What's wrong with 1.b4?

That's how the lazy people call it. For the rest, it's called good marketing.

I agreed with this statement. Later posts by you seemed to suggest that you yourself disagree with this. It seems to me that you have been arguing against yourself.

And here you seem to argue against your previous statement.

Pfren: what other rating can I use? I know it is not FIDE and that is only one that really matters, but if I do not have that rating, but have this one here, what else can I use? I can compare it with my rating here and it is more then five hundred points more. Whatever the rating system is, that difference is significant. (That is the only point I wanted to make.)

SmyslovFan and Pfren: thank you for your contributions. I am always interested in what you have to say.

Sweet Jesus it's like walking into a daycare.

And by the way, Smyslovfan and Pfren are some of the few contributors in the topic worth reading.

there is nothign wrong with b4, as in it isnt a forced loss, but why would you want to play it?

Smyslovfan, you claim that the two statements that you marked would contradict each other. therefore  I believe you are a weak player.

Saying that a position is better for one side, does not mean that that side has a big advantage or could win.

1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 and my understanding is Black is going to be exposed to some blistering attack along the a2-g8 diagonal.

1.b4 Nh6 is a possible improvement, not yet committing to ..e5.  2.Bb2 f6 and Black will only play ..e5 when White has played c4 (blocking that diagonal).  Until then he has croutching moves like ..Nf7,..g6,..Bg7,..O-O,..c6 ...

Why not 1..Nh6? If White is showing he will put a bishop on b2, then a N played to f6 would only hamper Black's ability to contest the e5 square.  1.b4 Nh6 2.d4 g6 3.e4 d5!? looks like it might work out for Black, if White changes course and goes for center occupation in response to 1...Nh6.

I gave variants to support my claims ('easier game...'). I repeated them already once. i dont do it again.

Let me also repeat that besides of some arrogant statements of Pfren and SmyslovFAN (what an insult to Smyslov), nobody has commented on my variants negatively.

Page 16 is where he repeats what he wrote on page 1 and 10 respectively.

Paraphrasing he gave the line: b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 and black plays c5, white center is restricted, black has easier game / queenside in an endgame / white isn't lost though.

He also gave some king's indian setup where black is playing e5 and d6 for his first 2 moves.

I explained the two black setups in more detail.

the two setups are known . The point is, they are often overlooked.

Because Black often tries instead to 'punish' the white slight delay in development.

I would really like to replace the common statement of 'unclear' in the variant

1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 f6, 3.e4 Bxb4,

with some precise evaluation. What does Houdini say here ?

It is an important question, because 2....f6 is an attempt to refute the white opening.

Some interesting plays... I have never seen it before 1. b4 e5 2. b5 d5 3. c4dxc4 4. Qa4 Bd7 5. Qxc4.

I wouldn't trust Houdini's verdict at such an early stage... All programs are materialistic.

Is 4....g6 playable ?

And yet you asked what Houdini's thoughts were. Don't ask if you don't want to hear it.

///

Firebrand, the program needs to check several variants, selected in dialogue with the player, with depth of 20 half moves at least, to get a reliable verdict in such a sharp situation.

you gave only one and very short variant, and you did not tell us the depth of analysis of even this.

I am astonished by the behaviour of some players who believe they have to keep their nose high as some bad teacher just because they have a higher chesscom rating.

1.b4 isnt horrible, it doesnt lose by force.

But why play it?

There isnt enough traps for the shock value to be worth anything. It doesnt set any particular problems for the opponents.

It has low theory, but theres plenty of better low theory systems you could play.

so why?