Optimissed wrote: "Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7"
Maybe you are right about this and everybody else is wrong. It's hard to know because you keep repeating it like a mantra but you don't give any good reasons. Maybe if you backed up this statement with a couple of variations, one with 2...Bb7 and another with 2...e6 instead, then you could start to become convincing.
im a bullet player XD. ok bro.
I like confidence. I'm also confident about what I know of how Owen's was approached in the 80s, because I was around then, I read a lot and I have a good memory. Let's just agree that we have different perspectives on it.
im a bullet player XD. ok bro.
I like confidence. I'm also confident about what I know of how Owen's was approached in the 80s, because I was around then, I read a lot and I have a good memory. Let's just agree that we have different perspectives on it.
i would like to know your source on owen's being played different in the 80's. But even if that were the case, that's 40 years of opening theory advancing you not considering. The first serious book on b6 was Bauer's in the early 2000. before that only the kapataniak monograph was around but its of limited value.
show us some high level owen games from your time that are played as you say.
Optimissed wrote: "Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7"
Maybe you are right about this and everybody else is wrong. It's hard to know because you keep repeating it like a mantra but you don't give any good reasons. Maybe if you backed up this statement with a couple of variations, one with 2...Bb7 and another with 2...e6 instead, then you could start to become convincing.
OK, if everyone is playing 2. Bb7 then I retract everything I've written. We can wait 20 years and then maybe some stronger players will become interested in 1. b6 than are interested in it at the moment. It obviously isn't for me to challenge those who know it all.
I went into a spiel about how black might want to play Be6 and then I thought that someone will come along and tell us that black can't do that because there's a pawn on e6. Irrespective of the fact that one strategy white might have is to take on d5. So I deleted it. In some cases it isn't worth getting into involved discussions. It's all about flexibility for black and how 2. Bb7 is overly committal. It's like people think that if a pawn goes to b6, the B should go to b7 and not maybe a6. So I can see why they don't want to play 2. ...e6 because then they'd have to play 3. ...Be7.
And that sums up how illogical they are. It was sarcasm.
Okay then, it's your confidence and good memory versus:
Without any variations to back up your claims, it's not a hard choice. By the way, I also played Owen's Defense in the 1980s (including many, many wins), I also have a good memory, and I don't remember any firm conclusion that ...Bc8-b7 before ...e7-e6 is wrong.
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.
man hasn't played like a single rated game on chess.com though
That's ok. Some are just here for the chatter.
Apart from that, there are some really clever and knowledgeable people here in this thread. I can see that now and I know I was wrong to challenge them.
Funny how they all seem to have ratings of 1200 and 2200 though. I think it takes real skill to hold your rating at such an ideal figure that it looks so perfect.
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).
We're talking about 1. e4 ... b6 2. d4 ...e6 but I probably caused your confusion. Sorry.
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.
In the 80s, I knew at least one club player who did indeed enter Owens through something like that. In fact he usually entered it through 1. Nf3, 2. g3 and 3. b6. I can only assume that he got the idea from some master or other but then maybe not. I remember he was the scourge of the intermediate club matches. The first time we played, he won. I didn't know what was happening. His pawns advanced right across the board. Then a draw and then a win for me. Once I'd beaten him once, I knew I could again and before long I was playing in a higher division and I never played him again. He stayed where he was. His rating was about FIDE 1680.
Another gremlin was the Curtis. It was called after a guy called Dave Curtis who was around 1700 to 1730 FIDE, in the Liverpool area. He used to go 1. Nh3 2. g3 3. f3 4. Nf2 5. d3 6. Bg2 against just about everything. Again, a loss and a draw and then wins for me 'til we never played again. The secret of that is that it's a really solid but slow KIA for white, with e4 treble reinforced. But black has time to play a fast Q-side attack and white's pieces are misplaced, especially the f2 knight.
In general, people who play things like 1. ...b6 and 2. ...Bb7 are playing "system chess". They're arrogant enough to think that their 2. ...Bb7 will stand against anything and they are unknowledgeable enough to think that not overly strong IMs & GMs of the modern era know more about it than anyone else ever knew. And of course, they know less.
The weakness of the modern era has arguably made itself felt with the abortive World Title challenge, where the challenger, after all the work they claimed to have put in, was not properly prepared. There are starting to be people who believe that computers have made GMs weaker and not stronger, because they haven't learned to think from computers but instead, have forgotten how to think with their over-reliance on engine lines.
@optimissed GM Duncan Suttles has played the same setup as Curtis at top level and gets good results. There was a Dutch chess player whose name I can’t remember that used the same setup to win the Dutch championship.
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?!).
Against 1. b3 by white I wouldn't try to play a quick e5 and d5. I wouldn't try to play it slowly, for that matter. I play 1. e5 and a quick d6 as black and I'm looking to win. There are more ways to crack an egg than by making an omelette and I don't see why that attitude shouldn't apply to facing 1. ...b6 after I've played 1. d4. I may play 2. e4 and I might play c4 instead. After 1. e4 ...b6 it would maybe be a different matter but white knows you want them to play e4 d4 so why should they?
@optimissed GM Duncan Suttles has played the same setup as Curtis at top level and gets good results. There was a Dutch chess player whose name I can’t remember that used the same setup to win the Dutch championship.
That's interesting. I think I remember a few people trying it about 15 years after Curtis. It's fairly logical and extremely hard to crack if white plays it well. I've a feeling I did once face it, played by a stronger player and I could only draw. But my criticism that it's slow stands and I think black should expand quickly on the queenside and try to use that as a lever to target the weak dark squares around white's king.
lmao 2.Bb7 is called finishing what you started, not system chess.
so you are naming class players over master analysis on the owen's? ok, now im really puzzled.
Actually, Bauer had a pretty fruitful section on the hippo and the different subtleties on the move order in his b6 book.
lmao 2.Bb7 is called finishing what you started, not system chess. >>>
Haha, now I know you're joking! As you will know, finishing what you started is the game result. Obviously you've heard of ....Ba6, so I know you're kidding.
The people who analysed Owen's in the 80s were GMs generally, although it was normal then for an IM to write chess books. I'm glad Bauer was better.
Jonathan Speelman and Tony Miles played it.
im a bullet player XD. ok bro.