Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Weaning myself off 1. b3


  • 10 months ago · Quote · #61

    Prudentia

    trotters64 a écrit :
    AlisonHart wrote:

    I wouldn't ever call an International Master a failure at chess.....I have zero IM norms, so I'm going to go ahead and boldly say that pfren did something right.

    IM pfren thinks it is ok to come onto threads to ridicule others for no good reason other than to satisfy his own warped sense of humour ..if pfren was not such a nasty piece of work in the first place then maybe others would not feel the need to remind him that to date he has failed to attain grandmaster status which is the goal of any serious chess player..this is not the first time that pfren has gratuitously attacked an innocent poster, he is a serial offender and needs to be called on it. others may feel too awestruck by his title to question his opinions , I am not.

    The only serial offender with attacks and insults I see is you.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #62

    trotters64

    Prudentia wrote:
    trotters64 a écrit :
    AlisonHart wrote:

    I wouldn't ever call an International Master a failure at chess.....I have zero IM norms, so I'm going to go ahead and boldly say that pfren did something right.

    IM pfren thinks it is ok to come onto threads to ridicule others for no good reason other than to satisfy his own warped sense of humour ..if pfren was not such a nasty piece of work in the first place then maybe others would not feel the need to remind him that to date he has failed to attain grandmaster status which is the goal of any serious chess player..this is not the first time that pfren has gratuitously attacked an innocent poster, he is a serial offender and needs to be called on it. others may feel too awestruck by his title to question his opinions , I am not.

    The only serial offender with attacks and insults I see is you.

    I care nothing for your opinion but you are a woman so its difficult to insult you as I dont like to hurt a woman's feelings.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #63

    Prudentia

    trotters64 a écrit :
    Prudentia wrote:
    trotters64 a écrit :
    AlisonHart wrote:

    I wouldn't ever call an International Master a failure at chess.....I have zero IM norms, so I'm going to go ahead and boldly say that pfren did something right.

    IM pfren thinks it is ok to come onto threads to ridicule others for no good reason other than to satisfy his own warped sense of humour ..if pfren was not such a nasty piece of work in the first place then maybe others would not feel the need to remind him that to date he has failed to attain grandmaster status which is the goal of any serious chess player..this is not the first time that pfren has gratuitously attacked an innocent poster, he is a serial offender and needs to be called on it. others may feel too awestruck by his title to question his opinions , I am not.

    The only serial offender with attacks and insults I see is you.

    I care nothing for your opinion ..so go and crawl back under your rock. you are boring.

    It was an observation, not an opinion.  Also, if you truely don't care about my illogically percieved 'opinion,' why did you even bother to post a reply?  Not an opinion, just an honest question from an honest girl.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #64

    trotters64

    Prudentia wrote:
    trotters64 a écrit :
    Prudentia wrote:
    trotters64 a écrit :
    AlisonHart wrote:

    I wouldn't ever call an International Master a failure at chess.....I have zero IM norms, so I'm going to go ahead and boldly say that pfren did something right.

    IM pfren thinks it is ok to come onto threads to ridicule others for no good reason other than to satisfy his own warped sense of humour ..if pfren was not such a nasty piece of work in the first place then maybe others would not feel the need to remind him that to date he has failed to attain grandmaster status which is the goal of any serious chess player..this is not the first time that pfren has gratuitously attacked an innocent poster, he is a serial offender and needs to be called on it. others may feel too awestruck by his title to question his opinions , I am not.

    The only serial offender with attacks and insults I see is you.

    I care nothing for your opinion ..so go and crawl back under your rock. you are boring.

    It was an observation, not an opinion.  Also, if you truely don't care about my illogically percieved 'opinion,' why did you even bother to post a reply?  Not an opinion, just an honest question from an honest girl.

