Who thinks 1. a3 is the most WORST opening in chess. There is no point in doing that stupid move. I have called it Idiot Defence. Comment if you agree that its the most stupidest move you could ever do in chess.
I dont think it's the worst. Bur I don't think it's very strong. Sometimes I play 1. a4 trying for 2. Ra3! and developing my rook early on. But I usually start (as white) with 1. e4.
Nh3, Na3 both have f3 and c3, or g3 Nf4, b3 Nc4 etc. and at least you have made yourself a game plan (...)
The plan being to develop a knight in three moves instead of one to reach an inferior square. But of course, in bullet, it gives you the next three moves to play without thinking, so it wins time which is the only important factor.
1.a3 can transpose to "real" openings, and that's the whole idea of it - not 2.b4 crap or that kind of stuff.
No. You probably don't know anything.
Of course, personal attacks are easier than finding chess analysis to back up one's argument.
What is the splendid plan behind Na3 and c3 ?
Nh3, Na3 both have f3 and c3, or g3 Nf4, b3 Nc4 etc. and at least you have made yourself a game plan (...)
The plan being to develop a knight in three moves instead of one to reach an inferior square. But of course, in bullet, it gives you the next three moves to play without thinking, so it wins time which is the only important factor.
1.a3 can transpose to "real" openings, and that's the whole idea of it - not 2.b4 crap or that kind of stuff.
No. You probably don't know anything.
Of course, personal attacks are easier than finding chess analysis to back up one's argument.
What is the splendid plan behind Na3 and c3 ?
Don't really need plans to win games against patzers.
Simply put, after g6 the move a3 is completely useless and black has the typical opening advantage that white usually would have.
I think the International master has struck it firmly on the head with his comment about stereotypical thought but what do you expect when the modern developing chess player is constantly forced feed the dogma stemming the various schools of chess? The result is they either can’t or won’t string a rational coherent consideration or assessment together. I also tend to think that modern technology in the guise of cheaper stronger hardware and chess software that is ever incresing in strength has done nothing but simply exacerbate this problem. Your modern developing chess player no longer has the overwhelming need to set up a board, get a chess book and actually study games and or theory taking the time to actually think, rationalize out and try to understand what is try to be achieved. Now they have grandmaster strength chess programs on hardware that only a few years ago would’ve been out of the reach of most modern middle class families in the first world. Into this they can load readily available games files and e.books to learn concepts by rope.
The problem with all this is that great bane of the twentieth century, the internet, now provides such clueless individuals a ready platform to make asinine comments readily all at the cost of an internet connection.
How anyone can claim that 1.a3 g6 is quite strong is beyond me. Various sources indicate that the variation 1.a3 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f4 of the Pirc Defense is anything but good for Black. In this opening position a3 is used to discourage the usual c5 & Qa5 hijinks because b4 can be played. There is, as it has been mentioned already, the St. Petersburg Attack (and please blame Chess Monthly from the UK for the name and not me) in the Sicilian Defense 1.e4 c5 2.a3. Grand master Alexi Bezgodov in his book “Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3” points that 2…g6 can be simply meet with 3.b4 anyway and 3…Bg7 is meet with the glaring obvious 4.Nc3 with Bg7xc3 not being that much of an issue (Chapter 8 pages 116 through 138). Bezgodov also mentions the possibility of playing a Smith-Morra type attack with 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 and or playing 3.c3 immediately.
I could go on but the point is 1.a3 is a single move by White and depending on how Black reacts it can be put to use as, also pointed out, a transpositional tool or given a chance it can be used in an original fashion (I must confess a weakness for ‘The Creepy Crawly Opening’).
Any opening is only as good as you use it and how your opponent lets it be…
cheers
Simply put, after g6 the move a3 is completely useless and black has the typical opening advantage that white usually would have.
People who think that stereotypically are completely useless.
White may find half a dozen ways to make the little move a2-a3 something more than useless.
So, after 1.a3 g6 we play a regular game of chess. The one who plays better, wins the game.
