I really like the games of Carl Schlechter. He was known as the "drawing master", but he actually played a very attractive, complex style of chess. His name is associated with several openings that are still being discussed at the highest levels, including the Schelchter Slav.
I thought Schlecter was arguing both sides of a non-existent argument and I tried to point that out.
At one point he said that white had at least equality, and later he said that Black had an easy game and the very best White could hope for is a draw.
I see that as two different evaluations. In the first case, white has posed interesting problems for Black and can comfortably play for the win (+/= to =, or in computer terminology, +0.20-0.00) and in the other =/+ to =, 0.00 - -0.20). That isn't a large difference, but it is a critical difference. I pointed that out, and he accused me of being a weak player because I couldn't see that they are the same thing.
Ok, I am a weak player. I still don't see that they are the same.
First again, I am Schlechter, not schlecter.
Second, the whole point is, I said BLACK has at least equality, and not White.
Third, the argument that I was attacking was that White would be in a bad position. That argument was indeed existing. And it was supported with (too) short and unconvincing variants.
Fourth, smyslovfan, i am ready to take back my verdict that you would be a weak player if you just admit that you misread my posts and claimed a (nonexisting) contradiction between two of my posts.-
Coming back to the opening. I believe, Black is, IF HE PLAYS CORRECTLY, not worse, and has chances for an initiative. White, on the other hand reaches with his choice 1.b4 in many variants 'non-standard' positions where a disadvantage of -0.10 to even -0.30 for an engine means little for two humans, if one of them (the white side) is more familiar with the complex strategic battle to come.
Note also, that such disadvantage (of -0.10 to -0.30) often disappears WITH BEST PLAY FROM BOTH SIDES. This is because the 'width of draw' in chess is so large...
May be there is also another explanation for this phenomenon: Engines calculate up to a certain horizon, after which they are drawn to an evaluation process that is based on the components: material, relative value of every piece, which is determined by the number/importance of squares that it controls. Clearly, every such evaluation procedure will fail in some concrete positions... Or in short: a position can be sooo much dynamic that a calculation horizon of 24 half moves is still insufficient to capture the essence of it.
All in all, there is no reason to belittle the opening 1.b4:
If you don't know the strategic ideas as Black, you can end up soon in a worse position. I recommend to all of us to study the games of Peterleeflag . may be then some of us will learn to respect this opening.
Finally, let me point out that the idea to play an early b4 (or b5 for black) appear in other opening variants, like Reti system. They were mentioned in this forum several times.
famous players of the past who tried such ideas often were Reti, Smyslov and Makagonov.
The last one introduced the following setup against Blacks King's Indian defense (that is, Nf6, g6, Bg7, d6). It consists of
d4, c4, Nf3, Nc3, e3, Be2 and b4.
Holy prams and tossing toys.
Brilliant