I can't stop playing this opening!

wow, uh i think ive seen a game similar to this at super GM level ill try to find it again... i know this isnt any help...i hope someone else picks up on this cause id like to know if there is a clear refutation...i think black should do ok after a5...but im horrible in the opening...

3.b4 looks definitely playable to me, but if I were you, I'd prefer to leave the queen's knight where it is in order to choose its correct developing square later and not to obstruct the bishop's diagonal for the time being. For example, the move order 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.b4 is a bit more common. I have played this system quite often myself, although I usually started with 1.Nf3.

Here is an example of a highlevel game with this system. Although White actually played 1.Nf3,2.g3 and 3.b4, the game can be reached via the move order above.

      It is not guaranteed that White won't respond 1.c4  1.Nf6   2.Nc3  2.e6 because those are the moves I play against the English.  So you would have to preface b4 with a3.  Things are fine when White intends a King's Indian set up.  I sometimes answer the English with a Dutch Defense, so there are other set ups you will see including 1.c4  1.e5   or   1.c4  1.c5.

     One thing about chess, your opponents don't always play openings your way.  Also there really is nothing wrong with the Sokolsky Opening 1.b4 if you know it really well.  Black can get in some trouble answering 1.b4 with 1.e5.  Sokolsky had a lot of wins with 1.b4 against inferior opposition. 

Well, obviously we are talking of an Anti-King's Indian English variation. It goes without saying that you can't play 3.b4 against every Black setup.

Sokolski's winning against inferior opposition is of little substance for an evaluation of the positions arising after 1.b4. While certainly playable, 1.b4 has its merits in surprise value rather than objective strength. At least this is what I remember from my days of learning theory...

The move b4 is not preventable by Black in most defenses, so White usually chooses to play this move later, if he plays it at all. Mainly, you want to play moves that will help you control the center during the opening, and flank moves can come later. It may surprise a few opponent's, but I wouldn't count on it. The game between Smyslov and Walter featured this move as an in-between move so that White could fianchetto his Bishop to control the center. The fact that it resulted in Queenside play later on is meaningless.

After 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.b4!? e5, black is hitting b4, developing his Bishop, and preparing to lock down on the center. The d4 advance will be delayed for a few moves, and baring any spectacular brilliancies by White, Black will have the initiative for quite some time.

This reminds me of the first game in Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move" however, in that game white plays against a Dutch-- white wins.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1347841

3...e5 is certainly playable, but we should be aware that after Black has played g6, he will need a justification for his bishop not going to g7, and in a number of cases winning a mere noncentral pawn is not going to provide that. In this particular case, White can go on by simply playing 4.Nf3, when 4...Bxb4 5.Nxe5 hasn't even won a pawn, and crippling the White pawns by 5...Bxc3 6.dxc3 certainly isn't an option because of the dark squared kingside holes and White's mighty bishop pair.

Mind that after 4...e4 5.Ng5 White still wins the e-pawn in return for his b-pawn, while 4...Nc6 5.b5 shows us the virtue of an early b4 ;)

So Black is probably better off leaving the b-pawn alone, when 4...d6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Rb1 is likely to transpose into "normal" English positions usually starting from 1.c4 e5.

I agree with you that b2-b4 in this kind of positions looks more flexible and sounder without a knight on c3, but I don't think that the "classical" move 3...e5 gives Black an initiative against this cheaky little hypermodern setup.

2 pawn moves with another pre-commited to develop the white bishop seems like a bit much unless you're using it to through off your opponent in tournament play.

Gosh, you seem to be referring to my post, but for some reason the variations I gave there seem to have completely passed you. If you reread carefully you'll see I never suggested a crap move like 4.a3, and I even gave reasons why that shouldn't be necessary.

Also, the need to "justify" g6 doesn't come from my counting tempi but rather from the fact that Black's king's position will be quite drafty without a bishop to defend the dark squares.

Folks, get away from the "one or two pawn moves - no more" classical strategy, chess has moved on since then. In a rather closed position like this, counting pawn moves will not bring you the correct evaluation of the position. The concept of monitoring the centre rather than occupy it, along with trying to conquer it from the flanks isn't exactly brand new anymore. It's called hypermodernism and originates from as far back as the early 20th century.

While it is true that we all are well advised to learn chess roughly along the same roads the game has taken itself in its history, we shouldn't get stuck somewhere around the turn of 19th to 20th century where some people seriously believed they had opening theory all worked out but almost never played anything but 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5!

I saw a brilliant laugh in a related opening. My team captain had to play a GM in a rapid tourney and wanted to get him in a prepared surprise. Here's what happened.

Hilarious. So much for outpreparing a GM

Anna-Girl, i have reason to believe that you have posted your faviourite opening before, and it was a different opening then, don't you find that odd... posting your faviourite opening lines and spamming other posts, and not even being consistant about it?!