To answer your question about why lines without e3 or e4, those lines I mention DO feature e3 or e4. I am making the specific point that if White plays 4.e3, which is rare compared to other lines FEATURING e3, LIKE 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Bg5 c5 6.e3. The topic is on e3 in general, and he gave "4.e3" as an "Example", but the TOPIC is e3 instead of e4 as a whole, and I was pointing out that you will rarely see 4.e3 comparatively speaking to other lines that feature e3 instead of e4, SUCH AS 4.Nf3 and 5.Bg5.
If you don't understand the point, you never will and are clearly not advanced enough to speak chess at a 2000 level.
I understand your point perfectly well - "4. e3 isn't played as much by good players therefore must not be as good" - right? Not exactly the most rigorous chess analysis - you wouldn't even have to know how to play chess to make that sort of analysis.
Just because something isn't played as much doesn't mean it leads to equality - what opening gets played is also a matter of taste, style, surprise-value and even fashion. There is chess fashion as much as there's hat fashion, good players aren't just machines who will always play objectively the best opening most frequently. Besides I'm not arguing that 4. e3 is objectively as good as 4. e4 or even 4. Nf3 or 4. Bg5 at all as I have already stated, I am arguing white is still significantly ahead and it is not equality at all. As the IM stated it's a dangerous system.
I wasn't aware that playing chess on a 2000 level in chess involved treating what is most frequently played as the Ultimate Truth of what is good. Must be where I was going wrong this whole time!
The whole point is that if White commits too soon to e3, Black can take advantage of the fact that all lines are equal after 4.e3, whereas with delaying e3 (but note that e4 is also not played yet, so there is no ...Nxe4 trick - see original post), it is not as easy. It's called educating the author of the original post why playing e3 TOO SOON can be bad for White. If Black is fully equal by move 4, that is BAD for White in my book. White goes first - he should have a slight advantage over Black!
This is just restating your claim again. You're not adding or showing anything, you're just restating your claim that e3 too early is bad because he commits to it. Saying the whole point is that he can't commit to e3 too early is not showing anything. What if I kept repeating THE WHOLE POINT the d3 ruy lopez is bad because white commits to d3 too early? That's not proving anything, just restating my claim.
As far as your final paragraph, yes, delaying e4 leaves the LIGHT Squared Bishop open, but what about the DARK Squared one? He's going to have to move e4 eventually and it becomes a wasted move for White.
We already went over this. First of all saying "it will have to go to e4 eventually becomes wasted move" is stupid. Do you know the Meran Semi-Slav, one of the most famous and frequent and lengthy openings in the whole of chess? White plays e3 then usually a later e4. I can promise you it is not a wasted move. Really I don't know how you got this idea.
And secondly, the dark-squared bishop can easily be justified on b2. There are mainlines with these moves, in several ways it's ideal here, here it may be particularly useful after d5 has been played and to oppose the g7 bishop. Meanwhile I don't know what miracles you think it's doing on the kingside, especially when the e7 pawn is still in place there's no pin against the queen or anything similar.
This all the more explains WHY White should play 4.Nf3 and either 5.Bg5 or 5.Bf4 BEFORE playing e3, and if he doesn't do that, Black has easy equality! With the Dark squared Bishop outside the pawn chain, before e3 is played, there may never be a need for e3-e4 by White, and often the e3-pawn ends up on d4 after a trade of pawns by Black!
You basically should have answered your own question with your response why 4.e3 is inferior to getting the Bishop out first before playing e3, such as 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Bg5, INTENDING 6.e3, and here 5...c5 is the way to go, where the only way White can get a slight advantage is to go the Benoni route. If he is insistent on e3, then 6.e3 cxd4 7.exd4 d5 is equal.
Wow, you really want him outside the chain don't you? I'm not sure what miracles you think white's dark-squared bishop is performing on f4 or g5, particularly against the fianchetto. As you know moving the queen's bishop to that side of the board leaves one open to Qb6 and similar attacks on the queenside and b2 pawn in many different openings. Black's early movement of that bishop is also not ideal. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5?! what do we move as white? Nc3 followed by cxd5 and then Qb3 or something similar is the most accurate response, hitting that pawn and exposing the clumsily placed bishop. The queen's bishop is very difficult to deploy in an aggressive manner without leaving weaknesses behind for both sides in queen pawn openings. White's best option in the orthodox queen's gambit is to swap for black's dark-squared bishop straightaway - when white is trading off a bishop that early in the game without any attack it is clearly not an amazing attacking piece.