    I replied because you took the trouble to post your thoughts however disagreeable i found them to be. when i replied i did not realise you were a girl otherwise i would not have called you a snake.. you say that i am guilty of insulting people but i feel that i only insult those that have first of all insulted me ..it is of course ironic that your post itself was insulting.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #65

    DrCheckevertim

    You could always try 1. h4. Your opponent won't know how to defend such an early pawn flank. They will go into a panic and lose on time, which is the ultimate goal of blitz below GM level.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #66

    joelseymour

    DrCheckevertim wrote:

    You could always try 1. h4. Your opponent won't know how to defend such an early pawn flank. They will go into a panic and lose on time, which is the ultimate goal of blitz below GM level.

    trotters64:  http://www.365chess.com/search_result.php?search=1&m=1&n=276&ms=h4&wid=28595

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #67

    trotters64

    joelseymour wrote:
    DrCheckevertim wrote:

    You could always try 1. h4. Your opponent won't know how to defend such an early pawn flank. They will go into a panic and lose on time, which is the ultimate goal of blitz below GM level.

    trotters64:  http://www.365chess.com/search_result.php?search=1&m=1&n=276&ms=h4&wid=28595

    Thank you Joel for pasting the link but I will definitely not be going for h4..not in this lifetime.thx all the same though.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #68

    Irontiger

    rTist21 wrote:
    pfren wrote:

    Play 1.a3!.

    Your problem is solved: Equally good to 1.b3, and much easier to handle.

    Isn't 1. h3 just as good?

    Not by a landslide.

    An extra ...a6 move is much, much more useful than an extra ...h6 move when playing Black.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #70

    sluck72

    trotters64 wrote:

    I like playing the Nimzo Larsen as white because you can get into some nice tactical lines if all goes well. However, all doesn't go well as often as I would like it.

    I have a 33% win ratio when playing 1.b3 but a 55% win ratio when playing 1.e4 or 1.d4.  It seems obvious that I should not play 1. b3 but I think I am a little addicted to it as it creeps back every now and then ..any constructive suggestions are most welcome.

    probably 1. b3 can make you a better chess player. Figure out why you lose, correct it, and you will have become a better chess player. 

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #71

    trotters64

    balente wrote:

    I read pfern's comment very carefully and I did not see no "insult". GM norms or no, he is a very stronger player then ever you will be.

    1.b3 is rubbish, its the opening that can win you only against a weaker opponent. Against a strong opponent you will fight for equality and probably fail to achieve.

    thx for your contribution you have really added to the discussion . please come again

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #72

    trotters64

    pfren wrote:

    When I was very young, I liked Larsen's style very much. So, I began to play 1.b3 frequently, and stopped after a while because my results were very bad. Reason? Not that 1.b3 is a bad move, but simply because it does require very good positional understanding, which most class players lack.

    Heck, even Larsen himself had some pretty good reasons to reconsider, after some painful losses- this one being rather humiliating:

     

    (the comments come from the tournament bulletin- and getting mated as white in twenty moves is not particuraly inspiring, is it?).

    On the other hand, 1.a3 is way easier to play: You just play your favorite Black systems as White, where the extra a2-a3 tempo might (or might not) prove useful.

    thx for your illustrative example of things going wrong for the best players when playing 1. b3..that is the whole point of my thread ...now i respect your jugement pfren and i am sorry if i offended you earlier in the thread 

    however if i give up on b3 it is ridiculous to consider that i must go to a3 ;there is a big wide world of openings out there..i like the look of an earlier poster's suggestion of a combination c4 , nf3 and g2 looks like a very good set up with a great diagonal for the light squared bishop.

    My objection to 1. a3 is chiefly on aesthetic grounds..it just looks ugly.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #73

    Prudentia

    trotters64 a écrit :
    pfren wrote:

    When I was very young, I liked Larsen's style very much. So, I began to play 1.b3 frequently, and stopped after a while because my results were very bad. Reason? Not that 1.b3 is a bad move, but simply because it does require very good positional understanding, which most class players lack.

    Heck, even Larsen himself had some pretty good reasons to reconsider, after some painful losses- this one being rather humiliating:

     

    (the comments come from the tournament bulletin- and getting mated as white in twenty moves is not particuraly inspiring, is it?).

