AnthonyCG wrote:
A fun example:
Actually there are certain disadvantages too. white can't play b3 and Ba3 now.
Would You Play This???
Sort:
dazbedford wrote:
Any decent player would rip you apart with this opening, unless of course you have a fantastic grip of positional play. I wouldnt play this opening as I feel you are giving black the first move back
Lol so every decent player will rip you apart if you let them play white ? Why do we agree to play black at all ?
Nov 27, 2009
0
#84
southpawsam wrote:
So are all of you guys scared???
Com'n, come play against 1.a3!?
Uhm...not scared. The problem is that your rating is only about 1200. People usually like to play other players who have some playing strength. Your rating indicates that you're a very poor player. If you get your rating up higher people will be more interested in playing with you.
Nov 27, 2009
0
#85
Elubas wrote:
I hope people don't think the move is awful, because they may well do poorly against it. It's perfectly playable, it just has no chance of advantage whatsoever.
Exactly right Elubas...
It is unusual so has a certain surprise value, I suggested it as an opening move the other night to a junior whom prefered playing with the Black pieces. The idea being that you give Black the initiative, but you have played a move that may have merit in certain lines.
Nov 27, 2009
0
#87
dazbedford wrote:
Any decent player would rip you apart with this opening, unless of course you have a fantastic grip of positional play. I wouldnt play this opening as I feel you are giving black the first move back
You are wrong Dazbedford. If you were correct then everytime you were playing white you'd "rip apart" your black opponent. Your 1300ish rating proves the lie of that argument. It's simple, a3 is not strong move, but it's not weak either. It just hands Black the potential advantage of the first move. If you don't understand this point then you should try harder to do so and maybe you're game will improve as you do so.
Just_testing wrote:
It is unusual so has a certain surprise value, I suggested it as an opening move the other night to a junior whom prefered playing with the Black pieces. The idea being that you give Black the initiative, but you have played a move that may have merit in certain lines.
It is quite often a useful move actually, whether to prevent the opponent's bishop or knight from coming to b4, or to provide a retreat field for your king's bishop. Maybe even to play b4 but probably u don't want to do that on move 2.
To those people who think this move is weak, I faced it OTB in the '87 World Open (under 1900 section), and let me tell you, it is not weak. I won in @40 moves, but that was due to the middle game, not the opening. All White is doing here is giving Black rope--enough rope to hang himself. If Black gets too arrogant White's counterpunching can/will be fatal. And while a3 has never been my first move I respect the fact that in the opening even h4 is a valid first move, PROVIDED you are aware of what the risks are. Too many people here automatically assume that anything not played by Kasparov or Anand or Fischer is weak. It may well be weak TO THEM, but to us mere mortals it's all dangerous.
Well I disagree about 1 h4 being viable, as this to me is just plain bad. It weakens the kingside, bringing serious harm to a castled position sometimes. It's like playing black with h5 extra (this extra tempo isn't even wanted). To assume that this h pawn will instead be strong is completely naive.
The thing about 1 a3 is that it's illogical if one is trying for the initiative, but black has to deal with that all the time and he still wins games. Now if black plays the st. george with 1...a6, he has a much greater chance of getting overrun, because he's black. Maybe white could barely get away with 1 h4, but black playing 1...h5? That's suicide.
1. a3 (Ha! thinks white) a6 (screw you thinks black)
etc.
To Elubas
According to Chess Life and Review, there was a Scottish Champion back in the late 70's who won at least two games in the championship round playing 1.h4. I thought it was ridiculous then, but I now feel that anything in the opening is valid, so long as you are aware of the risks and play accordingly. BTW, the opening 1.h4 was dubbed "The Crab" and if you've read batgirl's latest post you would make the connection. Anyway, while the Scotsman could and did play this and win, I am not good enough or aware enough to play this or 1.a3 and get away with it. I'm a dedicated 1.e4 man and I'll never change, but I tip my hat to the pioneers who are daring enough to try and challenge theory.
It wouldn't throw me off at all, I'd just go ahead and pretend to be white and take initiative for myself from move one with a move like e5.
Elubas wrote:
Now if black plays the st. george with 1...a6, he has a much greater chance of getting overrun, because he's black.
Just for a little balance... below is Anatoly Karpov, at the height of his powers (1980), losing to a 1 .... a6 playing Tony Miles:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068157
Truth be told, after this famous victory for the Englishman, I and all the other little lads were playing 1 .... a6 for a while.
polydiatonic wrote:
boy678 wrote:
southpawsam wrote:
You are all worng.
I am playing right now and have had three players and they all have lost badly
Any more comments
No, i wouldnt play it. It looks horrible in order to control the centre squares. 1...a3 gives your oppenent the idea you have no idea whatsoever what you're doing. If you want something better, try playing 1...d4.
