Forums

Interesting Way To Transpose into the French Defense from the Owen Defense

Sort:
Optimissed
ibrust wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Bob12Duck wrote:
[removed -- MS]

Reported. You shouldn't do that. It constitutes a threat to others.

I've seen things like this backfire on the people involving themselves with it many times... more often than not, it seems.

I understand what you're saying.

Optimissed
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Their decision to play Owen's Defence is based on the expectation that they will score well because many people don't know the basic first moves white should make, so they play things like d3. And then, on the other hand, they play too aggressively and get caught that way. I just looked at a computer line where in the basic position, black plays 4. ...Nf6 and white responds with 5. h4. I couldn't believe it and looked at it and found h4 is justified.

To play against it, you have to balance positional play with aggression. Not many players under about 1900 can do that well. In the old BCF (British Chess Federation) system, when I was a 150 player, which was 1800 FIDE or, in the North of England, actually 1880, because we were undergraded, you tended to start to be scared of 165 and over. They had moved to another level. When I arrived at that level with a rating of 172, I knew why. 172 is 1975 FIDE and you're starting to become a strong player at that rating. And again, I live and play in the North of England and so my true, FIDE equivalent was 2050. Eventually they gave us all 10 grading points more and evened it up that way because, at the intermediate level, my county, Lancashire, won the English county championships time after time because we were stronger than Yorkshire and grade for grade, we were stronger than all the other counties across the board.

So basically, Owen's shouldn't be viable against a 1950 FIDE and above. That might equate to maybe 2150 or 2250 on Chess.com.

i suppose grandmasters Miles, Bauer Blatny, Kengis didnt get your memo. 
I dont know what your non sequitur about british chess has to do with the Owen's but considering its most famous advocate was Britains' first GM , the irony is palpable.
There is even a funny story involving Seirawan (may have been one of the olympiads) from the 1980's when Miles was crushing with the owen's left and right, and Seirawan was unwilling to be next in line to Tony's prep, so he played 1.g3. Seirawan says Miles leaned in and said " i do so love these moral victories" XD.

Miles was tactically strong and people like that play openings like that on a percentage basis. It can work well, especially if the one on the white side has a tournament score that forces him to go win or bust. I've been in that position myself, last round in a tounament. You can play solidly and keep the draw in hand but, against a good opponent, and you've figured out that just half a point will at best give you a five way tie or something, for first place, then you play win or bust to get that extra half point. Because you think that such an opponent will manage to hold you if you play to contain the situation. I've been there a lot and sometimes I've managed to win, sometimes I draw and get the 5-way tie and sometimes I've lost and been out of the prizes, but on a % basis, it's worth the gamble. Your rating will suffer a bit but if you're near, say, the cut-off between a major and open, it was a legitimate way of staying in the majors for next season. As for the prizes, on a % basis, if you can win one out of five, then you're somewhat ahead. I won a lot of quite big tournaments so like you, I know how they can be played. People used to avoid MY prep too. I played 1. ... a6 Sicilians and they would play into my hands by playing 2. c3, whereas 3. c4 is better than c3 but the best is probably going to be a g3 Closed Sicilian. They didn't like my Modern Benoni either, because that was the late 90s, before the modern, passive approaches to the MB by white came out.

ThrillerFan

Owen's Defense truly sucks!

https://www.chess.com/game/live/132698950497

Uhohspaghettio1

Miles was a clown making a mockery of the game by playing that way. Playing b6 has absolutely no legitimacy as a surprise tactic or any other.

Even the Grob or GingerGM garbage are far better than the Owen's and legitimate ways to open because Owen's simply does not do anything that you can't get a better version of in another defence. It's like playing Nf3, Ng1, Nf3 and saying that's an opening where you're daring the opponent to attack the centre.

In association football (soccer) playing in such a way and claiming "psychology" or something is called "showboating" and immediately penalized. By any sports' rules including FIDE's you're supposed to give your honest attempt and Owen's is not that, so I think it shouldn't be allowed.

Granted the lines can become blurred in some cases, often people prefer to play one way despite evidence pointing against it being a good idea and tolerance could be allowed for that. Owen's is clearly not like that. If you enjoy what Owen's does, then make up a themed opening tournament, that's your only option for legitimately playing it.

Otherwise show a single independent line that a better version of can't be gotten to by another opening.

darkunorthodox88
ThrillerFan wrote:

Owen's Defense truly sucks!

https://www.chess.com/game/live/132698950497

wow im persuaded, 4.be3, BRUTAL novelty!

darkunorthodox88
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

Miles was a clown making a mockery of the game by playing that way. Playing b6 has absolutely no legitimacy as a surprise tactic or any other.

