I do play very frequently another form of reversed Sokolsky: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b5!? which I consider pretty reliable.
What's wrong with 1.b4?
Sort:
There's a strange looking line with an immediate 1...b5 versus 1. Nf3, a FIDE master Ivanets has played it a few times:
Actually the strongest correspondece player who's employing 1.b4 regularly is the Ukrainian Senior Master Pavel Degterev- and he scores pretty well.
The transposition 1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.b4 makes 2....e5 less appropriate, because 2...e5, 3.Nxe5 Bxb4, 4.c4 or 4.g3 gives White an excellent game.
He has more space in view of his extra pawn in the center. In contrast to the other variant 1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 Bxb4, 3.Bxe5, he will not lose time for a retreat of a Be5.
pfren wrote:
Actually the strongest correspondece player who's employing 1.b4 regularly is the Ukrainian Senior Master Pavel Degterev- and he scores pretty well.
you as correspondence player, what do you think about Hans Berliner?
FirebrandX wrote:
Do you still want to doubt my verasity?
Do you mean voracity or veracity?
- veracity = 0.95
- voracity = -0.25
netzach wrote:
veracity = 0.95 voracity = -0.25
Nice one. 
OldHastonian wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Do you still want to doubt my verasity?
Do you mean voracity or veracity?
yes you are right i forgot the evaluation of video
TetsuoShima wrote:
pfren wrote:
Actually the strongest correspondece player who's employing 1.b4 regularly is the Ukrainian Senior Master Pavel Degterev- and he scores pretty well.
you as correspondence player, what do you think about Hans Berliner?
Hans was a WC, and he was working very hard. But correspondence at the Berliner era was very different from the current one, under many aspects (engines, huge databases, instant move delivery, and so on). I do not appreciate the man, though- too stubborn and one-sighted in many instances.
Expertise87 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
davidacrompton wrote:
Whats wrong with 1. b4?
what comes after b4?
Good point. A question mark. I think a ?! is more appropriate although this technically starts with a question mark as well...
Have met lots of replies, but the usual one is 1...e5. That can be followed up with 2. Bb2 or 2. b5. Other replies are 1... Nf6, 1... Nc6, 1... d5, 1... d6, 1... e6. Perhaps 1. b4?!? is more appropriate notation.
davidacrompton wrote:
Expertise87 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
davidacrompton wrote:
Whats wrong with 1. b4?
what comes after b4?
Good point. A question mark. I think a ?! is more appropriate although this technically starts with a question mark as well...
Have met lots of replies, but the usual one is 1...e5. That can be followed up with 2. Bb2 or 2. b5.
////////////
2.b5 d5, 3. Bb2 Bd6, 4. e3 Nf6 and Black is better , I would conjecture by minus 0.30 at least.
Note that 4.f4 exf4, 5.Bxg7 Qh4, 6.g3 fxg3, 7.Bg2 gxh2, 8.Kf1 Nf6 or even Ne7 probably loses. One should check this with a program.
My belief is based on a similar variant, with opposite colors, which was once published with detailed analysis in Shahmaty v SSSR.
1.e4 b6, 2.d4 Bb7, 3.Bd3 f5, 4.exf5 Bxg2, 5.Qh5 g6, 6.fxg6 Bg7, 7.gxh7 Kf8, 8.Nf3 winning. Later 8.Ne2 was dicovered as another winning variant.
/////////////////////////////
Other replies are 1... Nf6, 1... Nc6,
////////////////////
1....Nc6 is one of the worst replies. 2.b5 Nb8, 3.Bb2, or 2....Nd4, 3.e3 give White a clear advantage.
///////////////////////
1...d5, 1...d6, 1... e6. Perhaps 1. b4?!? is more appropriate notation.
Mar 16, 2013
0
#254
I think 1.b4 should be immediately followed by a diagram of a fish out of its fishbowl as the most appropriate notation symbol.
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
But "interesting games" IS NOT THE POINT OF THE OPENING.
Depends on why you play. I play for fun. Yes I like to win but I also like to enjoy a little variety in my games. It's a fun opening. Don't take my word for it. Play it a few times! You'll see. You might even crack a smile while you play.
Mar 16, 2013
0
#256
What is the point of the opening? For me it is to get to a position I enjoy playing...
i play 1.Nh3 myself, winning brilliantly with a Tal-style sacrifice the first time i played it. just wait til i start with 1.b4
i've played 1.Nh3 twice (when i get bored with e4)
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
heygervais wrote:
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
But "interesting games" IS NOT THE POINT OF THE OPENING.
Depends on why you play. I play for fun. Yes I like to win but I also like to enjoy a little variety in my games. It's a fun opening. Don't take my word for it. Play it a few times! You'll see. You might even crack a smile while you play.
True, I might. If my opponent blunders and gives me a slight chance to have equality after that awful opening.
If we play chess strictly dogmatically, always looking for exactly the best move, the game isnt worth playing. Might as well set up Rybka vs Fritz and watch for gosh sake. Chess is fun when you add creativity. When you attempt to be daring. To ressurect an "incorrect" line. To play a forgotten cracked opening. Now, at a Super GM level this is a little different, as there ideas of creativity takes a more deep and theoretical type. But even there: Think of the Topalov Nxf7 sac in the slav versus Kramnik. That wasn't sound, but he played it anyway. So for players at a club level (which, after checking, u happen to be) moves like 1.b4 can and should be played to keep the spirit of the game alive
I'm currently playing 1.b4 in one of my online chess games. I agree it is playable enaugh at my level (and below), but I don't dare to say how high it is playable enough. I probably won't use it much in the future. Just occasionally use it as a surprise. I'd love to start a game with 1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.g3 b5 as black though.