So as a huge fan of the black side of 1.e4 e5 im considering playing the black side when im white with the waitingmove 1.a3 often followed by e5 2.e4. I will not meet a reversed ruy lopez since i have a pawn at a3 stopping the lopezbishop and in the italian a3 is useful anyway. Against others im not 100% sure. One thing is After 1.a3 d5 im not sure what reversed queenpawnopening is best with a3 inserted. Any suggestions?
One thing is After 1.a3 d5 im not sure what reversed queenpawnopening is best with a3 inserted. Any suggestions?
Try the Double Reversed Triple Accelerated Poisoned Nimzo Dragon! It always works for Us. >:[
So as a huge fan of the black side of 1.e4 e5
And just when I was thinking such a thing wasn't possible...
You're going to get reversed Scotch games where the move a3/a6 is useless.
Who said it was boring? I think the operative word is more like "onerous."
I'm going to ask you a very simple question:why are you playing a3? Why are you not grabbing centre space, supporting a centre pawn or developing a piece?
There are better ways. For example you could play 1.e4 e5 2.d3 and play this way against almost anything Black does.
1.a3 could be useful against 1...e5, 1...d5 or 1...c5. But against 1...Nf6 or 1...g6 it does very little.
I don't see how a3 can be useful against any of those moves. Even beginners who're obsessed with the power of the rook lift play a4.
I would have thought that if you enjoy and are knowledgeable at playing the black side of e5/e5 openings that would automatically infer that you would have a good knowledge of the white side strategies of the same e4/e5 openings. My suggestion would be that 1.a3 is very passive, too passive in my book. If you play that regularly people will come to expect it and you will find yourself frustrated by them playing lines where a3 is a wasted move. If you want "quieter" openings then why not try 1.d4 as white?
I am not sure why there is all these things against 1.a3. I mean, isn't it equivalent to playing black except with a6 included? Unless black is already in trouble at the initial position, I don't think there really is anything wrong with it. It may not have any value against some responses, but is it at a disadvantage against a certain setup? I doubt it.
Just one example: 1.a3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (no Ruy Lopez, a3 is useful both in Italian and Four kinights reversed) 3...d5?! 4.ed5 Nxd5 5.Qh5! and now there are no...Nb4 ideas.
As the great chess author and international master Jeremy Silman once wrote in his book, you should always reply to any perceived black threat with "Rubbish!", especially when the threat itself is sort of vague. 1.a3 does prevent Nb4, but it throws away White's precious extra tempo.
In fact, he gave an example of a game in which his student played an online game of chess, and his opponent actually played h3 to prevent Ng4. Silman wrote that it was a bad move which loses the initiative, and I'm forced to agree there.
The Ruy Lopez IS an annoying opening which many players hate to play against, but it's not worth a tempo. And what if your opponent decides to play some other opening other than Nb4 or the Ruy Lopez? Now you've wasted a move and created a possible infiltration point for a bishop at h2!
GM Eric Prie (long time writer of the "d-pawn specials" section of Chesspublishing) has experimented with 1.d4 d5 2.a3. If black plays ...c5 in queen's gambit style, white may be able to grab the pawn and keep it. Also some discussion here: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1210721736
I'm tempted to start playing it myself :-)
Have any GMs started REGULARLY ADOPTING it?
Then I'm not going to play such a passive and somewhat dubious move until a GM does analysis of the move and shows that you can win with it in tournament play.
Here is myself at the wrong side of a miniature:
Not very fun to play as Black, is it?