IF there is some magical winning line for white i sure as heck havent encountered it. if it does exist, i doubt 99% of players even with rudimentary aid from an engine know of it.
and no, suggesting an 8 move line does not constitute a refutation. What i have encountered is lines in which black takes longer to equalize.
IF there is some magical winning line for white i sure as heck havent encountered it. if it does exist, i doubt 99% of players even with rudimentary aid from an engine know of it.
and no, suggesting an 8 move line does not constitute a refutation. What i have encountered is lines in which black takes longer to equalize.
They're just analysing a losing line and imagining that's how to play Owen's.
Optimissed. Do you play the Owens Defense? If so do you believe it is a good defense for black? If you believe it is a good defense for black would you recommend it to a novice?
No, I wouldn't play it. I play the Sicilian with 2. ... a6. I played it a little when I started to learn chess. Yes, I'd recommend it to a novice, who needs to try all sorts of things. It's fairly solid played properly and black aims to get a slight positional edge.
Optimissed. Thanks. Currently, I tend to be very crappy. I use to not be so bad and have dropped from 1200 to 750. I have played a lot of the hippo and lost my but to it and the Giuoco Piano...well, that is not going too well for me. IT is like my brain went dead. What might you suggest to a loser? Know that my pockets do not go deep. I am 77 and retired living off of a fixed income. Thanks for the kind response.
@Optimissed, Black aiming for a slight positional edge by playing Owen's defence is an oxymoron.
at the 1800 level and below, owen's is really easy to play, as the most prep you will likely face is 6 moves or so of theory .
at the master level, you will do at least as much homework as in other defenses to make it viable.
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.
"Any opening is good enough, if its reputation is bad enough." - Tartakower
Many grandmasters including Carlsen have played Owen occasionally.
I do very well with the O'Kelly Sicilian. I even believe it's the best possible Sicilian variation.
@Optimissed, Black aiming for a slight positional edge by playing Owen's defence is an oxymoron.
That's nonsense.
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.
Yes, of course f5 is no good. However, the GMs of the 80s considered 2. ...Bb7 incorrect and e6 to be the correct move. I do understand why .... it's black's most flexible approach by far but also, e6 is a solid move which should be played.
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.
Yes, of course f5 is no good. However, the GMs of the 80s considered 2. ...Bb7 incorrect and e6 to be the correct move. I do understand why .... it's black's most flexible approach by far but also, e6 is a solid move which should be played.
As pfren said, there is no difference playing e6 or Bb7.
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Fd3 (Nc3) Bb7
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 (Nc3) Bb7
Maybe 1.e4 e6 then b6 and Bb7? It can be effective against white players using "anti" french variations. I mean not playing 2.d4.
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.
Yes, of course f5 is no good. However, the GMs of the 80s considered 2. ...Bb7 incorrect and e6 to be the correct move. I do understand why .... it's black's most flexible approach by far but also, e6 is a solid move which should be played.
As pfren said, there is no difference playing e6 or Bb7.
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Fd3 (Nc3) Bb7
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 (Nc3) Bb7
Maybe 1.e4 e6 then b6 and Bb7? It can be effective against white players using "anti" french variations. I mean not playing 2.d4.
It is only clear that 3...f5 is unsound, _because_ it has been analyzed to a win for white. It doesn't make sense to say that we should not present this analysis. 3...f5 is theoretically crucial for _white_ to know, because if it worked for black, or if white did not know the analysis, then white should prefer some other move like 3.Nc3 or 3.f3 or 3.Nd2, instead of 3.Bd3.
Hugh Myers liked the King's Indian Attack for white, and also thought 1...e6 was a better move order for black than 1...b6, to avoid 1.e4 b6 2.d3. My own opinion is this is a better than usual KIA for white, but it's also a better than usual Owen's Defense for black!
Although ...e7-e6 features in many variations, black sometimes does not play it. For example, 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.f3 d5 ("!" by Kapitaniak), or 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.c3 e5 (Blatny), also 3...Nf6 4.Qe2 Nc6 5.c3 e5.
when i started playing owen's i liked to play 2.e6 because it psychologically discouraged my weak opponents to play an early d5 for some reason which i found harmless but kind of annoying (1.e4 b6 2.d4 bb7 3.d5?!).
But there is little reason to play e6 so early, in all lines black will play bb7 whereas in most but not all lines, black will play e6. In fact, they are two good reasons to avoid the early e6 move order.
1. White can transpose to a more flexible version of the english defense via 1.e4 b6 .d4 e6 3.c4 where has not forced white to commit to any piece development. (contrast for example, with (1.d4 b6 2.c4 bb7 where to get e4 now, white has to commit at least one pieces placement to allow it)
2. They are certain lines, especially ones resembling French defenses, where black is better served playing nf6 before e6. For example. 1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.nf3 bb7 4.bd3 and if nf6 , e5 right away , or if the c5?! d5! is annoying.
actually a lot of owen lines with early c5 are suffering big because of early d5 sacs. i am fortunate that the lines i play are of a different flavor than those traditional lines.
I played this as White (or rather against it) and I had a basic set up involving 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 c5 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. 0-0 Ng6 8. Be3 c4 and played 9. Be2 which lessened Black's tension. I should have played 9. Bc2 and then began attacking the pawn chain to simplify into a positionally winning endgame. By not doing so, I ended up allowing Black to have a near equal standing. In the ending, Black simplified to an imbalance of K + 7p v. K + N+ 5p. The ending looked like this:
Had I taken the Knight, Black would have promoted as well and would be able to get his King to b8, with a draw.
After playing, I found that this was the right way to go in the opening save for my 9th move. 9. Bc2 gives White significant advantage in the late opening and early middle game.
