Sokolsky Opening. Has anyone had success persisting with the lines

Erwinik, all these replies require precise play for white but they are playable. Blacks early lead in development eventually dissipates and white is left with two central pawns, but thats just it, until you cross that threshold at around move 10-15, they are bunch of tricky set ups black can play and white cant hope to play anything on autopilot or he will be in a lot trouble.

reason why Hansen's work was so refreshing is that the c3 method is just so straightforward by comparison. There is relatively little chance to mess up big time. Even in one of white's error lines in c3 where he outright loses the d pawn , the IQP leads to a position thats only like -0.5. (this was actually one of carlsen's games!)

i dont think this makes 4.c4 dubious though.

here white benefits from keeping tension with nf3 instead of cxd5 right away.

this is quite pleasant for white actually, white will play a3, qa4, and likely rc1 (threatening rxc3 hanging bishop on a5 if still there, otherwise supports nc3) and eventually,nc3 and d4.

Despite white wanting to play d4, its best to delay it a little longeer until the pesky d5 knight is dealt with.

this line is scary looking but white is fine,  if black goes for early rd8 ,white will play be2, a3, and 0-0, he sacs the d pawn. you just have to know what you are doing . the other line is early bg4, in which case, h3, then 0-0 and d4. the likely qc2 and likely nc3. White has picturesque center and will begin harrassing black with moves like rc1 and rb1, black has nice piece development and may try to attack your kingside.

the 4.c4 lines are really borderline philosophical. The pure hard truth is the lines are 0.00 but both sides swear by their truth.

black: look at this moron with his dumb opening, now i as black have a lead in development and my pieces all go in nice squares !

....except you gave away you central pawn mass and your pieces are ice skating not making contact with your opponents pieces half the time.

White: keep your development, soon that will run out of steam and white's structural superiority will make itself felt. 

.....except, even if white gets the d4 pawn rolling , it is no guarantee he has the better game, black will develop his pieces around your center .

and the truth is split right down the middle. with precise play blacks development is a bluff and the threat of white's center is a little overblown, it is dynamically dead-even but fun and asymmetrical. 

But what really throws black off is the psychoology. these lines are fairly unique for a white opening in that black is allowed to lead and white is effectively playing black  to lure him to play a premature attack.  In turn, especially at master level white has to remember a thousand little differences of different black replies to try to punish you.

and the conundrum of every 1.b4 master has been that 1.b4 e5 2.bb2 bxb4 takes like half our opening book on 1. b4 lines to know by heart. The other lines for the most kind of resemble one another, the basic formation is pretty static, c4, nf3- e3- be2 and white must choose whether to play d3 or d4, nc3 or nd2, and whether to play early b5 or not,  (and rarely c5 or not). In some lines white can experiment with g3 and once in a while early f4.  That is 95% of everything else, but the exchange line is its own animal. 

4.c3 changed all of that. Now we have a shortcut line if you dont want to bother remembering all those 4.c4 tricky lines

darkunorthodox88, your posts are always useful. Easy to see why you are a NM. 

Carsten Hansen's book is a must for 1 b4 players. However, it's not as user friendly as it could have been. I actually went through the book using a blue gel pen and wrote over the first move in each variation so that it's easier to spot. I could have instead written over the letter index before the first move of each variation and might go back and do that just for appearance. 

I also noticed that there are a lot of parentheses imbedded within parentheses. It can be a bit difficult and time consuming finding where the main parentheses end. So I went through the book with a black gel pen (my blue pen had run out of ink) and wrote over the first main "(" and the last main ")" throughout. I also wrote over any sub parentheses that would help but I didn't write over all the parenthesis in the book because that would defeat the purpose in helping distinguish main from sub at times. 

I have actually started two games with playing 4. c4. Lets see what happens

By just listening to wiser heads and superior chess players here, looking at the patterns and watching the lines as a casual chess player only, I was able to get two draws and two losses against a much better chess player.

Without reading Carsten Hansen’s book yet which I intend to …I just believed that this opening theory would give me a much better chance as white to be competitive against a superior chess player.

Centre opening battles are bread and butter lines for seasoned chess players.

