any thoughts on this opening?

Sort:
darkunorthodox88
wilecoyote1 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

queenside flank moves are very rarely harmonious with king pawn openings (that is e4 with b3, or e5 and b6). Usually its because they are too slow and leave holes on f4

it's definitely slow, but can you explain how it leaves holes on f4? i'm obviously not as knowledgeable about openings as you are, so i'd be curious to know.

if a knight goes on nh5 threatening nf4 how will you stop it? g3 weakens key squares on your kingside. Normally this isnt a big issue since the bishop can go bxf5 but since b3 means your bishop went to bb2, this option is not available (unless you waste even more time with bc1) hence you can say it weakens the dark squares around your kingside.

Konstanein
ThrillerFan wrote:
PuzsyDefender420 wrote:

Sacrificing a bishop so early. Eh not a good move

You're not sacrificing a Bishop. You are trading it for the knight to wreck the pawn structure in similar fashion to the Trompowsky Attack.

A number of GMs played the Exchange Ruy Lopez, including the nut job Bobby Fischer.

Giving up the Bishop for the Knight is not the issue. 5.b3 though is useless and the proof shows there with Black scoring an overall 72% after 5.b3 and winning 57% of all games.

5.b3 just goes to show that White is clueless what he is doing. White should castle here, and follow up with either 6.d3 or 6.d4, depending on which line Black plays, like 6.d3 against 5...Bg4 and 6.d4 against 5...f6. If Black's choice allows for the early d4, White should play it before Black gets in ...c5. White wants to trade that d-pawn for Black's e-pawn, creating a 4-on-3 majority on both sides of the board. White's is a clean 4-on-3 on the kingside, Black's is a crippled 4-on-3 on the queenside. White should not be voluntarily moving his queenside pawns. He should only move a queenside pawn when forced to, or after Black has committed to moving his such that Black can never create a passer. Best he will get is a trade where White maybe gets rid of the b-pawns and Black is left with a and double-c vs a and c.

All 5.b3 does is show that White parroted a few moves in the exchange Ruy, but clearly has zero actual understanding of the opening or what the point is behind it. Ideally, White wants to trade d-pawn for e-pawn and get down to a king and pawn ending, which would almost certainly win for White if achieved.

You do lose your bishop pair with 4. Bxc6 (and bishop pairs are powerful).
But I do agree that 5. b3 isn't a good move in and of itself if White doesn't know what they're doing.

Flatdog0

can someone tell me if this opening as black already exists...

here i have it against the London system...

you may need to flip the board...

MisterOakwood
wilecoyote1 skrev:
MisterOakwood wrote:

Not having analyzed this at all - I think it looks reasonable for a low theory opening. When there is no d-pawn, the e-pawn gets weaker and a queenside fianchetto can make sense. But I doubt that you can play this for an advantage as white.

It sorta just increases pressure on the e pawn, and a defense like f6 from black will lead to a pawn storm on the kingside in addition to having to deal with queenside structural weaknesses for black.

I think that after lets say Bd6, Bb2 and f6 white must go for d4 and open the center. I think he stands reasonable there.

Compadre_J

I think the best follow up for both sides is:

b3 -> c5 -> Bb2 -> f6 -> c3

I think that is the sequence and I think the position is very messy for both sides.

——————

If White doesn’t find c3 in the sequence:

b3 -> c5 -> Bb2 -> f6 -> Plays different

I think Black will consolidate their bind and start winning the game.

——————

If Black doesn’t find c5 in the sequence:

b3 -> Plays different - let’s say f6

I think White can play d4 blasting open the position and start winning the game.

playchessordie19

@MisterOakwood there is a line called the Pereya Attack that uses this opening sequence. Look at a book called The Agile London System for more ideas on it. White would play his Knight to e5 and bring the d2 Knight to f3. ECO D00-D02 should have done lines. Not to bad though chess.com lists it as a Zuckertort Opening.

playchessordie19

Sorry @Flatdog0 I mean-see above post.

trw0311

The Ruy lopez having a baby with the nimzo larsen ?? I hate it ! But the b3 fianchetto is probably not terrible at lower levels. You generally don't want to jump around with ideas, and after trading a bishop for a knight for pawn structure compensation you are kind of defeating the entire purpose of that exchange by junking up your pawn structure. I only fianchetto if I absolutely have to (not my style) so personally I wouldn't play this but it's not horrendous. Chances are you aren't going to be playing 15 lines of ruy lopez theory at your level anyway and there is nothing egregiously wrong with it.