Well, I guess being told that after a3 g6! black is better by a grandmaster means that I believe things stereotypically (as stereotypically, GMs are usually right). Also, I'm accussed of using engines and only trusting their evaluation, because of course, all engines recommend g6 (not really).
By the way, among other things black has the choice of 1. a3 g6 2. e4 c5, going into a hyper-accelerated dragon where white has played 2. a3?!, instead of your stupid pirc line. It also doesn't matter that black has absolutely huge results in this line after all white moves, because of your book (I can't believe white can claim anything after 1. a3 g6 2. e4 c5 3. b4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6), and black has several other tries than this or Bxc3?!
In fact, how anyone can claim an advantage for white in the 1. a3 g6 2. e4 c5 line is beyond me.
And yes pfren, even in terrible openings the better player usually wins. That's chess.
In fact, in the chess base mega database, the only moves with a positive white score after 1. a3 g6! are 2. Nc3 (played just 9 times), 2. h3 (played just 3 times, and 2. g4 (played twice).
The highest played moves in my database are g3, Nf3, and c4, all played more than 70 times and all scoring less than 50%.
In fact, after 2. d4 or 2. e4 white scores just 35%.
After 1. a3 g6! the database shows that white's results are the worst out of any logical black move (h6 and h5 score better, but are only played less than 10 times compared to 400+ g6 games, and both look illogical), but you don't see how anyone can claim that a3 g6! is strong.
chess.com's database also agrees with my assessment:
| 1...d5 | 103 |
|
|||
| 1...g6 | 85 |
|
|||
| 1...e5 | 71 |
|
|||
| 1...Nf6 | 66 |
|
|||
| 1...Ngf6 | 66 |
|
|||
| 1...c5 | 17 |
|
|||
| 1...a6 | 8 |
|
|||
| 1...f5 | 6 |
|
|||
| 1...e6 | 4 |
|
|||
| 1...b5 | 2 |
|
|||
| 1...c6 | 2 |
|
|||
| 1...d6 | 2 |
|
|||
| 1...h6 | 2 |
|
|||
| 1...b6 | 1 |  Velimirovic Dragoljub (SCG) - Planinec Albin (SLO) |
Yes, I'm useless too.
People who stereotypically think that a3 might someway be useful are less than useless.
I also love how they advocate the stupid move a3 and attack the logical and correct move g6.
Now, those two usually don't troll in my experience, but they are definately trolling this thread.
lol thread
as someone who has actually played 1 a3 for a while, i honestly don't get the a3 g6!!!!!!?!?!?!??! hype though i've seen it recommended in a bunch of places.
looks like as good a move as any to me.
on the merits of 1 g6, who has ever played 1 g3 as white? it is pretty awesome, though i hardly see anyone using it, let alone using it as a transpositional device (which is a great idea, but then you can argue against 1 g3 move order)
database saying that white gets 35% after 2 d4 or e4 is a bit amusing. surely that doesn't have anything to do with the objective merits of the position?
Who thinks 1. a3 is the most WORST opening in chess. There is no point in doing that stupid move. I have called it Idiot Defence. Comment if you agree that its the most stupidest move you could ever do in chess.
I disagree, I believe 1. h4 is far worse!
I like a3 - just not as an opening move.
just another pointless forum by him....
When you are not rated above GM level, you can play pretty much anything and still get a playable position.
Miles played 1. a3 against Karpov once and won by the way.
It's called the Anderssen Opening. If Anderssen thought it would be a playable move, we're not really in a place to critisize his logic behind it.
I play it occasionally and it's not nearly as gruesome as the Damiano Defense, for instance.
Nh3, Na3 both have f3 and c3, or g3 Nf4, b3 Nc4 etc. and at least you have made yourself a game plan (...)
The plan being to develop a knight in three moves instead of one to reach an inferior square. But of course, in bullet, it gives you the next three moves to play without thinking, so it wins time which is the only important factor.
1.a3 can transpose to "real" openings, and that's the whole idea of it - not 2.b4 crap or that kind of stuff.
No. You probably don't know anything.