Even the Grob or GingerGM garbage are far better than the Owen's and legitimate ways to open because Owen's simply does not do anything that you can't get a better version of in another defence. It's like playing Nf3, Ng1, Nf3 and saying that's an opening where you're daring the opponent to attack the centre.

In association football (soccer) playing in such a way and claiming "psychology" or something is called "showboating" and immediately penalized. By any sports' rules including FIDE's you're supposed to give your honest attempt and Owen's is not that, so I think it shouldn't be allowed.

Granted the lines can become blurred in some cases, often people prefer to play one way despite evidence pointing against it being a good idea and tolerance could be allowed for that. Owen's is clearly not like that. If you enjoy what Owen's does, then make up a themed opening tournament, that's your only option for legitimately playing it.

Otherwise show a single independent line that a better version of can't be gotten to by another opening.

this is the most idiotic thing said in this entire forum. And thats saying alot.

Optimissed
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

Miles was a clown making a mockery of the game by playing that way. Playing b6 has absolutely no legitimacy as a surprise tactic or any other.

Even the Grob or GingerGM garbage are far better than the Owen's and legitimate ways to open because Owen's simply does not do anything that you can't get a better version of in another defence. It's like playing Nf3, Ng1, Nf3 and saying that's an opening where you're daring the opponent to attack the centre.

In association football (soccer) playing in such a way and claiming "psychology" or something is called "showboating" and immediately penalized. By any sports' rules including FIDE's you're supposed to give your honest attempt and Owen's is not that, so I think it shouldn't be allowed.

Granted the lines can become blurred in some cases, often people prefer to play one way despite evidence pointing against it being a good idea and tolerance could be allowed for that. Owen's is clearly not like that. If you enjoy what Owen's does, then make up a themed opening tournament, that's your only option for legitimately playing it.

Otherwise show a single independent line that a better version of can't be gotten to by another opening.

this is the most idiotic thing said in this entire forum. And thats saying alot.

I bet I can beat it though.

When I put my mind to it .....

Compadre_J

LOL

I got to give the upvote because he made me chuckle.

Tony Miles is Clown!

Should have been locked up in Circus, Not Chess Board.

LOL

Tony Miles should have been Kicked out!

Arbiter should of held up the Red Card.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct for playing B6

LOL

ThrillerFan
Compadre_J wrote:

LOL

I got to give the upvote because he made me chuckle.

Tony Miles is Clown!

Should have been locked up in Circus, Not Chess Board.

LOL

Tony Miles should have been Kicked out!

Arbiter should of held up the Red Card.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct for playing B6

LOL

Miles is more proof that Owen's Defense is weak.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4

  • In this position, Botvinnik would play 2...d5
  • In this position, Miles would play 2...b6

Botvinnik has been a world champion. Miles hasn't even sniffed the challenger seat!

darkunorthodox88
ThrillerFan wrote:
Compadre_J wrote:

LOL

I got to give the upvote because he made me chuckle.

Tony Miles is Clown!

Should have been locked up in Circus, Not Chess Board.

LOL

Tony Miles should have been Kicked out!

Arbiter should of held up the Red Card.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct for playing B6

LOL

Miles is more proof that Owen's Defense is weak.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4

  • In this position, Botvinnik would play 2...d5
  • In this position, Miles would play 2...b6

Botvinnik has been a world champion. Miles hasn't even sniffed the challenger seat!

not even a comical troll

Uhohspaghettio1

I mean, the strength of a player is only partly a sign of how much a clown they are. It wouldn't be impossible to have a clown world champion, just less likely. Nakamura even played the wayward Queen attack once or twice in classical I believe.

I don't brandish the word clown lightly, and Miles gets sympathy points for having passed away young. But him leaning in and saying that sarcastic utterance - another sportsmanship rule broken - really pushes it over the top for me.

I can just say that I feel sorry for anyone who believes the Owens is a legitimate opening attempt that isn't simply an inferior version of something else.

Optimissed
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

I mean, the strength of a player is only partly a sign of how much a clown they are. It wouldn't be impossible to have a clown world champion, just less likely. Nakamura even played the wayward Queen attack once or twice in classical I believe.

I don't brandish the word clown lightly, and Miles gets sympathy points for having passed away young. But him leaning in and saying that sarcastic utterance - another sportsmanship rule broken - really pushes it over the top for me.

I can just say that I feel sorry for anyone who believes the Owens is a legitimate opening attempt that isn't simply an inferior version of something else.

I certainly wouldn't play it ........ because I wouldn't play 1. b3 as white so why play it as black? But it doesn't lose by force and it's provocative!

Just been driven 120 miles by a lovely lady from Dublin, in a Tesla. My first long(ish) trip in a Tesla. She hated it (The Tesla).

Jake905

No love for b6?

I actually play the English Defence and often times it transposes to e4; didn’t get any tips in this thread.

Optimissed
Jake905 wrote:

No love for b6?

