Why play 1. b3?

I play 1. f4, but often I find that Black can play 1...g6, "preventing" 2. b3, a pretty strong setup for Bird's Opening.  So the debate could be shifted this way...

Why not play 1. b3?  One obvious downside for a Bird's Opening player like me is that Black can immediately play ...e5.  However, White still has a flexible position - he can still enter into an English 2. b3 system, or even play 2. e3 venturing into reversed Queen's Indian territory, or even preparing a slow d2-d4, or playing a double fianchetto and assaulting the center with a reversed Hippo. 

Obviously, this very flexible choice is worth debate.  It may not be one of the top choices, but White definetely has not "handed the cards" to Black.

So, has anyone had any experience with this opening, good or bad?

My closest experiences with it is actually from the Black side, Owen's Defense, which I intend to start a blog on shortly.  I believe that any player of the Nimzo-Larsen, 1. b3, ought to also consider Owen's Defense.

I have played 1. b3 quite a bit over the last two years (on turn-based sites).

I like it alot and never mind seeing 1. ...e5-- there are other set-ups for Black that are more annoying than 1. ...e5!  Also, the King's Indian is fun to play against because of the different options available, such as  1. b3  Nf6  2. Bb2  g6  3. Bf6 and then a later c4 to clamp down on the d5 square.  Not too scary for your opponent to face-- just a completely different middlegame position to be played.

I kind of dread playing Black against any set-up that has a bishop at b2 because you have to be alert at ll times to the fact that bishop is bearing down on your kingside and trying to control the d4 and e5 squares. 

I wish I could play 1. f4  d5  2. b3  without all the other variations being available to my opponent, but that's just not realistic!  I guess I could transpose with 1. b3  d5  2. f4 and be happy with that!

Oh, and the Nimzo-Larsen Attack book by Jacobs and Tait is great!  And necessary!

Yes, you could play 1. b3 d5 2. f4, that is a very valid point.  Me personally, I prefer to assault the e5 square with f4 in my normal play, since I can play Nf3 after the fact, but I also like playing systems with d3 preparing e4, which you don't get to explore in the Nimzo-Larsen (unless you play the Reversed Hippo).

I have heard about the NLA by Jacobs and Tait - I have never read it before though.  I used to own a book, the Bird-Larsen Attack by Soltis that had the move order 1. f4 d5 2. b3, but even if Black plays ...g6, then you can push 2. e4, or 2. Nf3 and still have a flexible Bird position. 

I also know Bird players who will "force" b3 regardless if Black plays ...g6, but then there is a bit of equalizing over the diagonal...this might be a good reason to not place the Bird bishop on b2.  Of course, that is a matter of taste.

inject_the_venom - I play the Nimzo-Larsen quite a bit. Lately I've been concentrating on 1.b3 lines with an early f4. If Black replys with 1...e5 then I would rather go into another NLA variation than to play From's Gambit if I had opened with 1.f4 hoping for the chance to follow with b3. What I mean is that I would rather follow Nimzo-Larsen lines than Bird lines.

In responce to BirdBrain's original question - I like 1.b3 because White sets the tone of the game from the very first move (as most openings do). But it's a type of game which appeals to my sense of logic (and even aesthetics). I guess it's just the way my brain is wired.

I also have the Jacobs/Tait book which is an excellent reference. The Soltis book however is not as good as Raymond Keene's "Nimzowitch/Larsen attack". Keene's book is somewhat hard to find these days but it is outstanding and is the seminal book on the NLA. Prior to his book the opening was called the Queen's Fianchetto.

Black should equalize rather easily against it as black can get a fair share of the center and he doesn't need to know much theory. white could definitley get kingside chances but it doesn't really give white an initiative or a real control of the game. I would rather do something like that with black but I don't think I'd do it with either.

