b3, Ba3

I've been trying this out in a few games with good success.

Has this opening a name?

Should I carry on with it?

This is the only Master-Level game with 1.b3 2.Ba3, and it was ironically followed up with an early Bb2. That opening is not very good because it doesn't attempt to control the center. Black has an advantage in that line. Technically speaking, the name of the opening would be the Nimzo-Larsen Attack (1.b3).

Thnx.

I play 10/0 games and Ba3 creates the 'huh?' factor.

On average it takes the opponent about 10-15 secs to respond :)

It might be playable against some lines but if 1...e5, Ba3 is a very poor choice.

Ba3 contributes a lot to the "ha! ha!" factor. It's not difficult finding moves which make no sense, but 2. Ba3 is one of the funniest ones.

I'm glad to see some master played it.

This came about because i am  teaching my son (5 year old) about chess.

He has a thing about bishops. So I was asking him where would he place the bishop after I moved b3. a3 was where he placed it !

Yep, i agree with the ha! ha! factor.

I tried something similar with black.

I have no idea what this defense would be called.

I've just looked at some of GM Hikaru games on here.

He like to open with b3 :)

I don't think he's ever followed up with Ba3.

Well, it seems to need more concentration than other openings.

The last 2 games i gave away my Q :((

I think the idea of playing Ba3 and then retreating back to b2 is simply to get into a Black structure type of idea.  There are some Queen's Indians games where Black will play ...Ba6 and then retreats to b7.

What is your reasoning for wanting to play Ba3 on move 2?  What do you seek to gain by playing such a move?

Ba3 to hopefully trade the dark square bishops and perhaps block the k side castling.

It's a horrible idea.  All you are doing is helping Black.

1.b3 e5! 2.Ba3? Bxa3! 3.Nxa3 and now you have the following issues:

A) Black has played ...e5, and will play ...d6 shortly.  He places his pawns on dark squares, and has removed his bad bishop.

B) White has already advanced b3, weaking the dark squares on the Queenside, and yet you trade off the Dark-Squared Bishop?

C) White's Knight is forced to the edge of the board

Advantage Black!

I just had a hair raising game.

Black played BxB 

lol

Then why play it on move 2, when you have no guarantee that they will play into that plan?  Consider how you wish to respond against every move out there with this plan...if you cannot find a satisfactory response against every idea out there, then consider if 2. Ba3 is a good idea for you.

For me, I would handle it like this (since I am a Dutch player by trade):

I agree with ThrillerFan. 1...e5 is the most popular response to 1. b3 and it ruins your plan. After playing 2. Ba3?, Black can exchange the dark-square bishops, causing several problems for White. Since you no longer have your dark-square bishop, b3 seems like an unnecessary pawn move. In the process, White's knight becomes misplaced on the passive square. Remember that a knight on the rim is (usually) grim! Black can simply develop and take advantage of White's weaknesses. It doesn't lose, but it's weak. I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

P_or, just because you won doesn't mean that the opening you chose was good. I hate to be critical, but it's weak. Why should you use this opening when you better openings to choose from?

I know :(

I lose a lot too, especially against better players.

P_, if you want to play 1. b3, the standard lines involve 2. Bb2, which is very acceptable, and there is a very strong group on chess.com where you can learn the lines, if you are interested.

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/1b3-nimzo-larsen-attack

I'm sure IM Torstein Bae would want to have a word first. Or, since he's becoming a lawyer, maybe he'll just silently let you do it, and then sue your ass!