I actually play the English Defence and often times it transposes to e4; didn’t get any tips in this thread.

English defence = defence to 1. c4, I think.

But 1. e4 b6 2. c4 makes no sense, I should have thought.

Jake905
Optimissed wrote:
Jake905 wrote:

No love for b6?

I actually play the English Defence and often times it transposes to e4; didn’t get any tips in this thread.

English defence = defence to 1. c4, I think.

But 1. e4 b6 2. c4 makes no sense, I should have thought.

1. d4, b6 2. e4 e6

I prefer to time c5 for a Sicilian or French like middle game.

If not, d5.

e4 c4 would be the Marocy Bind; b6 would transpose to the hedgehog.

Uhohspaghettio1
Optimissed wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

I mean, the strength of a player is only partly a sign of how much a clown they are. It wouldn't be impossible to have a clown world champion, just less likely. Nakamura even played the wayward Queen attack once or twice in classical I believe.

I don't brandish the word clown lightly, and Miles gets sympathy points for having passed away young. But him leaning in and saying that sarcastic utterance - another sportsmanship rule broken - really pushes it over the top for me.

I can just say that I feel sorry for anyone who believes the Owens is a legitimate opening attempt that isn't simply an inferior version of something else.

I certainly wouldn't play it ........ because I wouldn't play 1. b3 as white so why play it as black? But it doesn't lose by force and it's provocative!

Just been driven 120 miles by a lovely lady from Dublin, in a Tesla. My first long(ish) trip in a Tesla. She hated it (The Tesla).

How is it provocative though? By "provoking" white to put his pieces and pawns on great central squares he's (almost) completely stable at?

The Alekhine and the Modern are "provocative" because they dare the opponent to try to occupy the centre and squeeze them, which is quite possible, but any slip and they have amazing counterplay and undermining ability.

"I will provoke my opponent into making moves to get into a great position so I'm at a disadvantage for the rest of the game".... I don't think that's how provokes works.

The only way the Owen's "provokes" is in the human language meaning of the word, not in a chess sense!

Optimissed
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

I mean, the strength of a player is only partly a sign of how much a clown they are. It wouldn't be impossible to have a clown world champion, just less likely. Nakamura even played the wayward Queen attack once or twice in classical I believe.

I don't brandish the word clown lightly, and Miles gets sympathy points for having passed away young. But him leaning in and saying that sarcastic utterance - another sportsmanship rule broken - really pushes it over the top for me.

I can just say that I feel sorry for anyone who believes the Owens is a legitimate opening attempt that isn't simply an inferior version of something else.

I certainly wouldn't play it ........ because I wouldn't play 1. b3 as white so why play it as black? But it doesn't lose by force and it's provocative!

Just been driven 120 miles by a lovely lady from Dublin, in a Tesla. My first long(ish) trip in a Tesla. She hated it (The Tesla).

How is it provocative though? By "provoking" white to put his pieces and pawns on great central squares he's (almost) completely stable at?
Obviously, yes.

The Alekhine and the Modern are "provocative" because they dare the opponent to try to occupy the centre and squeeze them, which is quite possible, but any slip and they have amazing counterplay and undermining ability.

"I will provoke my opponent into making moves to get into a great position so I'm at a disadvantage for the rest of the game".... I don't think that's how provokes works.

In this case, the provocation is to get them to launch an unsound attack or a justified attack in a position that is unfamiliar. There's more than one way to skin an apricot.

The only way the Owen's "provokes" is in the human language meaning of the word, not in a chess sense!

You're obviously wrong, since it seems to have provoked you to launch an attack you cannot support!! happy.png

Uhohspaghettio1

White shouldn't rush an attack and remember that it's a draw with perfect play by black. But even then - nothing is forcing his hand, nothing is causing him to play highly active - he can simply make incremental improvements. This is in contrast to the Alekhine where white has to either push e5 straightaway or allow a Vienna, which a random player is unlikely to want to enter off the bat. The Pirc similarly demands fairly active and committal play by white unless he wants to enter a non-critical line.

The Owen's doesn't have that urgency or worrying about what you're leaving behind you, you can just be happy making incremental improvements to your position and white will remain pleasantly ahead. You can even play c3 + Nbd2 Tarrasch-style if you're afraid of the Bb4 pin of your Nc3.

If that's the case why not just play a bad French with queenside fianchetto? Or you could play a bad Queen's Indian on d4, and you'd get a similar effect. So someone would come on here and ask for opening advice and you'd reply - try playing a bad Najdorf or a bad Semi-Slav as it will provoke the opponent into making an unjustified attack or a justified one in an unfamiliar position?

I'm a bit old-fashioned for this Addam's Family style of topsy-turvy thinking I'm afraid. Unless there is any legitimate reason to play something I don't think it's valid.