But of course, here 4. ...d5 was incorrect. By playing that, black concedes that he should just have played the French because now he has a bad French with b6 and the B misplaced on b7, which is yet another reason why black never plays 2. ...Bb7. That is, shouldn't play it, because it seems that modern GMs have no idea of the subtleties and they play it anyway. The point of not playing Bb7 except at the right time is that in some variations, black may want to enter a g6 setup and retain options for the c8 B which may be best placed on a6 or perhaps on e6 as in the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower Defence. It should be clear that since black prefers Be6 in that QGD variation, to play Bb7 and then d5 was an abject blunder. Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7 but it's completely wrong from a strategic point of view and no amount of computer lines or IMs who think they know better will change that. They are simply unaware of the theory, because it's a line they don't really play.
The point being that Bb7 takes two moves to put right whereas c3 only takes one. Some people just can't count.
66 edited. The captions on some of my keys are completely worn out
I played this as White (or rather against it) and I had a basic set up involving 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 c5 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. 0-0 Ng6 8. Be3 c4 and played 9. Be2 which lessened Black's tension. I should have played 9. Bc2 and then began attacking the pawn chain to simplify into a positionally winning endgame. By not doing so, I ended up allowing Black to have a near equal standing. In the ending, Black simplified to an imbalance of K + 7p v. K + N+ 5p. The ending looked like this:
Had I taken the Knight, Black would have promoted as well and would be able to get his King to b8, with a draw.
After playing, I found that this was the right way to go in the opening save for my 9th move. 9. Bc2 gives White significant advantage in the late opening and early middle game.
But of course, here 4. ...d5 was incorrect. By playing that, black concedes that he should just have played the French because now he has a bad French with b6 and the B misplaced on b7, which is yet another reason why black never plays 2. ...Bb7. That is, shouldn't play it, because it seems that modern GMs have no idea of the subtleties and they play it anyway. The point of not playing Bb7 except at the right time is that in some variations, black may want to enter a g6 setup and retain options for the c8 B which may be best placed on s6 or perhaps on d6 as in the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower Defence. It should be clear that since black prefers Be6 in that QGD variation, to play Bb7 and then d5 was an abject blunder. Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7 but it's completely wrong from a strategic point of view and no amount of computer lines or IMs who think they know better will change that. They are simply unaware of the theory, because it's a line they don't really play.
The point being that Bb7 takes two moves to put right whereas c3 only takes one. Some people just can't count.
I honestly dont know what you are talking mate. Idk what secret theory you referring to, bc but its not what kapitaniak, or bauer, or lackdawala or oddessky or any reference book i have read up on the owens. Maybe there is some niche reason to play e6 over b6 in specific cases (maybe you can trick someone who would play KIA vs owens but normal vs french into an owen's via 1.e4 e6 2.d4 b6, or something like that).
but practically everyone plays 2.bb7. I have never seen anyone enter a hippo via b6 without finachettoing on b7 really early, i for the life of me cant see any advantage to that. You may as well enter it via the modern defense move order if you so hesitant on bb7.
I played this as White (or rather against it) and I had a basic set up involving 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 c5 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. 0-0 Ng6 8. Be3 c4 and played 9. Be2 which lessened Black's tension. I should have played 9. Bc2 and then began attacking the pawn chain to simplify into a positionally winning endgame. By not doing so, I ended up allowing Black to have a near equal standing. In the ending, Black simplified to an imbalance of K + 7p v. K + N+ 5p. The ending looked like this:
Had I taken the Knight, Black would have promoted as well and would be able to get his King to b8, with a draw.
After playing, I found that this was the right way to go in the opening save for my 9th move. 9. Bc2 gives White significant advantage in the late opening and early middle game.
But of course, here 4. ...d5 was incorrect. By playing that, black concedes that he should just have played the French because now he has a bad French with b6 and the B misplaced on b7, which is yet another reason why black never plays 2. ...Bb7. That is, shouldn't play it, because it seems that modern GMs have no idea of the subtleties and they play it anyway. The point of not playing Bb7 except at the right time is that in some variations, black may want to enter a g6 setup and retain options for the c8 B which may be best placed on s6 or perhaps on d6 as in the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower Defence. It should be clear that since black prefers Be6 in that QGD variation, to play Bb7 and then d5 was an abject blunder. Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7 but it's completely wrong from a strategic point of view and no amount of computer lines or IMs who think they know better will change that. They are simply unaware of the theory, because it's a line they don't really play.
The point being that Bb7 takes two moves to put right whereas c3 only takes one. Some people just can't count.
I honestly dont know what you are talking mate. Idk what secret theory you referring to, bc but its not what kapitaniak, or bauer, or lackdawala or oddessky or any reference book i have read up on the owens. Maybe there is some niche reason to play e6 over b6 in specific cases (maybe you can trick someone who would play KIA vs owens but normal vs french into an owen's via 1.e4 e6 2.d4 b6, or something like that).
but practically everyone plays 2.bb7. I have never seen anyone enter a hippo via b6 without finachettoing on b7 really early, i for the life of me cant see any advantage to that. You may as well enter it via the modern defense move order if you so hesitant on bb7.
On second thoughts, it isn't worth answering because you're a bullet player with a bullet rating of 2200, possibly without playing games because it's such a nice round figure. Clearly you and all the people who write books giving engine lines know it all and in the past, no-one knew anything. Except I can see the logic it not playing 2. ... Bb7. It isn't worth the bother if you aren't open to learning how people thought about it when this was extensively analysed by people far better than those you quote.
It would be winning for white if they only analyse lines that are known to be losing for black. Talk about diputs.