Owen's defence ?

you really dont know how to discuss concrete lines do you? You name dropping these household b6 names like they are agreeing with you on anything. At this point, i dont even know what your argument or line vindicated is. Just something something "back in my day, we played  b6 different" and little clue what you mean.

It's a sign that productive exchanges have ended when:

1. a GM is listed as a player of an odd variation

2. people start posting in yellow text

Yeah, objectively it's just not that good compared to similar alternatives. But you do have much more room for creative play.

I don't want to discuss concrete lines because they're more or less irrelevant to general principles; but I'll discuss them with you if you have one you'd like to look at. There's a misconception about concrete lines .... as though they are set in concrete and not liable to change regarding their perceived virtue, so really it's all about people trying to show off. I can remember some guy at our club when I started out, whizzing pieces about on a board before an impressed group of onlookers and I couldn't take part because I preferred to analyse in my head, leaving the pieces where they are and only move them in incremental stages. So it was just a blur to me and yet it wasn't long before I was consistently beating him.

The yellow text is for me because my screen background changed itself to black and yellow shows up better. Do you have a thing against it, as well as the idea that 1. ... a6, when played by a GM, isn't odd, simply because a GM played it? Someone who shall be nameless recently commented that productive exchanges vanish when someone mentions left or right wing political stances. I mean, what a completely pretentious comment, as though others don't understand that there's a blur between them.

I used to despair of illogicality, thinking that chess players ought to be able to think straight, but now I'm much more used to it and find that people on Facebook are probably more capable of logical thinking..

You sound as if you're tried it. If so, how did you get on with it? I tried it a few times, a couple of decades ago. Found it was no good because black can also get very creative.

I usually play it in bullet and blitz, every once in a while in rapid. Got me to 2400 bullet for the first time. Played it otb twice, as black against the London system vs a 2000 UScF player. I was much better by move ten but ended up dropping many pawns (carelessness and moving too fast) so it ended up as a draw. I was rated 1790. The second time was against a floor 1900. I was rated 1720. He played the botvinnik system. I played Nh6, f6, Nf7, f5, all that stuff. Ended up winning.

Works best against system openings. Botvinnik? Just Nh6. London? Same. Colle? Works too.

how you can play owen's vs a london system? o.O?

unless you mean 1.d4 b6 which is actually a little harder to play because you need to know, your owen's your english defense and all the unique 1d4 without 2.c4 configurations. usually when i see 1.d4 b6 .bf4 i immediately prepare for d6, g6, stuff preparing e5 (After the obligatory bb7 of course ). the extra expense of the queen fianchetto is not particularly detrimental, esp since most london players are not rushing to play e4 

It isn't exactly Owens which is supposed to be after e4 but I get what you're saying. Did you ever try it against 1. e4?

I thought I was answering optimissed’s comment about the Nh3-f3-Nf2 setup thing. 

I thought you were asking about the setup that the curtis guy played. 

Beg your pardon.

this

Yes that, but also about b6 against 1. e4.

I saw this opening today

It probably doesn't lose by force and it may be played by black as a counter-attacking option to try to win. @ThrillerFan's suggestion that "it's horrible for black" is subjective.

if White plays decently after 3. Bd3 he gets an advantage, I would never take Black in any of the resulting positions

I'll do it in blitz with no appreciable difference in results from other openings because at 1000 rated 3/0 blitz played in binges in order to numb the emotional pain of existence nothing really matters. 

Although having the bishop on the diagonal is positionally helpful because when I inevitably blunder a bunch of material it makes a desperate unsound attack more likely to succeed. 

But I'm next level like that. 

it true that white does get a decent edge and black takes longer to equalize than in most defenses, but black's positions are by now means dull. the positions you get have a lot of latent counterplay, although black usually must bide his time a little if white goes for the more testing setups. 
I have had fantastic results with 1.b6. In the last  month alone i had a GM scalp and an streamed IM scalp on lichess, both 15+10 format so no cheap blitz win either.  One was a brutal attacking game where i came out on top, and the other was a positional crush on the queenside.  And yes, both played quite testing lines with 3.bd3, no easy 3.nc3 line either.

I don't think openings matter that much. Especially if you're playing mostly blitz. https://youtu.be/2boTYE7xpGw