What's wrong with 1.b4?

Further Expertise87, the mighty Capablanca was beaten by Kevitz as Black when he did not allow Capa to take black's epawn with white's queen bishop at b2.  See this link: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1277180

hello blasterdragon,  Fischer probably won because he is Fischer!!! But in considering opening theory Black allows White to activate his rooks, a definite downfall for black if White opens 1.b4.  Another problem for black in that game is that black allowed white to develop his c pawn with imprunity as well as allowing White to develop his queen knight which usually gets stuck at d2!

if you read the communitys comments only one person defends fischer and said he plays well 1 PERSON he is probably one of the most respected gms ever and only ONE SINGLE PERSON said that he played well in that match this game definatley did not show his brillinace in fact an overwhelming majority of people say that after a4 white should just resign on the spot and i agree fischer only won that game because he got lucky and his opponet blundered if someone as powerful as fischer could get in a bad postion in this opening to someone else then obviously it is flawed

hello blasterdragon,  Fischer probably won because he is Fischer!!! But in considering opening theory Black allows White to activate his rooks, a definite downfall for black if White opens 1.b4.  Another problem for black in that game is that black allowed white to develop his c pawn with imprunity as well as allowing White to develop his queen knight which usually gets stuck at d2!

Thank you for your comment blasterdragon.  As far as the Fischer-Walters game, Black lost because he allowed White to solve all of White's 1.b4 0pening disabilities that come with this opening.  

it had nothing to do with the blunder on move 35 ?

Don't feed the troll, please.

pfren, I totally agree with you. fischeriii takes every new contribution (even those that PROVE him wrong!) as an occasion to tell to himself (and what is funny, to the public) how great he is, manifested in his inputs having no value of (chess) truth.

Lately he repeated (for the 4th time, if I am not wrong) that trading a central pawn (e5) against a flangue pawn (b4) would be a-priori a mistake.

This is what a chess teacher might tell a student in early lessons (with his right to simplify then). 

The beauty of chess is that it is full of exceptions from the 'rule'. Here the dogmatic view ('pawn e5 is more valuable than pawn b4') is counter-balanced by the following

1. Black wins in development.

2. the white pawn advantage in the center is not mobile: in near future because of 1., and later because of a timely c7-c5 (A. Adorjan).

Btw, I gave a concrete variant about this plan, in none of his threads fischerii comments on it ( although it can be found in books). He even accuses me of not giving variants. The contrary is the case: he does not give variants at all, but repeats over and over again his dogmatic view.

A blind moron does not have a view- by definition.

1.b4 is a move that you only play if you are monkeying around. Or orang-utaning around. Or gorilla wrestling...

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1035313

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1318505

Is Tiviakov strong enough to allow Bxe5?

Here are some more Larsen games:

Nisipeanu also allows Bxe5:

There is only something wrong with it if there is something wrong with it. Know how to play it and you'll be fine.

fischeriii, as it seems you do not recognize you have been dismissed (many small children do not), and because it is a beautful morning here in the city in the Foothills, I thought I would take a moment to embarass you further.  It is low-hanging fruit, I know, but I've got a minute or two to kill.

1.  Learn to read.  It seems the simple task of clicking on my name and reading a  number is too much for you.  My online rating is 1738.  Perhaps mediocre, but that is why I was actually reading the messages on this thread, not spouting off a bunch of garbage.  Look up the parable of the wise old owl to understand the significance of this comment.  Your inability to check a number suggests a certain lack of attention to detail that calls into question anything else you might have to say.

2.  pfren did not insult you.  In post 21 he pointed out (correctly I think) that your chess knowledge was in the embryonic stage, and in response to the first of your brilliant retorts he pointed out that no one cares what you think (also correct).  Thin skinned little gutter snipe that you are, you called him mentally deficient in post 56.  This is a term you have used a few times, causing me to think that someone had Roget's Word of the Day Calendar next to his crib.

3.  In post 54 you called pfren a cheater by suggesting that he achieved his rating by playing chess with a computer engine open to him on the next screen.  At that point you should have been banned from the site.  Such a defamatory comment directed at a titled player was so far out of line that the rest of the users of this site should have flamed your ass until you were nothing but a burnt cinder.  You, who have yet to play a game on this site and clearly only joined to troll, making that statement?  Give me a break.

4.  Making things worse, showing that you do not even have the courage of your asinine convictions, you went back and deleted post 54 (looks like I have been reading this thread after all hey?  And I have a good memory.  If you are curious later, it was that post that caused me to decide to weigh on on this thread.)  Be gone with you cowardly troll, and your 1062 Tactics Trainer rating.

Ur on fischeriii

I challenged u to a correspodence game fischeriii... Dare you to play me

...and he was such a patzer, it's not even worth looking at his games.

For those who want to know, I will probably be playing in the National Chess Open in Las Vegas.  thechessplayer31, I do not do correspondence or online chess, just chess club or regulation tournament games,  there is too much room for cheating in those.  (by that I mean using computer chess machines to get your moves)

That's a copout... You're welcome to leave the post at any time

They got they idea from being on the internet and idiotically insulting people without consequence. 

But, gee, this thread is awesome. An IM vs guy-with-fischer-in-his-name flame war about the validity of 1.b4  >>>  *woot* >>> FIST PUMP!!!

It's what they had in mind when they invented the internet! 

Obligatory sardonic photo:

...

It is good maximum in blitz games. In a normal game, it is a very bad opening.