Need help with 1.a3 repertoire

I think an "early" a3 move may be worthwhile if you want to avoid particular lines but I still think you're giving away the tempo by making a move that you may or may not need to make later. Also by playing e4, d4, c4 of Nf3 first you are at least exerting some degree of control over where the opening will go. That's the advantage of playing white and I think it should be used...

Indeed, but Anderssen should be considered a weak player by modern standards. He had a certain tactical genius, but the defensive skills of his opponents of that era were next to non-existent.

I've played 1.a3 on occasion myself, and I think it's a little better than it looks; there are certainly worse moves.

However, I don't think there's a simple answer to the original question.  One can't really build up a simple repertoire around 1.a3; you're essentially choosing to respond to Black rather than vice-versa.  To do so well requires you to have knowledge of a wide variety of openings, and to bring a sense of creativity & imagination to the board.

In other words, if you need to ask for help about what to play after 1.a3, it's the wrong opening for you.

Boy I hate it when those pesky Bishops infiltrate h2. Makes me want to hydrate them with h2o.

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.

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.

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.

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 wouldn't be too worried about what GMs do.  I've lost two tournament games to the BDG.

you can set up with a3, b4, bb2, e3, c4, d4 to get the center

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?

 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!  ;-)

 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.