I think you are getting things confused with black needing to get his light-squared bishop out which can indeed be very important. However it's different for black as he can get cramped a lot. White has much more control and a pawn on d5 that cannot be removed (or if it is will be replaced by cxd5). When have you ever seen a game when white quickly got mated getting cramped in the opening and a useless bishop? It would almost never happen without while with black it's quite possible.
Bg5 against the queen's gambit declined or semi-slav, while not obviously and indisputably the best move, has the merit that e6 has been played so the knight is under pressure and there's a pin on the queen, here there's nothing like that, the bishop is almost useless. In addition to that he has a bishop on g7 that is attacking the b2 pawn that your dark-squared bishop was defending and now is not.
This all the more explains WHY White should play 4.Nf3 and either 5.Bg5 or 5.Bf4 BEFORE playing e3, and if he doesn't do that, Black has easy equality! With the Dark squared Bishop outside the pawn chain, before e3 is played, there may never be a need for e3-e4 by White, and often the e3-pawn ends up on d4 after a trade of pawns by Black!
You basically should have answered your own question with your response why 4.e3 is inferior to getting the Bishop out first before playing e3, such as 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Bg5, INTENDING 6.e3, and here 5...c5 is the way to go, where the only way White can get a slight advantage is to go the Benoni route. If he is insistent on e3, then 6.e3 cxd4 7.exd4 d5 is equal.
Nonsense. See this is where you're getting into trouble and proven wrong - when you say "equal". They are not equal. Just look at the position ThrillerFan - white has a pawn on d5 and good control of the centre. A pawn on d5 that cannot be cleared! He has no weaknesses (unlike in the mainlines). I really think may be time to go back to the very basics if you think this position is equal.
And as far as the Bishop holding the b2 pawn - if that is what you are doing with the Bishop, you are basically telling your a1-Rook that he will never see the light of day as he will be blocked for ever by the Bishop!
Right, well this is the only reason why moving the c1 bishop isn't a completely stupid move. It does help develop, especially the rook.
So while some of your arguments, like having e4 available for the Knight, might be legitimate, they give White no advantage if you don't get that Dark-Squared Bishop out from behind the pawn chain first!
Why, so he can be locked on the kingside of the board instead with no hope of doing anything the whole game? I mean one of the whole points of Bg5 is that you could move it back to f4, e3 or d2 after h6, or alternatively you could move Qd2 and Bh6 forcing the exchange of bishops - your bad and useless one for his good one.
So long story short, if White goes for e3-lines:
A) If e3 is played on move 4, White has nothing. 4...O-O and 5...c5 in the majority of cases (i.e. obviously not if 5.c5, but that move is stupid and Black is better in other ways) and Black is fully equal already. Not winning - simply equal, which is fully satisfactory for Black on move 5!
B) If White gets the Bishop out first, maintaining flexibility with the e-pawn, which may still go to e3, then again, Black should not play for ...e5, but rather, once again, ...c5, and White gets a tiny edge if he goes into the Benoni lines, and merely an equal position if he plays 6.e3, though Black in this case must act accordingly, playing 6...cxd4 and 7...d5, not going for the stereotyped move ...d6, claiming "But I am a King's Indian player".
C) If Black looks to force the issue with ...e5, playing moves like ...Re8, then White is usually better in the e3-lines. Black should not take this route if White goes for e3.
Again with this "equality" nonsense.
Really bro, many openings are like this in their main lines. A huge part of your chess education is clearly lacking, you are embarrassing yourself. 4. e3 is a good move and a viable chance for getting ahead.
I also recommend LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL BOARD. You're bringing in all these arguments like "good players play this with a lot more frequency so it must be better" or "e3-e4 must be a waste of time because you use up an extra move instead of just e4", and bizarre pronouncements of "equality" in totally normal positions where white clearly holds onto the opening advantage.
Your "assumptions" are assinine and moronic!
I have NEVER said that popularity equates to soundness. If I did, I would say exactly that, that more occurrences means better theoretically. Why do you think I specifically explained that the issue with 4.e3 is the dark-squared bishop, and if you hold it back, the Rook on a1 suffers? Why do you think I specifically explain the concepts like the loss of tempo compared to other lines? DUH! Moron!
And you question about the Bishop doing nothing outside the pawn chain. If it is useless, trade it off! Which would you rather? A useless minor piece and a useless look and Black has all 8 of his pieces? (Pawns are not "Pieces"), or have a second useful Rook, and get rid of your useless piece, and remove one of Black's knights? The latter sure sounds better than the former. Obviously specifics matter as to whether to trade off the Bishop for a Knight or not. There is no "generalization".