Birdbrain

When I was young, both in chess and in age (27< age <30), I played the Larsen in OTB games, at least 9 times from the remaining games I have in my database. It was a change up from my usual English opening. The last time I played it was in 1975! I had good results 8/9. As Black I have 6 games, the last in 2000. I won all 6. I think it came down to basically how good of a player you are are. The games with Black I was higher rated playing against 1800-1900 players. The games with White I think I was higher rated with all but two of the games, the ones I drew. I believe you can get reasonable positions, but it was too boring for me or maybe I was just going in a different direction. Good luck in your games.

Just get a playable opening position.  That's the whole point isn't it?  I am starting to go away from openings other than the ones I make simply because the game is never really decided in the opening between two strong players.  It depends on the middlegame and how you play. 

I agree with killabeez, however I think once you are reaching the 2100+ status you need to have most of these book openings down otherwise slight innaccuracies can get you into trouble.  You'll find yourself a pawn down and that's the game!

In theory. 1. b3 e5 allows black to equalise easily.

1. f4 g6 is a possible yet rare response. This does prevent the queeside fianchetto however.

I prefer the KIA

I think it depends on your temperament. Many players who feel more comfortable as black, and prefer to equalise rather than counterattack may well be attracted to white openings that give black good chances for equality.

Some players of this type, to me, seem timid when playing white, but that's clearly because I like to play for an advantage immediately. I think some of these players do not like the idea of overextending or getting careless, and feel much more comfortable when under a little pressure from the other player because it helps direct their play.

I does seem sensible that someone of this mindset might be attracted to sensible but quiet developing moves like 1.b3 with 2.Bb2 or 3.Bb2 to follow. If I had this sort of playing style I think I would try something flexible (albeit slightly insipid) like the London System (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 3.Bf4), but I don't consider 1.b3 to be a bad way to start the game, but it does make some commitments regarding likely pawn structure. In my own games, I'm usually very pleased to gain the bishop pair by allowing ...Nxc3 then bxc3, because the extra pawn can be put to use in centre and shields my queens favourite early spot on c2... 1.b3 means I can't do this!

EDIT - for birds opening players wanting to begin 1.b3 as the thread begins, I think you have to decide which part of your preferred game is more important, the fianchetto bishop on b2 or the pawn on f4; also if black does play to avoid the second move, which route are you most happy to play your back-up line. BB - you make some interesting points regarding the flexibility of whites position after 1.b3, are you thinking of adapting your system?

Well, to tell you the truth grey-pieces, I am ALWAYS looking to adapt my style.  That is why I explore so many different openings - to taste of different ideas and how they teach me the weaknesses and strengths of my own play.  I believe in the opening, you should understand the dips and curves of people's choices.  If you can gain a good opening position, you have ground to maneuver through the endgame.

And I think when people worry so much about keeping the advantage every move, they do two things POTENTIALLY -

leave out interesting possibilities they may have been able to play.

get nervous and blunder.

It is better to find a good move than to lose always trying to find the best move.  That is just me, though!

I've played 1.b3 a couple of times, and I find that d5 is actually more effective than e5. By playing 1...e5, black actually lets white to pick on that pawn.

| am playing someone in a few days in a club championship and my opponent will probably play 1.b3 can someone who plays 1.b3 answer what they would play as white after b3 d5 Bb2 Bg4!?

thanks

you can play 3. f3, but best is to join this group with your questions - 

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/1b3-nimzo-larsen-attack

thanks

conor, they played a vote chess match with that 3. f3 line and had a nice win, but I don't think they were terribly happy with it anyway, and may have some better ideas for you!

Illya Odessky has a book about 1.b3, and here is a review of it: http://www.chessvibes.com/reviews/review-play-1b3/

Guys, did you ever play via the move order 1.Nf3?

I think the only point of b3 is to develope your bishop to b2.

No, it is much deeper than that.  You are essentially setting up an attack on the kingside from move 1 by placing your queen bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal, so it goes much deeper than that :-)