of relying on preparation. 
  I'm looking for sharper lines that don't require sacrifices a computer or theorician would consider unsound. Would you recommend, 4. O-O, d3, c3, Nc3, or do I have to avoid the italian game completely ? That would be a shame because I enjoy playing against all other replies. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T16:16:32.747Z
Comments.Text: Welcome to Chess.SE! This seems like a rather opinion based question. Could you reword it to make it a little more specific?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T18:34:22.020Z
Comments.Text: I'm curious what you think the main line of the Evans is
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:10:57.537Z
Comments.Text: @Brandon_J I 
  Maybe I should put it this way: how can I make the position more dynamic, with more chances for both sides, without going for a theoretically "unsound" gambit, like the Evans gambit or Max Lange gambit (I know it's untrue to call them unsound, Kasparov has used the Evans gambit in a world championship match). It is just that I want to develop a repertoire allowing me to get good positions, not positions in which my opponents are likely to blunder, to develop "healthy" chess habits and a sustainable repertoire (one that doesn't rely on my opponent making inferior moves).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alex Lulu
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:16:26.867Z
Comments.Text: @IanBush Very good question, because what I had in mind was probably not the main line. 
  What I had in mind is this 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4
  5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. O-O Bb6
  9. cxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Bxd4 11. Nc3 Nf6 12. Nb5 d5
  13. exd5 Bxa1 14. Ba3 Qe5 15. f4 Bd4+ 16. Kh1 Qe3
  17. Nxd4 Qxb3 18. Re1+ Kd8 19. Be7+ Kd7 20. Nxb3 c6
  21. dxc6+ bxc6 22. Bxf7
  And other variations I'm seeing on chesstree.net din't seem to produce better results.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alex Lulu
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:17:26.087Z
Comments.Text: @AlexLulu I think that you are asking for "sharper" lines. If you reword the question in this way, that might be better.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:19:54.700Z
Comments.Text: I know the Evans Gambit is playable, I'm just getting the impression that whoever is better prepared will gain the upper hand, but I'd rather get positions I can understand myself instead of relying solely on preparation.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alex Lulu
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:20:53.203Z
Comments.Text: Do you have a rating?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:28:14.683Z
Comments.Text: @IanBush 
  Not an official one, about 1650 on chess.com at the moment (trying to improve by building a solid repertoire). 
  I know it makes me look ridiculous for saying the Evans gambit is not sound while being so low-rated, because it would be a great weapon at that level. 
  I think I cannot comprehend those positions, and have the impression that playing such an opening would force me to memorize all the variations to get a good position. 
  
  Maybe I'm totally wrong and should go for the Evans gambit, feel free to tell me if you think it would be a good and sustainable option.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alex Lulu
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T19:33:25.897Z
Comments.Text: @IanBush To be perfectly honest, maybe my unwillingness to learn the Evans gambit is due to the fact that engines don't like it. I know this is not an intelligent way to see it, as I will be playing humans, but it motivates me less to invest time in openings that are not "inherently good"
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alex Lulu
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-29T23:04:52.037Z
Comments.Text: @AlexLulu To give you some confidence in the theoretical soundness of gambits, look into the recent match that AlphaZero played against Stockfish. It played gambits (sacrificing much more than just one pawn) on numerous occasions and it crushed Stockfish mercilessly.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Tags: <italian-game>
Title: Making the giuoco piano interesting as white
ThreadText: # Making the giuoco piano interesting as white
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-29)
  
  Does anyone have advice to give against the giuoco piano ? I find this opening boring for white after 3... Bc5 and I'd like to find a way to keep playing the italian without risking to play a boring game. I know the Evan's gambit, but I'd rather develop a repertoire on openings I can comprehend instead of relying on preparation.
  I'm looking for sharper lines that don't require sacrifices a computer or theorician would consider unsound. Would you recommend, 4. O-O, d3, c3, Nc3, or do I have to avoid the italian game completely ? That would be a shame because I enjoy playing against all other replies.
  
