Why not on move 1? Because e4, d4, c4, Nf3, b3, g3 are better moves. Why deliberately play an inferior move? 1.a3 does nothing. There is no threat for black to put a piece or pawn on b4 on the first move, so 1.a3 accomplishes ZILCH.
Anderssen Opening
Sort:
I like 1c4 e5 2a3 ! especially if the black player plays something like the Morra/c3 Sicilian as white. It sort of says "OK let's play a Sicilian with colours reversed with the QRP forward one square."
1. a3
is no good
I played a 1...e5 Sicilian today, was a reversed Dragon of sorts and he even got in a thematic d5 break in early. He got a big advantage then fell for a tactical trick and I won.
"Why not on move 1? Because e4, d4, c4, Nf3, b3, g3 are better moves. Why deliberately play an inferior move?"
That's what I think as well. I only play e3 to drive away a bishop or something. I still don't see the sense on move 3 or 4 either, epecially if nothing is going on over on the queenside yet. Is it that wasting move one is worse than wasting move 3? Must be something like that.
Kind of in the theme of an already active thread...
A fondness for a3 was noted in the other thread. I have noticed it myself and often use it myself, but usually only when the position demands it.
That makes me wonder why Anderssen's Opening isn't more popular? I don't play it because I only do a3 with an immediate, tangible reason. I am asking those who use a3 as a matter of course whether needed or not. For them, I would think it would be a favorite so what holds people back?
Trying to get into the head of someone who plays a style that I don't. If a3 is a good on move 3 or 4, why not on move 1? I know my own reasons but for those comfortable with a jagged queenside pawn chain, it would have to be something else.