Also, your hogwash about a White advantage. I guess that's why Black scores near (9...Re8) or above (9...Na6 or 9...Bg4) 50% against your proposed line.
https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=18&n=167515&ms=d4.Nf6.c4.g6.Nc3.Bg7.e3.O-O.Nf3.c5.d5.d6.Be2.e6.O-O.exd5.cxd5&ns=7.14.11.15.17.17.5370.7886.963.520.16989.11452.15850.171521.150504.172706.167515
Where you got the absolutely moronic idea that my claim is popularity equates to level of soundness is dumber than anything I've heard come out of Trump's mouth, and Trump is the one of the dumbest people alive on the planet!
And by the way, I do look at an actual board. Board and 32 pieces, not some stupid 2-D thing on a stupid computer screen, like chess.com! Best way to study is on a real board like what you use to play OTB tournaments!
I should also add that in those 277 games on chess365.com, Black scores over 65% (and over 56% of his total games are wins!)
A valid sample size is 30, so whether Black scores over 65% across 277 games or over 65% across 5,000 games doesn't matter. It's still a 65+ percent score across a valid sample size.
Try again!
To answer your question about why lines without e3 or e4, those lines I mention DO feature e3 or e4. I am making the specific point that if White plays 4.e3, which is rare compared to other lines FEATURING e3, LIKE 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Bg5 c5 6.e3. The topic is on e3 in general, and he gave "4.e3" as an "Example", but the TOPIC is e3 instead of e4 as a whole, and I was pointing out that you will rarely see 4.e3 comparatively speaking to other lines that feature e3 instead of e4, SUCH AS 4.Nf3 and 5.Bg5.
If you don't understand the point, you never will and are clearly not advanced enough to speak chess at a 2000 level.
I understand your point perfectly well - "4. e3 isn't played as much by good players therefore must not be as good" - right? Not exactly the most rigorous chess analysis - you wouldn't even have to know how to play chess to make that sort of analysis.
Just because something isn't played as much doesn't mean it leads to equality - what opening gets played is also a matter of taste, style, surprise-value and even fashion. There is chess fashion as much as there's hat fashion, good players aren't just machines who will always play objectively the best opening most frequently. Besides I'm not arguing that 4. e3 is objectively as good as 4. e4 or even 4. Nf3 or 4. Bg5 at all as I have already stated, I am arguing white is still significantly ahead and it is not equality at all. As the IM stated it's a dangerous system.
I wasn't aware that playing chess on a 2000 level in chess involved treating what is most frequently played as the Ultimate Truth of what is good. Must be where I was going wrong this whole time!
The whole point is that if White commits too soon to e3, Black can take advantage of the fact that all lines are equal after 4.e3, whereas with delaying e3 (but note that e4 is also not played yet, so there is no ...Nxe4 trick - see original post), it is not as easy. It's called educating the author of the original post why playing e3 TOO SOON can be bad for White. If Black is fully equal by move 4, that is BAD for White in my book. White goes first - he should have a slight advantage over Black!
This is just restating your claim again. You're not adding or showing anything, you're just restating your claim that e3 too early is bad because he commits to it. Saying the whole point is that he can't commit to e3 too early is not showing anything. What if I kept repeating THE WHOLE POINT the d3 ruy lopez is bad because white commits to d3 too early? That's not proving anything, just restating my claim.
As far as your final paragraph, yes, delaying e4 leaves the LIGHT Squared Bishop open, but what about the DARK Squared one? He's going to have to move e4 eventually and it becomes a wasted move for White.
We already went over this. First of all saying "it will have to go to e4 eventually becomes wasted move" is stupid. Do you know the Meran Semi-Slav, one of the most famous and frequent and lengthy openings in the whole of chess? White plays e3 then usually a later e4. I can promise you it is not a wasted move. Really I don't know how you got this idea.
And secondly, the dark-squared bishop can easily be justified on b2. There are mainlines with these moves, in several ways it's ideal here, here it may be particularly useful after d5 has been played and to oppose the g7 bishop. Meanwhile I don't know what miracles you think it's doing on the kingside, especially when the e7 pawn is still in place there's no pin against the queen or anything similar.
This all the more explains WHY White should play 4.Nf3 and either 5.Bg5 or 5.Bf4 BEFORE playing e3, and if he doesn't do that, Black has easy equality! With the Dark squared Bishop outside the pawn chain, before e3 is played, there may never be a need for e3-e4 by White, and often the e3-pawn ends up on d4 after a trade of pawns by Black!
You basically should have answered your own question with your response why 4.e3 is inferior to getting the Bishop out first before playing e3, such as 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Bg5, INTENDING 6.e3, and here 5...c5 is the way to go, where the only way White can get a slight advantage is to go the Benoni route. If he is insistent on e3, then 6.e3 cxd4 7.exd4 d5 is equal.
