so basically, im a master that plays both in open tournaments and researches some of its lines 20 move deep,you havent bothered to play these lines in years, and your brilliant analysis ends in move 5. really!? your refutation of the owen's is 1.e4 b6 2.d4 bb7 3.bd3 e6 (i prefer nf6 myself) 4.nf3 c5 5.c3? ihave analyzed lines of the owen's to 20-25 moves and this is the scary refutation you provide?
and now you are comparing the owen's to the latvian which is frankly ridiculous. put any engine after 5.c3 and the latvian and see what they tell you. absurd.
if you want to go about not aanlyzing concrete lines, you can just as easily wave off the english with some abstract nonsense like , now that the c pawn is on c4 instead of c3, d4-d5 simply gives white a better game unlike in the owen's where d4-d5 is bad without the c-pawn.
It has not been YEARS since I've played these lines. I have played the English Defense as Black over the board as recent as 2017, and have always considered it one of my main three weapons against 1.c4. Owen's Defense I have faced as White in recent times, multiple times, but have not played specifically the Black side of it since at least 10 to 12 years. There's no reason to play something that is "speculative at best", and that's being generous.
I actually can't recall a person not named Miles Ardeman that has ever gotten a winning position against me in OTB competition with 1...b6 (or 1...b5 for that matter, which I have faced as recently as January 2018 - I had White in the following game: 1.d4 b5 2.Nf3 Bb7 3.Bg5 a6 4.Nbd2 d5 5.e3 Nd7 6.Bd3 Ngf6 7.O-O e6 8.Ne5 Be7 9.f4 h6?? (A HORRIBLE MOVE) 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Qh5 Bxe5 12.fxe5 O-O 13.h4 f5 14.g4 Qe8 15.Qxe8 Raxe8 16.gxf5 exf5 17.Rxf5 Rxf5 18.Bxf5 Nxe5 19.dxe5 Rxe5 20.Bg6 Rxe3 21.Kf2 Re6 22.h5 Rf6_ 23.Kg3 Bc8 24.Rf1 Rxf1 25.Nxf1 Be6 26.Kf4 Kf8 27.Ke5 Ke7 28.Ne3 c6 29.Nf5+ 1-0 - Black NEVER HAD A CHANCE!), and even Miles lost because his phone went off in a FIDE rated event (actually the same tournament as the 1...b5 game above but a few years back!)
a lot of GM's would say english defense is just as speculative as the owen's (a failed QID im sure they would call it). I dont hold this to be authorative. I hold the engine and the few top players who play these lines a bigger authority on these matters then the chess hoi polloi, but my point is that there is something delightfully absurd in brushing off the Owen's while thinking the english is "objectively sound". unless we start discussing specific lines in both, common opinion in these matters is an all or nothing proposition.
also, what does that ramble have anything to do with the topic? 1.d4 b5?! transposes to the st.george or leads to a polish opening one move down which is really bad news for black. irrelevant anyways. you cant compare 1.e4 b6 with 1.d4 b5.
The point was that Black has no business advancing the b-pawn on move 1 no matter how far it is, and when talking 1...b6, White's first move is irrelevant with the sole exception of 1.c4. It's all about whether or not White plays c4. If he does, Black's defense is speculative. If he doesn't Black's defense is bad.
And 1.d4 b6 2.e4 is no different than 1.e4 b6 2.d4. The same sorry defense that's as disgusting as a dirty diaper sitting on a baby that had the runs!
lol...that actually made me laugh.
so basically, im a master that plays both in open tournaments and researches some of its lines 20 move deep,you havent bothered to play these lines in years, and your brilliant analysis ends in move 5. really!? your refutation of the owen's is 1.e4 b6 2.d4 bb7 3.bd3 e6 (i prefer nf6 myself) 4.nf3 c5 5.c3? ihave analyzed lines of the owen's to 20-25 moves and this is the scary refutation you provide?
and now you are comparing the owen's to the latvian which is frankly ridiculous. put any engine after 5.c3 and the latvian and see what they tell you. absurd.
if you want to go about not aanlyzing concrete lines, you can just as easily wave off the english with some abstract nonsense like , now that the c pawn is on c4 instead of c3, d4-d5 simply gives white a better game unlike in the owen's where d4-d5 is bad without the c-pawn.
It has not been YEARS since I've played these lines. I have played the English Defense as Black over the board as recent as 2017, and have always considered it one of my main three weapons against 1.c4. Owen's Defense I have faced as White in recent times, multiple times, but have not played specifically the Black side of it since at least 10 to 12 years. There's no reason to play something that is "speculative at best", and that's being generous.
I actually can't recall a person not named Miles Ardeman that has ever gotten a winning position against me in OTB competition with 1...b6 (or 1...b5 for that matter, which I have faced as recently as January 2018 - I had White in the following game: 1.d4 b5 2.Nf3 Bb7 3.Bg5 a6 4.Nbd2 d5 5.e3 Nd7 6.Bd3 Ngf6 7.O-O e6 8.Ne5 Be7 9.f4 h6?? (A HORRIBLE MOVE) 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Qh5 Bxe5 12.fxe5 O-O 13.h4 f5 14.g4 Qe8 15.Qxe8 Raxe8 16.gxf5 exf5 17.Rxf5 Rxf5 18.Bxf5 Nxe5 19.dxe5 Rxe5 20.Bg6 Rxe3 21.Kf2 Re6 22.h5 Rf6_ 23.Kg3 Bc8 24.Rf1 Rxf1 25.Nxf1 Be6 26.Kf4 Kf8 27.Ke5 Ke7 28.Ne3 c6 29.Nf5+ 1-0 - Black NEVER HAD A CHANCE!), and even Miles lost because his phone went off in a FIDE rated event (actually the same tournament as the 1...b5 game above but a few years back!)
a lot of GM's would say english defense is just as speculative as the owen's (a failed QID im sure they would call it). I dont hold this to be authorative. I hold the engine and the few top players who play these lines a bigger authority on these matters then the chess hoi polloi, but my point is that there is something delightfully absurd in brushing off the Owen's while thinking the english is "objectively sound". unless we start discussing specific lines in both, common opinion in these matters is an all or nothing proposition.
also, what does that ramble have anything to do with the topic? 1.d4 b5?! transposes to the st.george or leads to a polish opening one move down which is really bad news for black. irrelevant anyways. you cant compare 1.e4 b6 with 1.d4 b5.
The point was that Black has no business advancing the b-pawn on move 1 no matter how far it is, and when talking 1...b6, White's first move is irrelevant with the sole exception of 1.c4. It's all about whether or not White plays c4. If he does, Black's defense is speculative. If he doesn't Black's defense is bad.
And 1.d4 b6 2.e4 is no different than 1.e4 b6 2.d4. The same sorry defense that's as disgusting as a dirty diaper sitting on a baby that had the runs!