Myers Attack?!

Okay I'm not usually a forum person, but I'm really confused about something. A line in the Sicilian defense. 1.e4 c5 2.a4 ; Few people play it, even fewer talk about it. I tried so hard to find a book, a blog post, even a youtube video on this thing but nothing. Nothing at all.

Oh ye great minds of chess.com; discuss.

Ps; in case the topic didn't give it off, its called the Myers Attack; 'introduced' by Hugh Myers.

So I'm guessing you've never heard of it.

what's the point of 2.a4?

If white wants to "wait" and plays something clever, then 2.Na3 (developing, not like a4), or even d3 are better.

Hey hey, I'm not saying the move is spectacular or anything, it's just strange how there's no study on it anywhere. I mean after all, it is sort of recognized, so why not?

I've played it. J.Tait-D.Obey, BCCA 2004, went 1.e4 c5 2.a4 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.d3 e5 6.f4 exf4 7.Bxf4 d5 and later ended in a draw (½-½, 42).

It's not listed in Benjamin/Schiller's book "Unorthodox Openings" (1987), which does at least give 1.a4 (the "Meadow Hay") in its "Ugly" section of the book.

The only time I've seen it in is Hugh's own book: Exploring The Chess Openings (Thinkers Press 1978), which includes the game H.Myers-D.Kooi, Decatur 1972 (which continued 2...g6 3 h4!?), though there's very little analysis.

One thing he does say: "No opening has been more analyzed than the Sicilian Defence, but here is an immediate reply which everyone else has overlooked. One point to it is that if 2...d6 3 Bb5+ Bd7, White can transpose to a known variation with 4 Nf3 (Larsen-Olafsson and Larsen-Bednarski, 1967) or try something new, such as 4 f4, 4 d3 or 4 d4!?."

Yeah. That's the only writing i could find on the move. So it's actually been overlooked by practically everyone. So does that then make it a good opening to play? Just to take your opponent out of book without actually, you know, going out of book.

The chess world is full of not so good opening

and what would you sir define as a good opening?

Go to any opening explorer and look at the must successful first 4 moves.

four successful 1st moves white and black

four successful 2nd moves white and black

four successful 3rd moves white and black

Any weak player can and sometimes does write about what may not be true.

I would honestly love to explain to you in detail why that doesn't make any sense, but I'll leave you to it. Because what you're saying in essence; among other things is that all the countless opening books written by various great chess minds are practically baseless and should be refuted because the engine says so. Genius compadre. Genius.

Oh yeah sure. Hugh Myers. Weakest player ever. Again. Simply genius

https://en.chessbase.com/post/hugh-myers-1930-2008-opening-theoretician

Did you find something?

Actually, white wanna play Na3 but don't wanna block a-file. So 2. a4, followed by 3. Na3, makes sense.

Myers attack, 6:1 for white in the Local Explorer.