I figured that having more exposure to one opening “ the Sokolsky opening” and immersing myself into other stronger players thoughts and lines would give me a better chance.

Wow. I watched the reaction of the commentators when Magnus played b4 in a quarter final that unsidesteppableChess posted.What a breath of fresh air to see commentators genuinely shocked and excited by this!!!

yes,  i actually agree that the Hansen book can be a bit confusing to read which is unfortunate , i dont think its the best introduction to the opening. Something simpler like the b4 section of Dunnington's "Winning unorthodox openings" is a more gentle introduction. Hansen's book is better suited for 1800+ players.

Yeah, I agree with that also. His book is somewhat advanced. I don't really have a problem with the level of the info (though I am a fan of the hand holding of Silman books, lol), my point was the format the book is written in is not as reader friendly on the eyes as it could have been. I've been using my gel pen to help with that. I haven't played OTB in years so not sure what my actual strength is now but I was USCF expert, probably more like Class A now would be a good bet. 

i know what you mean, there is some lines where the book format really confuses  the reader on when exactly a transposition happens and finding the exact page the transposition is found before is a real headache partially because of the parenthesis system Hansen uses.

Speaking as someone who will mostly play the black side against 1.b4, at least for time being, definitely will be avoiding the 1...e5 exchange line. As would expect people just too prepared there. Will probably go with something 1...d5.

Carlsen played 1 b4 twice in 2022. Both were blitz tournament games. He scored 2-0 against an average rating of 2628. Both were the exchange variation, 4 c3 played, black played 4...Be7 in one, 4...Ba5 in the other.

Nakamura played 1 b4 five times in 2022. All in blitz tournaments. He scored 5-0 against an average rating of 2582. Two of the games were the exchange variation - 4 c3 played in one game, 5 c3 played in the other (Nakamura played 4 e3 first), Black played his bishop back to e7 both times.  

Carlsen and Nakamura are the best blitz players in the world and can win with almost anything, but still interesting to see them continue to use 1 b4 on occasion, and both are using c3 in the exchange. 

ivanchuk also used it twice in a row vs li chao and won both i believe 

but whats to me kind of crazy is how many many years, everyone in the know played 4.c4 which was sokolsky's idea,with those that didnt play e3 nf3 be2 without c4, and a few other experiments here and there. c3 was a  move (theory and practice of the sokolsky, listed 4.c3 ba5!? 5.c4 as a possible improvement,) but practically no one played 4.c3 as it is played today. That really came in to the scene in the 2010's. but that is quite interesting because first time i remember 4.c3 as the top engine move was like in 2016, i forget if it was komodo or a version of stockfish that liked it, and started seeing these unusual ideas.

I honestly suspect the 4.c3 craze was entirely computer created but it took Carlsen playing it and basically giving it his blessing for the world to catch up to its realization.

i also remember absolutely falling in love with this cute line. you imagine getting this as black in an OTB game?

After 1 b4 e5 2 Bb2 Bxb4 3 Bxe5 Nf6 4 c3 Ba5 5 Qa4 Nc6 Hansen gives 6 e3 d6 7 Bg3. However, after 5 e3 0-0 6 Qa4 Nc6 he gives 7 Bxf6 as better than 7 Bg3. 

It is difficult to discern why Bg3 in one line but Bxf6 in a similar line. In the 6 e3 d6 7 Bg3 line it will take black an extra tempo getting in ....d5 and ...Ne4 (the setup for black that concerns him in the line he chooses 7 Bxf6 in), so perhaps that makes enough difference to choose 7 Bg3 when black has played ...d6.

The way my mind works is if there is little difference I like to just do what is often played (Bxf6) and go Bxf6 in both of those lines. That way I'm playing pattern recognition chess when I can get away with it and not having to try to recall when, what, where, why if is not much to be gained from it. Not the best way to play perhaps but in this situation it seems feasible to me. Next I set up white's typical formation after Bxf6. 

Of course one does not want to play on auto pilot without being alert for significant reasons not to. 

What is the b4 d5 line. I’ve not seen the theory on that one.

1.b4 d5 2.bb2 Nf6 3.e3 bf5

With the exchange variation being the most orthodox opening played by black is this position an advantage for white then?