  **Tags:** italian-game
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Welcome to Chess.SE! This seems like a rather opinion based question. Could you reword it to make it a little more specific?  
  > **username_2**: I'm curious what you think the main line of the Evans is  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 I  Maybe I should put it this way: how can I make the position more dynamic, with more chances for both sides, without going for a theoretically "unsound" gambit, like the Evans gambit or Max Lange gambit (I know it's untrue to call them unsound, Kasparov has used the Evans gambit in a world championship match). It is just that I want to develop a repertoire allowing me to get good positions, not positions in which my opponents are likely to blunder, to develop "healthy" chess habits and a sustainable repertoire (one that doesn't rely on my opponent making inferior moves).  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Very good question, because what I had in mind was probably not the main line.  What I had in mind is this 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. O-O Bb6 9. cxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Bxd4 11. Nc3 Nf6 12. Nb5 d5 13. exd5 Bxa1 14. Ba3 Qe5 15. f4 Bd4+ 16. Kh1 Qe3 17. Nxd4 Qxb3 18. Re1+ Kd8 19. Be7+ Kd7 20. Nxb3 c6 21. dxc6+ bxc6 22. Bxf7 And other variations I'm seeing on chesstree.net din't seem to produce better results.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 I think that you are asking for "sharper" lines. If you reword the question in this way, that might be better.  
  > **username_0**: I know the Evans Gambit is playable, I'm just getting the impression that whoever is better prepared will gain the upper hand, but I'd rather get positions I can understand myself instead of relying solely on preparation.  
  > **username_2**: Do you have a rating?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2  Not an official one, about 1650 on chess.com at the moment (trying to improve by building a solid repertoire).  I know it makes me look ridiculous for saying the Evans gambit is not sound while being so low-rated, because it would be a great weapon at that level.  I think I cannot comprehend those positions, and have the impression that playing such an opening would force me to memorize all the variations to get a good position.   Maybe I'm totally wrong and should go for the Evans gambit, feel free to tell me if you think it would be a good and sustainable option.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 To be perfectly honest, maybe my unwillingness to learn the Evans gambit is due to the fact that engines don't like it. I know this is not an intelligent way to see it, as I will be playing humans, but it motivates me less to invest time in openings that are not "inherently good"  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 To give you some confidence in the theoretical soundness of gambits, look into the recent match that AlphaZero played against Stockfish. It played gambits (sacrificing much more than just one pawn) on numerous occasions and it crushed Stockfish mercilessly.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2019-01-30. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  What about slow plan (1.e4, Nf3, Bc4, d3, c3, 0-0, Nd2), then depending on what the opponent does, you can play d4 or move the knight on d2 -> f1 -> g3 (and potentially f5) and make something happen on the king side.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: I second this recommendation. There are no strict theoretical lines to be feared (comprehension > memorization), while at the same time you have a lot of latent attacking potential against the opponent's centre and/or king (which weaker opponents will frequently underestimate - e.g. h6/h7 bishop sacrifices are always in the cards).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2019-01-29. Score: 0
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
  
  First: Giuoco piano translates to "quiet game" so you have an odd expectation. There are plenty of ways to make it sharp however. You mentioned the Evan's gambit, but there is also the 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 gambit (which I played a ton of as a kid, but the name escapes me).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: @ username_6 Thanks for the very good suggestion. It's the Max Lange (or Deutz) gambit. It does have the same downside for me, that I won't ever really get good positions without memorizing more moves than my opponent.   Maybe I should just go for the Max Lange, I just feel less motivated to study an opening that I don't feel like it's one of the best options, even if it will perform well against humans.  As for having odd expectations, I don't decide to play the Giuoco piano, Black does I'm very happy to play against the sicilian and the Two Knights Attack, that's why I play 1. e4 and 2. Nf3  
  > **username_6**: @username_0 username_0 In that case you can look to other move 2's for White against 1...e5.   There is 2.d4 which is not as bad as it's reputation.  2.Nc3 going toward Vienna game.   Heck, even Nakamura played 2.Qh5 a few times -- it just leads to an equal position but you are out of book.  
  
  ---
  
  