Wow, you really want him outside the chain don't you? I'm not sure what miracles you think white's dark-squared bishop is performing on f4 or g5, particularly against the fianchetto. As you know moving the queen's bishop to that side of the board leaves one open to Qb6 and similar attacks on the queenside and b2 pawn in many different openings. Black's early movement of that bishop is also not ideal. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5?! what do we move as white? Nc3 followed by cxd5 and then Qb3 or something similar is the most accurate response, hitting that pawn and exposing the clumsily placed bishop. The queen's bishop is very difficult to deploy in an aggressive manner without leaving weaknesses behind for both sides in queen pawn openings. White's best option in the orthodox queen's gambit is to swap for black's dark-squared bishop straightaway - when white is trading off a bishop that early in the game without any attack it is clearly not an amazing attacking piece.
I think you are getting things confused with black needing to get his light-squared bishop out which can indeed be very important. However it's different for black as he can get cramped a lot. White has much more control and a pawn on d5 that cannot be removed (or if it is will be replaced by cxd5). When have you ever seen a game when white quickly got mated getting cramped in the opening and a useless bishop? It would almost never happen without while with black it's quite possible.
Bg5 against the queen's gambit declined or semi-slav, while not obviously and indisputably the best move, has the merit that e6 has been played so the knight is under pressure and there's a pin on the queen, here there's nothing like that, the bishop is almost useless. In addition to that he has a bishop on g7 that is attacking the b2 pawn that your dark-squared bishop was defending and now is not.
This all the more explains WHY White should play 4.Nf3 and either 5.Bg5 or 5.Bf4 BEFORE playing e3, and if he doesn't do that, Black has easy equality! With the Dark squared Bishop outside the pawn chain, before e3 is played, there may never be a need for e3-e4 by White, and often the e3-pawn ends up on d4 after a trade of pawns by Black!
You basically should have answered your own question with your response why 4.e3 is inferior to getting the Bishop out first before playing e3, such as 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Bg5, INTENDING 6.e3, and here 5...c5 is the way to go, where the only way White can get a slight advantage is to go the Benoni route. If he is insistent on e3, then 6.e3 cxd4 7.exd4 d5 is equal.
Nonsense. See this is where you're getting into trouble and proven wrong - when you say "equal". They are not equal. Just look at the position ThrillerFan - white has a pawn on d5 and good control of the centre. A pawn on d5 that cannot be cleared! He has no weaknesses (unlike in the mainlines). I really think may be time to go back to the very basics if you think this position is equal.
And as far as the Bishop holding the b2 pawn - if that is what you are doing with the Bishop, you are basically telling your a1-Rook that he will never see the light of day as he will be blocked for ever by the Bishop!
Right, well this is the only reason why moving the c1 bishop isn't a completely stupid move. It does help develop, especially the rook.
So while some of your arguments, like having e4 available for the Knight, might be legitimate, they give White no advantage if you don't get that Dark-Squared Bishop out from behind the pawn chain first!
Why, so he can be locked on the kingside of the board instead with no hope of doing anything the whole game? I mean one of the whole points of Bg5 is that you could move it back to f4, e3 or d2 after h6, or alternatively you could move Qd2 and Bh6 forcing the exchange of bishops - your bad and useless one for his good one.
So long story short, if White goes for e3-lines:
A) If e3 is played on move 4, White has nothing. 4...O-O and 5...c5 in the majority of cases (i.e. obviously not if 5.c5, but that move is stupid and Black is better in other ways) and Black is fully equal already. Not winning - simply equal, which is fully satisfactory for Black on move 5!
B) If White gets the Bishop out first, maintaining flexibility with the e-pawn, which may still go to e3, then again, Black should not play for ...e5, but rather, once again, ...c5, and White gets a tiny edge if he goes into the Benoni lines, and merely an equal position if he plays 6.e3, though Black in this case must act accordingly, playing 6...cxd4 and 7...d5, not going for the stereotyped move ...d6, claiming "But I am a King's Indian player".
C) If Black looks to force the issue with ...e5, playing moves like ...Re8, then White is usually better in the e3-lines. Black should not take this route if White goes for e3.
Again with this "equality" nonsense.
Really bro, many openings are like this in their main lines. A huge part of your chess education is clearly lacking, you are embarrassing yourself. 4. e3 is a good move and a viable chance for getting ahead.
I also recommend LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL BOARD. You're bringing in all these arguments like "good players play this with a lot more frequency so it must be better" or "e3-e4 must be a waste of time because you use up an extra move instead of just e4", and bizarre pronouncements of "equality" in totally normal positions where white clearly holds onto the opening advantage.