St. George Defense 1...a6

What's your intended move after 1.e4 a6 2.Nf3?

It'll be a challenge to transpose into a setup where the move a6 is not completely wasted.

french with a6 not that bad.  i forget how but theres some line where u see a transposition into an advance french with a6 being a suboptimal use of a tempo, i recall there was a nice win of morozevich here (i forget the line and the game AAAH).  o'kelly sicilian a bit suboptimal though on following with c4 and maybe g3.

Will u be at Chess Mates next week JMB?  I will be there in the 1-day to eat some rating pts.  

1. e4 a6 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 g6 and we're in the "Modern Tiger". There is a book on this opening by Tiger Hillarp Persson called "The Modern Tiger".

Oh great joy!...

FiveofSwords said:

>the only guy supporting a6 who made a valid point was chwckmmm8. which is funny because it was a troll attempt<

Really? Give the amount of myopic based generic waffle and faulty logic you have come up with, all I can say on the subject of trolling here is can you spot the irony with your statement?

And if I must…..

FiveofSwords said:

>by the way people saying a6 is 'hypernodern' as if that justifies the move<

I said no such thing and it is yet more proof, you speak before thinking. What I said was:

> The defense is essentially a hyper-modern one<

That is the St. George defense as a whole is hyper-modern of which either 1…a6 or 2…a6 is a part of. It doesn’t justify it in any manner, it simply is whether or not you close your eyes and refuse to believe as such. No more, no less.

Five of Swords said:

> a move can be obviously bad without being an immediate loss as i explained. the obviousness is not a measure of how bad it is but rather how clearly inferior it is for anyone with basic understanding of chess. similar to say 1 nf3 d5 2 ng1. some people here might be ignorant enough to rhink this is.a subtle manouver. but its not. its obviously bad but not losing.<

Here I must agree with Beasty. I for the life of me cannot  fathom how you can claim that 1…a6 is so “obviously” bad when all White has played 1.e4. This does NOT require any sort of basic understanding as you claim simply because neither White or Black has done anything yet to render it so “obviously bad”. However this is not enough for you, you then try and justify your staggering rational with the example of 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1. as being “obviously” (there’s that word again) bad but not losing. Where is the logic in the plan of playing such moves?? Unlike your example I , beasty and others have shown that clear logic playable plans can be applied after 1…a6 and that is the issue.

If what you have presented is the standard of your thinking I would really have to seriously question how you came to have such a high on-line rating...

See then again, your wrong yet again and you seriously need to reread post 26 where Beasty asks you to prove exactly what is so "obvious". I think he does so (and i might be wrong here) because he's much like me, we can not see your point simply because you don't have one and while your have written a lot, you have said next to nothing (apart from the generic waffle used to avoid answering the questions).

I would rather trust the likes of Basman (2324 Elo), NM Brian Wall (noted 1...a6 expert) and coupious theoretic volumes that cover possible transpositions (out of 1..a6) than any no name whoes only skill seems to be how to obfusication an issue with abuse.

Yes it is so bad. Enough has been said about the bad Alapin and bad Panov positions. Nothing as far as I can see about the bad Benoni, where Na6 is no longer an option, and the move ...a6 is simply premature - white will usually reply a4 and have queenside options that he wouldn't have otherwise.

It should also be added that the O'Kelly with 3.d4 is NOT "very good for black". It is okay for black, as he can reach an acceptable opening like the Paulsen or Kan.

*LOL* You would make an excellent fundimentalist terrorist. You produce a lot with your rheteric while saying very little and you can rattle your saber with gandiose ferocity like the best of them.

It is my experience in dealing with anally retentive plebs, that other people who have to watch reply after post after reply soon get bored as I am with you. So this will be my second to last post in dealing with generic waffle and or out right crap written by Fiveofswords.

Let me try and get this through your thick head, I fully understand what your meant by 'obviously bad' not being "instant losing". BUT what you a refusing to grasp in the haze of your myopia is you have yet to answer WHY 1...a6 is 'obviously bad'? (and before you start frothing at the mouth yet again, try NOT to use generalization like "It does nothing" or "its bad if you understand chess, try and do as the threads owner asks and provide specifics, provide a lines or a line that renders 1...a6 "obviously bad". Simply but you can't).

Again, my apolgizes to those bored by this. I really should fall for such trolls but left-wing fundimentalist nut cases just have that effect on me.

and the last.....Bite me

OK your a FM for a reason so I would ask then of the move order (1.e4 a6 2.d4 e6 & 1.e4 e6 2.d4 a6)?

You also posit that a6 is premature in the Benoni. That I have little practical experience with to comment on but isn't Beasty talking about the Schmid/Czech Benoni where Na6 is not really a prefered option?

And after all isn't what Beaty is trying to point out that he is looking to use 1..a6 as a flexable option (the way NM Brian Wall uses it) so maybe

1.e4 a6 2.d4 c5 3.d5 d6 (rather than e5) 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 b5 6.cxb5 g6

which is the Benko gambit? (Although I wonder what an early f4 might do?)

I agree that generic arguments against 1...a6 based on "principles" have little value.  I also think that anyone who uses the argument that a certain opening *should* not work is missing the point.  Chess is competitive, not theoretical.    

Actually the O Kelly with 3.d4 is "very good for black." He can play Nf6 and e5 because the b5 square is covered and already has a slight edge. That's why I'm favoring 1.e4 a6 2.Nf3 for white, because if 2...c5 is played then white can choose between 3.c3 and 3.c4, which both have good reputations.

Exactly! An excellent post and perhaps thee best post yet.

the defense is basically an insult to your opponent IMO.  You are essentially saying, "I bet I can still beat you despite this stupid opening"

I am not saying you are either right or wrong (as such) but doesn't that depend how yo define what a "stupid opening" is ?

Nope....not going to get involved with your trolling

@Hadron

"Nope....not going to get involved with your trolling"

who are you refering to?

AFAIK white has good chances for an advantage with 6.Nf3 and 7.Bc4. But I have to admit that I'm not really an expert on this line, and neither do I have a database at hand, being at work at the moment.

I totally get where FiveofSwords is coming from in this thread. Calling him a troll is very amusing.

I'm not sure that Na6 is generally not a good option in the Schmidt Benoni. In my opinion, the whole Schmidt Benoni is not a very good option in itself.  But playing the Modern Benoni as my main opening against 1.d4 for almost 20 years, I can say that inserting a6 and a4 early generally should not be done without a good reason. A good reason can be to prevent a Qa4 check and thus enable the generally desirable ...Bg4, or in some rare lines to prevent an unpleasant Nb5. I generally prefer to play ...a6 only when I start working on a b5 advance. Why? Because apart from other uses for the a6 square, I don't like to give white the extra option a4-a5, when I don't have to.

Now in more closed Benoni variations than the Modern, I think that the queenside bind a4-a5 is generally more unpleasant. The diagonal a1-h8 is less vulnerable on the white side, so plans including the move b2-b4 are generally easier to play and more effective. And having a shattered pawn structure on the queenside should generally be more of a problem for black, because the character of his position is less active.