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

I personally love getting the owen's defence because I can effortlessly get playable positions against it and most people end up playing too passively and get worse positions. I think most Owen's defence players just played it for tricks against the e4 pawn after something like and e4 d4 nf3 Nc3 setup from white. If I just play Bd3, Nc3 and then Nge2 their entire arsenal of tricks against e4 is gone.

this is the best line to play as white if blacks knowledge is shallow. Its also what i would play to test blacks knowledge.

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.

If the fear is fully understood, and in response the person navigates it appropriately, perhaps. it's hard to talk about these things in a meaningful way in the abstract, I was really just late for work there. But for me I suppose the bottom line is this:

1) while there are probably alot of players who play this line in a cheesy way, hoping for a mistake in the first couple moves... those aren't very serious players, and I don't think it's merely a cheesy line. There's alot of complexity and depth to it. The more I look at it, I think it's actually quite interesting. It's not my style since it bothers me that the position is objectively not great, but that's mostly a personal hangup... I could see strong masters using this line in a serious context. Also... I sort of assume that eventually these cheesy players will be easy to deal with by just playing chess, I don't really want to gear my repertoire to fighting them.

2) Actually, in main lines a good masters players prep might go up to 15 moves, or sometimes even deeper. I wonder how deep darks prep goes in the main line... If you're playing Bd3 / Nc3 / Nge2 setups... that's the mainest of the main. Playing this way is just too much effort for the payoff.

How far can you get into a game without making mistakes which lead to the loss of least 0.2 eval? I can tell you with me... not 10-12 moves unless I'm in prep. And certainly not 15. Especially in a complex position - the positions get quite complex and unusual in Owens. I assure you I will be screwing up.

3) this conversation is still taking on the presumption that the move I suggested e5 is a bad move. It isn't... infact, I arrived at the move through using divination, so I know it's a good move. Because it always is. Of course, I can also look at the stats... I can also reason about it, as I've done. Now, if I played 6000 games I might get 5... d3 played against me once, maybe. I've condemned myself to play a position on par with the Londoh position 1 game out of 6000 essentially...

That's my case but feel free to play it how you see fit. The other thing I'll say is... when we talk about a move being good it's within some subjective context. Your context is going to be different than mine, which is different than darks... (who isn't even aware he has one). etc.. For example, I am not a tournament or club player and don't have any near-term aspirations to be, I'm strictly an online player.

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

Owen's Defense truly sucks!

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

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.

wow im persuaded, 4.be3, BRUTAL novelty!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.