    On the other hand, 1.a3 is way easier to play: You just play your favorite Black systems as White, where the extra a2-a3 tempo might (or might not) prove useful.

    thx for your illustrative example of things going wrong for the best players when playing 1. b3..that is the whole point of my thread ...now i respect your jugement pfren and i am sorry if i offended you earlier in the thread 

    however if i give up on b3 it is ridiculous to consider that i must go to a3 ;there is a big wide world of openings out there..i like the look of an earlier poster's suggestion of a combination c4 , nf3 and g2 looks like a very good set up with a great diagonal for the light squared bishop.

    My objection to 1. a3 is chiefly on aesthetic grounds..it just looks ugly.

    There may have been some confusion between us trotters64.  Either way, Aron Nimzowitsch and Seigbert Tarrasch had a fued going on about their clashing chess styles.  Tarrasch called Nimzowitsch's style 'ugly' and Nimzowitsch responded with something like, "The beauty in a move isn't how it looks on the board, but the ideas behind it," or something to that effect.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #74

    netzach

    1.b3 is still interesting way to start a game? Experimented with it for a long time. (66 games) and managed 57.6% win ratio!

    Am willing to do the same with 1.a3 soon and see how that goes. :)

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #75

    trotters64

    CoolPrudentia wrote:
    trotters64 a écrit :
    pfren wrote:

    When I was very young, I liked Larsen's style very much. So, I began to play 1.b3 frequently, and stopped after a while because my results were very bad. Reason? Not that 1.b3 is a bad move, but simply because it does require very good positional understanding, which most class players lack.

    Heck, even Larsen himself had some pretty good reasons to reconsider, after some painful losses- this one being rather humiliating:

     

    (the comments come from the tournament bulletin- and getting mated as white in twenty moves is not particuraly inspiring, is it?).

    On the other hand, 1.a3 is way easier to play: You just play your favorite Black systems as White, where the extra a2-a3 tempo might (or might not) prove useful.

    thx for your illustrative example of things going wrong for the best players when playing 1. b3..that is the whole point of my thread ...now i respect your jugement pfren and i am sorry if i offended you earlier in the thread 

    however if i give up on b3 it is ridiculous to consider that i must go to a3 ;there is a big wide world of openings out there..i like the look of an earlier poster's suggestion of a combination c4 , nf3 and g2 looks like a very good set up with a great diagonal for the light squared bishop.

    My objection to 1. a3 is chiefly on aesthetic grounds..it just looks ugly.

    There may have been some confusion between us trotters64.  Either way, Aron Nimzowitsch and Seigbert Tarrasch had a fued going on about their clashing chess styles.  Tarrasch called Nimzowitsch's style 'ugly' and Nimzowitsch responded with something like, "The beauty in a move isn't how it looks on the board, but the ideas behind it," or something to that effect.

    Prudentia, beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder and for me a3 is too ugly to even consider the ideas that lay behind it..maybe that is irrational but there it is.

    Nimzowitch by all accounts was a great character ..I was reading a story about how he missed 1st prize in a tournament when it became clear that he was losing his game against Samisch , whereupon he stood up and shouted out loud  "that I should lose to this idiot". lol.

    I think  pfren thinks sometimes when he posts on these forums "that I should post to this idiot".

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #76

    Prudentia

    Fair enough.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #77

    trotters64

    netzach wrote:

    1.b3 is still interesting way to start a game? Experimented with it for a long time (66 games) and managed 57.6% win ratio!

    Am willing to do the same with 1.a3 soon and see how that goes. :)

    good luck with your a3 adventure ..maybe you can post how you got on after 50/75 games .cheers.:)

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #78

    Prudentia

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 10 months ago · Quote · #79

    Irontiger

    trotters64 wrote:

    My objection to 1. a3 is chiefly on aesthetic grounds..it just looks ugly.

    Wise retreat.


Back to Top

Post your reply: