with b3 you essentially hand over the pawn structure to black as he can do a million things with his central pawns. if your strategic arsenal is wide enough this is not a problem but still difficult. with 1 e4 you at least have some say on what structure you can get.
also, even some weird stuff like 1..a5 you have to study, while with 1 e4 you can pretty much just play sensibly and you are better.
I agree b3 is less forceful and gives black a free hand to decide the structure. I typically prefer nf3 to b3 for that reason. At least with nf3 I can prevent e5 and retain the option to play e4. B3 does have some surprise value though, but unless one is well prepared it could back fire
the other thing to consider is a lot of messy positions where there is no clear plan where even if you are better you can easily lose. i don't like those positions. basically if you play the b3 line you are sort of asking for those since if you wanted clear cut positions you would have played something direct.
and additionally almost everything you learn will be exclusive to this opening and likely not going to have any value outside of it. with 1 e4 that is not the case definitely.
i think your teacher is being lazy. You often see it with coaches that rather cookie cutter the same approach with multiple students than to tailor to taste and talent.
Nimzo-larsen is a PERFECT opening for a positional player and you will get exposed to wide array of pawn structures from classical big center, to restained center, to King's indian formation, reversed nimzo-indian, bird, reversed french like structures, sometimes even hedgehog's or english.
i had a coach that kept insisting i play a certain way, i stuck with my 1.b4's and 1.nc6's , and it paid dividends. Having said that, be prepared to put in more work to play certain ways. nimzo-larsen will lead to a lot of stunning victories and crushing defeats at the earliest levels, the positions are really complex and you may reach positions that are sublte and you may not understand at first, but if you do your homework you will wipe out the competition, i won so many e pawns with 1.b3 and 1.e4 b6 back in my scholastic days lol.
P.S oh wow, i thought you were a weaker player, in that case this teacher of yours is being really lazy. if you are already this decent a player , then even less reason to listen to him. IF you want to add a more classical opening to yoour repertoire that's fine, but dont quit on of your babies on someone's suggestion like that, esp when its fully sound.
considering getting one of the 1.b3 books, i think lakdawala's is quite good. the quality of his books often depends from one to another but i think this is one of his better ones.
bishop's opening is actually a fine addition in that it is a classical opening that nonetheless allows white to avoid mountains of theory . It worked wonders for Larsen. They are many ways to play from the quiet 3.d3 to the Usurov gambit, to a superior king gambit transposition.
From what i have seen of the bishops' opening, its also very easy for black to get in trouble with a bloated center as some of the suggested antidotes to it, involve, early c6-d5, which on paper may very well equalize, but white certainly has the easier game, putting constant pressure on this big center. White looks like he gets the more fun side of a dynamically equal game with simple moves like bb3, nc3-, bg5 0-0, re1 etc.
1 b3 is perfectly fine. Fischer played it 4 times and won all 4.
Do not worry about openings, train tactics instead.
If you play against an engine, it will destroy you with middlegame tactics from any opening you impose on it. This proves the opening does not matter and middle game tactics decide.
" think your teacher is being lazy. You often see it with coaches that rather cookie cutter the same approach with multiple students than to tailor to taste and talent."
He is a grandmaster, but he is older and typically teachers "boring" openings to older students. The point is to expose them to clear cut plans and common positional themes (ex. wedges). I agree it sounds a bit cookie cutter. He even admitted I am an atypical student.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Nimzo-larsen is a PERFECT opening for a positional player and you will get exposed to wide array of pawn structures from classical big center, to restained center, to King's indian formation, reversed nimzo-indian, bird, reversed french like structures, sometimes even hedgehog's or english.
i had a coach that kept insisting i play a certain way, i stuck with my 1.b4's and 1.nc6's , and it paid dividends. Having said that, be prepared to put in more work to play certain ways. nimzo-larsen will lead to a lot of stunning victories and crushing defeats at the earliest levels, the positions are really complex and you may reach positions that are sublte and you may not understand at first, but if you do your homework you will wipe out the competition, i won so many e pawns with 1.b3 and 1.e4 b6 back in my scholastic days lol.
Funny enough I also play 1. b4 with success. Usually just in blitz though, never in an OTB tourney. I also am switching to nimzo/indian & QID from king's indian defense, so I would think the nimzo-indian attack would be a good compliment. I do play 1. b6 against the english and Nf3. Again it feels like the nimzo-indian attack would fit in well with all of that.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
P.S oh wow, i thought you were a weaker player, in that case this teacher of yours is being really lazy. if you are already this decent a player , then even less reason to listen to him. IF you want to add a more classical opening to yoour repertoire that's fine, but dont quit on of your babies on someone's suggestion like that, esp when its fully sound.
considering getting one of the 1.b3 books, i think lakdawala's is quite good. the quality of his books often depends from one to another but i think this is one of his better ones."
I am not seeking to transition back into classical openings. The first opening I learned as a kid was the Ruy Lopez exchange variation or 4 knights. I actually sought him out initially because he had material published about the nimzo-indian, but it turns out he wasn't as big a proponent of it as I thought..or he felt that I would gain better understanding with a classical opening like the bishop's opening/giuoco-pianissimo.
One of my issues with it is black is not obligated to play e5. Which means I have to learn the surrounding theory of openings like the Scandinavian defense, Sicilian (canal variation), and have a solid understanding of the king's indian attack from the french, sicilian (e6), and caro-kann...which while the KIA not the worst, sometimes the positions seem a bit stale and don't calculate as naturally as the nimzo-indian does.
Thanks for the book recommendation, it looks interesting and I might get it
Tygxc: I have those games, I need to review them. For a couple reasons it feels like 1. Nf3 is more natural, but I understand it blocks an early f4 and may lose some of the opening's flexibility. I just like the option of being able to transition to some of the other openings I know.
I do agree tactics are important. I do 25-50 puzzles a day as time allows. I just know I need to strengthen my repertoire with a better understanding of opening positions. It's just hard to do that when my heart is not really into the openings I am supposed to be learning.
1 b3 is perfectly fine. Fischer played it 4 times and won all 4.
4 times? Wow amazing.Thats a little less than half of his games! Just a little.
And won too. As compared to where he lost...the Kings Gambit.
1 b3 is perfectly fine. Fischer played it 4 times and won all 4.
4 times? Wow amazing.Thats a little less than half of his games! Just a little.
And won too. As compared to where he lost...the Kings Gambit.
no one likes a smartarse
Ok, so I decided I am going to keep with my nimzo-larsen attack. I got that book you mentioned darkunorthodox88, I think it will be a good resource. I will likely still stick with 1. Nf3 2. b3 for now, but I can use that book to experiment with a transition to 1. b3 in the future.
Ok, so I decided I am going to keep with my nimzo-larsen attack. I got that book you mentioned darkunorthodox88, I think it will be a good resource. I will likely still stick with 1. Nf3 2. b3 for now, but I can use that book to experiment with a transition to 1. b3 in the future.
if you like funny prose be ready for a treat, lakdawala has a unique sense of humor
I have been been playing the nimzo-larsen attack for quite some time. Usually through the move order 1.Nf3 2.b3, though I can play 1. b3 as well.
My teacher has recommended that I play with openings that help me grow positionally and provides simple positions/plans to master strategic concepts. So, strongly suggested the Giuoco Pianissimo. I have played this before as a child, and I see many respectable players have utilized it.
My heart really misses nimzo-indian though, but my mind feels the Giuoco Pianissimo/bishop's opening may be helpful...I still use the nimzo/larsen with success in blitz matches online. I am about to start delving deeper into the Giuoco Pianissimo.
Has anyone ever been torn between two openings? Any comments about either opening? I would like to start playing OTB tournaments again, so I need focus my study.