1. H3. Why would a good player open this way?

I kind of know the answer but still find it strange that a fairly good chess player in slow play always opens with 1. H3. Having the black pieces myself I get off to a good start and try to hang on throughout the game. Played him many times. 

Define good.  You are listed as 1186.  If he is like, 1400, you may think he's good, but 1400 is not good.  It's just "less bad" than 1186.

Also, if he is actually say, 2000, does he only play it against weak opposition, or would he dare play it against a 2200?

A good player wouldn't unless they were like 2000 playing for fun against an 800.

You may need to reassess your definition of a good player.

Cheers

Richie - Chess Coach (message for info)

to troll, obviously.

I used to play 1. a3 in over-the-board tournaments against ~2000 rated opposition, at 40-in-2 time controls.

Of course, 1. a3 is a much better move than 1. h3.

1-h3 and 2-g4 is the Grob opening with the moves inverted. A good opening in my hands. 

I think with his tomes "The New St. George" and "The Creepy Crawly Opening" I.M Basman showed with his strategic plans and ideas there is a bit more to playinging 1.h3 than just and only intending 2.g4

Case in point. Basman's 1992 game against a D. Ledger where he brings about the Makagonov System of the King's Indian via 1.h3

1.h3 may seem a less than ordinary method to open with but if you try to understand Basman's ideas behind it, I think it is well playable

It's a ridiculous move. Arguably worse than no move. The only reason to play it would be as a joke or to embarrass your opponent, or to feel unique or something. It is very bad though.

And h4. 

All terrible, but yeah a3 is slightly less terrible. h4 is one of the worst possible but still not as bad as Nh3 or f3. f3 worst of all time.

I mean your just creating a weakness and basically giving black the first move. White historically scores better because it is the first side that has the opportunity to make a move that serves a purpose.

The idea of 1. a3 is to transpose (as White) into a colors-reversed version of a Black opening in which the "free" a3 move is quite useful.

For instance, if Black meets 1. a3 with 1. ... e5 then you can play 2. c4 and transpose into a colors-reversed Sicilian Defense, with the useful a3-move already made.

If Black plays 1. ... d5 instead, you can transpose into a colors-reversed Benko Gambit with the a3 move (a standard part of the Benko Gambit system) already made.

If Black fianchettoes K-side instead, you can aim for a colors-reversed KID Panno system, in which a3 is a critical part of the standard counter-play.

In all three cases, since you are playing White instead of Black, you are a full move ahead of the usual Sicilian, Benko or Panno line.

It's not worse than no move at all, that's silly.

Anderssen's (1. a3) is just fine, I use it all the time, especially against players who I know prefer 1. e4 with white.  That's what Anderssen himself used it for - as a foil for Morphy's unrivaled talent in Open Game positions.

Almost every e4 opening, and about half of all d4 openings rely on being able to put a knight or bishop on b5.  With the colors reversed and 1. a3 played, the corresponding b4 square is covered.  So 1. a3 e5 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3! and now the reverse-colors Ruy Lopez can't be played, and the corresponding Giuoco Piano (3. ..Bc5) is unstable for black due to the threat of b4, and heck, even the reverse-colored Evans Gambit can be comfortably declined.

Even in the most popular of the Flank openings, the English and the Reti, the support of the b4 square is useful to play with reversed colors.  Heck, white can transpose to a reverse-color Owen Defense (which can be played against both the King's Pawn and the Queen's pawn with good effect) where the notorious b5 weakness (b4 with reversed colors) is already taken care of.

blueemu, Yes if black plays e5 a reverse sicilian is not all that bad.. But if black plays d5 and does not play c5 how do you plan to transpose into a reverse benko? What if black just plays London system then what?

llama, it's debatable, but it weakens g3 which is part of the kingside. If white plans to castle kingside, black can have an early idea of a potential weakness and play accordingly. In many castled positions in the early middle game, for example in the qgd (which you very well may end up against) it is best to not move the h pawn, and instead defend with a move like Nf8 or in this case Nf1.

dsmith please let me know how you plan to reply to a reverse london system?

Can we all agree h4, f3, and Nh3 are worse than no move? I also would include a4 I think..

Against a reversed London system, I would play the A45 system (a K-side fianchetto with d3) in which the defender is already at least equal (according to database statistics), even without the free a3-move. This also has the advantage that if Black tries to cross me up by deferring rather than avoiding ... c5, I am perfectly placed to enter a KID Panno, in which a3 is very useful.

It's possible, of course, that Black can find some obscure line in which the a3 move is of no practical benefit, but it's not likely to be a line that he had intended to play as White. So I would likely get the advantage of taking him out of his comfort zone.

I don't know much about Nh3, but yeah h4 and f3 are objectively terrible.

I certainly wouldn't play any of those moves.