1e4 e5 is alright for Black because getting a draw or equalizing is a satisfactory result for Black. White needs maintain his initiative and play for a win. 1.a3 allows Black instant equality and he can start playing for a win without having to work for equality first. If you really like playing the Black side of the open game. I suggest you open with 1.e3 and respond to 1...e5 with 2.e4. You will at least not have to learn any new openings.
Need help with 1.a3 repertoire
Sort:
I just finished a game vs 1.a3. My opening moves probably weren't all optimal but I did play logically. Still Whites setup looks good to me, with alot of potential for active piece play (lovely bishops). I think I'm going to try it from the White side.
I think it has a worse reputation than it deserves. Sure, it gives Black immediate equality in the form of a kind of 'half tempo' but there's no structural imbalance that Black can take advantage of.
If you really want to prove that 1.a3 is not a beneficial move for white, the best way to take advantage would probably be a fianchetto.
helltank wrote:
kwaloffer wrote:
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?
No?
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.
I wouldn't be too worried about what GMs do. I've lost two tournament games to the BDG.
pfren wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
1.a3 allows Black instant equality and he can start playing for a win without having to work for equality first.
It seems you have a wrong idea about chess. I know one dozen Grandmasters which went down against 1.e4 c5 2.Na3, and Gerard Welling has picked up a few scalps with 1.e4 c5 2.a4.
@ Arctor: The way you handled the opening, white has a clear advantage: It's a reversed Sicilian Kan with white a whole juicy tempo up, and black having placed his pieces sub-par. You won because white positionally slaughtered his superior position.
I was never suggesting that either side played optimally but that's surprising. I'm not going to argue with an International Master but I wouldn't have thought White has anything more than an equal game (maybe a slight plus but not a superior position).
I know jack shit about the Sicilian Kan but is that tempo enough to change the opening from one which is (presumably) not so bad for White to one which is clearly better for Black?
Jan 16, 2012
0
#28
pfren wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
1.a3 allows Black instant equality and he can start playing for a win without having to work for equality first.
It seems you have a wrong idea about chess. I know one dozen Grandmasters which went down against 1.e4 c5 2.Na3, and Gerard Welling has picked up a few scalps with 1.e4 c5 2.a4.
@ Arctor: The way you handled the opening, white has a clear advantage: It's a reversed Sicilian Kan with white a whole juicy tempo up, and black having placed his pieces sub-par. You won because white positionally slaughtered his superior position.
This is one time where I disagree with you. Just because you can win with an opening doesn't make it bad, it just means that it's not completely losing in practical play. I'm sure any GM could beat me playing 1. a4 and 2. h4, but those are obviously terrible opening moves. My point is that strong players will still win with a couple of slightly inferior moves, because they are strong players. 1. a3 is doesn't give away very much, but it does give away something.
Browni, 1. a3 is not bad at all. It is simply equal. White has not commited his pawn structure, and 1. a3 is a useful waiting move. Pfren beat me to the punch with the Mengarini Variation of the Vienna Game. And to think - I was really excited to hopefully be the first to post about that!
Listen, if you want to bash on any first move, you must compare it with the plan that goes with it. Even the Kadas, as bad as its reputation, can have some useful moves to work with it. It is not as good as 1. a3, but it is not losing.
As has been mentioned, 1. a3 e5 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 and you are in the Mengarini by transposition. 1. a3 d5 2. d4 (or even something like 2. b4!?) - White has ideas at his disposal. Even with 1. a3 c5 2. e4!?, you are in an aggressive anti-Sicilian.
If you listen to everybody's opinion on here about what is correct, hang around for a few years until the next breed of WCs come on the scene, and watch their opinions change with the times. In truth, 1. a3 is perfectly fine. It is not the best chance to gain an advantage, but it doesn't throw it away either. The secret is to learn how to transpose into openings that are favorable to you, from that.
In the end, even if you don't keep it as a primary weapon, you will walk away with a greater appreciation of Anderssen's Opening, plus you will have some new ideas to use in your regular weapon.
Okay guys, it's your turn to regurgitate the usual "terrible opening, loss of tempo, this move's for losers" rants! ;-)
Jan 16, 2012
0
#30
BirdBrain wrote:
Browni, 1. a3 is not bad at all. It is simply equal. White has not commited his pawn structure, and 1. a3 is a useful waiting move. Pfren beat me to the punch with the Mengarini Variation of the Vienna Game. And to think - I was really excited to hopefully be the first to post about that!
Listen, if you want to bash on any first move, you must compare it with the plan that goes with it. Even the Kadas, as bad as its reputation, can have some useful moves to work with it. It is not as good as 1. a3, but it is not losing.
As has been mentioned, 1. a3 e5 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 and you are in the Mengarini by transposition. 1. a3 d5 2. d4 (or even something like 2. b4!?) - White has ideas at his disposal. Even with 1. a3 c5 2. e4!?, you are in an aggressive anti-Sicilian.
If you listen to everybody's opinion on here about what is correct, hang around for a few years until the next breed of WCs come on the scene, and watch their opinions change with the times. In truth, 1. a3 is perfectly fine. It is not the best chance to gain an advantage, but it doesn't throw it away either. The secret is to learn how to transpose into openings that are favorable to you, from that.
In the end, even if you don't keep it as a primary weapon, you will walk away with a greater appreciation of Anderssen's Opening, plus you will have some new ideas to use in your regular weapon.
