I was once that kid and got thoroughly reamed, steamed, and dry cleaned when I visited an adult club around 12 years old and don’t know if anyone tried to tell me what I was doing wrong or it went over my head. After getting what for me was the perfect chess book at the time I went back to the club a few years later and started to collect my share of adult scalps. More info on my blog, click on the globe. ---->
I also had a few years in the Army (70-73) and getting to meet people I would have never been able to without knowing how to play chess and one of them kept me from going to a VERY isolated post, took me to ECD events, and a chess club near the Mercedes plant NW of Stuttgart. One player kept trying for the 4-move against me but never did seem to improve.
Edit: maybe 1. e3 e5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Bxc3 6. Qxc3 Qe7 7. a3 d5 is =, as White’s score is under 50%. But Ivanchuk has played White here.
I call 1.e3 a silly move because White gives up the option of 1.e4 without provocation. But White has every right to try for advantage in the resultant positions: just seems less flexible. Or maybe it’s me who’s less flexible!
Facing 1 e3 from a reasonably strong opponent, I’d assume he’s aiming for some favorite systems via transposition.
Where I see the inflexibility: by 1 e3, White forgoes some sharper lines against certain Black setups, e.g., a Black king-side fianchetto. So, rather than let White play a Sicilian or French with a move in hand, I’d probably answer it with 1 … g6.
Probably. Although I sometimes play it, the exchange French is not very good for White. Playing it a move down is probably not a great idea.
Someone once pulled 1.e3 on me. I thought he was toying with me, hot head that I am, and almost resigned on the spot. I should have, as I lost the game.
Someone told me once that a study had been done where the position after 1. e3 e5 2. e4 was presented to players of the Black pieces to continue. He said that the players felt very uncomfortable playing the position, and they reported having headaches. Even players who were avid 1.e4 players found that playing the position in reverse caused them difficulty in remembering what to play in the opening. Playing reversed openings and for transpositions can cause psychological ripples and make one’s opponent spend time to readjust to the new situation.
I can imagine a number of transpositions to well studied openings while avoiding exchanges and move order problems. However, if Black plays 1…d6, White has given up the chance to play aggressive systems against the Pirc and King’s Indian. You also can’t play normal gambits against 1…f5. How can you play anything but inchworm chess against 1…c6? What to do if Black plays 1…e6 and plays “little brother” or mimic chess for a while?
It’s a normal Exchange French, and White is not a move down. The position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 is the same as after 1.e3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.dxe4 d5, with White to move in each case.
There’s been plenty of books written about playing unorthodox openings, in which the main goal of the opening is to get the opponent out of thier “safe zone”. I’d imagine it mostly works against sub master level players. I’m sure there are plenty of example of master and grandmaster level unorthodox play. Still, unorthodox by definition means openings and defences that don’t see regular play.
Chess is a complex abstract game that no one can solve. It involves control of time and space. The player that controls these two variables is usually the winner. We learn on the shoulders of others what is best by test.
I learned my lessons about openings decades ago. On the white side of a Giucco Piano, I uncorked what I thought was a brilliant bishop sacrifice on about move 18. I lost, but ends up it was good for a draw had I played it right. But my main point is, I thought so highly of myself for finding this, and my opponent informed me that he knew this sacrifice well already from his opening study. And we were just a bunch of 1800’s at the time!
That’s when I took up the Modern Defense as Black, and d4 as White. I figured I stood less of a chance of losing to an opponent who just “outbooked” me… I was pretty successful with this opening, I’d have to say. Besides, it seemed to fit my style.
On another topic in this thread, I read someone who complained that he pressed too hard as white, and tended to lose. That was a lifelong problem of mine, I could never shake it. I felt I "had" to win as white, or it was shameful. Thus, my results were probably not better as white than black.
So, on ICC, the last few games as white, I’ve taken this thread to heart and played almost like Black. I play QGD and Pirc’s Reversed, and other assorted openings, without striving for an advantage. And lo and behold, it’s working. Of course i’m playing speed (I refuse to play slow chess over the internet and probably face Fritz and Houdini in clothes), and playing only in the 1600’s, so it’s hardly scientific…
Tell that to the jokers on the internet, who, when following a game on the internet with their engines, announce that the position is drawn as soon as the engine reads less than ±0.10!
A line is 1.e3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.d4 and it’s Queen’s Gambit Declined with early e3, before developing the dark-squared Bishop. Certainly, it has a right to exist and there are worse things White can do to its position in the first 3 moves. I would still be glad to see it playing Black.