Okay guys, it's your turn to regurgitate the usual "terrible opening, loss of tempo, this move's for losers" rants! ;-)
I consider a move bad if there are 10+ other better moves. I consider even a winning move bad if it wins a piece when there was mate in one.
1. a3 |
1247 |
|
| 1. f4 | 16877 |
|
It has better win percentages than my beloved 1. f4, which is a fine weapon. Even Fischer won with 1. f4 against Smyslov. But of course, it is bad too.
1. a3 gives White transpositional opportunities. Chalking this up to winning a piece vs. a mate in one is a silly argument, since this has nothing to do with that. It is a waiting move.
What is wrong with 1. d4 and 1. e4? Nothing! But, you do give Black targets to attack. With 1. a3, you have not yet revealed your cards. It is simply a good ,waiting move.
pfren wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
1.a3 allows Black instant equality and he can start playing for a win without having to work for equality first.
It seems you have a wrong idea about chess. I know one dozen Grandmasters which went down against 1.e4 c5 2.Na3, and Gerard Welling has picked up a few scalps with 1.e4 c5 2.a4.
Maybe so, but 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 and 1.e4 c5 2.a4 have nothing to do with what we are talking about. OP wants to play an open game which involves pawns at e4 and e5. In an open game Black needs to equalize before thinking about attacking. Your two examples are Sicilians, which because of the asymmetrical pawn structure either side can play for the initiative. If you are going to criticize please stay on topic, and say something relevant to the discussion.
Jan 17, 2012
0
#33
BirdBrain wrote:
1. a3 1247 36.5 % 24.5 % 39 %
1. a3 1247 36.5 % 24.5 % 39 %
1. f4 16877 35.5 % 24.5 %
40 %
It has better win percentages than my beloved 1. f4, which is a fine weapon. Even Fischer won with 1. f4 against Smyslov. But of course, it is bad too.
1. a3 gives White transpositional opportunities. Chalking this up to winning a piece vs. a mate in one is a silly argument, since this has nothing to do with that. It is a waiting move.
What is wrong with 1. d4 and 1. e4? Nothing! But, you do give Black targets to attack. With 1. a3, you have not yet revealed your cards. It is simply a good ,waiting move.
I think it's a perfect analogy. Surely you can see that I was exagerating to make a point? What a3 gives up is very very small, but it still gives something. Play 10 more "good, waiting moves", and see what happens. The best you'll get out of it is transposing into an opening where it's useful, and if black is a good player he'll avoid that. At least f4 is based on some logical principles.
Ha. I know a guy who plays 1...g6 against everything (after studying Soltis book about 1...g6) and had better results with the black pieces than with white (he used to play stuff like d4-Nf3-Bg5).
So a few years ago he started to play 1.a3 followed by 2.g3 and copied his repertoire book and he started to win more games. Ofcourse there was the psychological element for black meeting 1.a3
Why not 1.g3 immediately? Because most people have a line against this. But after 1.a3 they were playing often stuff they weren't used to, like
I agree with bsrasmus, you are givening black to much choice too early and you are dedicating yourself to very few options when in reality 1. e4 e5 provides white with many different opening lines. Dont Give black tempo after the 1st move!
I agree with bsrasmus, you are givening black to much choice too early and you are dedicating yourself to very few options when in reality 1. e4 e5 provides white with many different opening lines. Dont Give black tempo after the 1st move!
Thanks for advices everyone:) hank many people tells me that answering 1.e4 with e5 is bad because it gives white to many choices but 1...e5 is a very good response and you learn alot about the open games by playing it. Also black is at least equal in everything white throws at you. The ruy lopez is hard to play against but very interestning and there white has to struggle with blacks many responses everything from the passive steinitz to the insanely complicated zaitsev. Also the theory in the non ruy lopez lines doesnt change much
blake78613 wrote:
pfren wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
1.a3 allows Black instant equality and he can start playing for a win without having to work for equality first.
It seems you have a wrong idea about chess. I know one dozen Grandmasters which went down against 1.e4 c5 2.Na3, and Gerard Welling has picked up a few scalps with 1.e4 c5 2.a4.
Maybe so, but 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 and 1.e4 c5 2.a4 have nothing to do with what we are talking about. OP wants to play an open game which involves pawns at e4 and e5. In an open game Black needs to equalize before thinking about attacking. Your two examples are Sicilians, which because of the asymmetrical pawn structure either side can play for the initiative. If you are going to criticize please stay on topic, and say something relevant to the discussion.
Blake, his comment is perfectly on topic. This is a discussion about offbeat lines being playable. His discussion was totally relevant - I am sorry that you missed that. I understood it perfectly.
Pellik, linkspringger has some 1. a3 games in his stash, and that is what he did - converted into a type of Queen Pawn Game.
pfren wrote:
1.a3 could be useful against 1...e5, 1...d5 or 1...c5. But against 1...Nf6 or 1...g6 it does very little.
Pfren, I am curious to your thought, then, about something like 1. a3 g6 2. g3, heading for a Modern, or would you prefer a more Stonewall type play with d4 setups? Not literally a Stonewall...
BTW, I have employed a3 in my Bird setups when I went for a type of Closed Sicilian position, and I often face ...g6.
This could also apply to ...Nf6 setups.
TigerGutt,
I wouldn't bother, except maybe in blitz. In my experience, the top 2 defenses Black plays when confronted with something weird are the Slav and the King's Indian. In both of those openings, White usually ends up playing a2-a4 in one go, or else leaving the a-pawn at home. You might just end up down a tempo on a normal opening.