You have a very closed and limited view of the opening. I'm basing this on your comments, your "game" that you included and lastly your anemic rating. Btw, it's not a bad idea to give your opponent the idea that "you have no idea" of what you're doing. It's actually a pretty good stratedgy at times. Especially if the thing that you're doing is actually not really bad. Point being 1.a3 is not "bad", it's just not good. It's really a non-commital "pass" of the first move to black. In other words all of the negative comments you made about white's opening are the same thing as saying about blacks position b4 he's made his first move. If you don't understand what I mean try thinking really hard about it before you respond with some nasty/aggressive comment as if you were some sort of master. As a real life chess player my rating is around 2000uscf (although only 1820 here). That doesn't make me = kasparov or anything, but it does mean that I have a very good working knowledge of the game and that I'm in the top 10% or so of all rated chess players in the world. That's pretty good in my book. You, as a 1200 player should be less concerned about how "horrible" a move looks and more concerned with what, if any, problems or solutions a move creates. 1.a3 doesn't solve anything, but it also doesn't create any problems. As a 1200 player your main goal should probably be learning how to survive the first 10 -15 moves of the game without doing anything really dumb.
"As a 1200 player your main goal should probably be learning how to survive the first 10 -15 moves of the game without doing anything really dumb."
Make sure I don't make any "nasty/aggressive comment"???
What do you call your comment???
I am pretty sure of a few things...
1) You probably never played against 1.a3!?
2) You have never seen an antidote to 1.a3!? in any opening book
3) You have never even thought of playing 1.a3!? before
Your making a very harsh jugdement on an opening you have rarely seen. I think it would be better to study some games after 1.a3/2.b4 and then make your judgement.
Another point about 1.a3 is playing it against amatuers only. Here is my point. If you know you can play stronger positional chess than your opponent, why not play 1.a3? He cannot rely on any theory he has learned and you can come in for the kill.
Maybe I will have to play you in a CC game and see how you do.
Any more comments???
Any more comments???
Nov 29, 2009
0
#97
southpawsam wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
boy678 wrote:
southpawsam wrote:
You are all worng.
I am playing right now and have had three players and they all have lost badly
Any more comments
No, i wouldnt play it. It looks horrible in order to control the centre squares. 1...a3 gives your oppenent the idea you have no idea whatsoever what you're doing. If you want something better, try playing 1...d4.
You have a very closed and limited view of the opening. I'm basing this on your comments, your "game" that you included and lastly your anemic rating. Btw, it's not a bad idea to give your opponent the idea that "you have no idea" of what you're doing. It's actually a pretty good stratedgy at times. Especially if the thing that you're doing is actually not really bad. Point being 1.a3 is not "bad", it's just not good. It's really a non-commital "pass" of the first move to black. In other words all of the negative comments you made about white's opening are the same thing as saying about blacks position b4 he's made his first move. If you don't understand what I mean try thinking really hard about it before you respond with some nasty/aggressive comment as if you were some sort of master. As a real life chess player my rating is around 2000uscf (although only 1820 here). That doesn't make me = kasparov or anything, but it does mean that I have a very good working knowledge of the game and that I'm in the top 10% or so of all rated chess players in the world. That's pretty good in my book. You, as a 1200 player should be less concerned about how "horrible" a move looks and more concerned with what, if any, problems or solutions a move creates. 1.a3 doesn't solve anything, but it also doesn't create any problems. As a 1200 player your main goal should probably be learning how to survive the first 10 -15 moves of the game without doing anything really dumb.
"As a 1200 player your main goal should probably be learning how to survive the first 10 -15 moves of the game without doing anything really dumb."
Make sure I don't make any "nasty/aggressive comment"???
What do you call your comment???
I am pretty sure of a few things...
1) You probably never played against 1.a3!?
2) You have never seen an antidote to 1.a3!? in any opening book
3) You have never even thought of playing 1.a3!? before
Your making a very harsh jugdement on an opening you have rarely seen. I think it would be better to study some games after 1.a3/2.b4 and then make your judgement.
Another point about 1.a3 is playing it against amatuers only. Here is my point. If you know you can play stronger positional chess than your opponent, why not play 1.a3? He cannot rely on any theory he has learned and you can come in for the kill.
Maybe I will have to play you in a CC game and see how you do.
Any more comments???
You might think my comments harsh, but the the fact is that the truth sometimes hurts. Besides I'm certain you're no really reading my posts with any care because as I mentioned in my VERY FIRST POST HERE I've have in fact played a3, for fun. My only problem with you is that you seem to think a3 is somehow a great move. Somehow you fail to see that there is a distinction between a move that is good and a move that just doesn't completely suck. 1.a3 comes in the latter category.
The sad thing about your last post is that you seem to completely miss the point that, I'm more or less, agreeing with you that 1. a3 is an ok move. You're apparently so spoiling for an "fight" here that you don't even notice who people are talking to. My interest in taking you on and mopping you around the chess board with your mighty 1258 ratings is absolutely ZERO. If it makes you feel better just tell yourself that I'm too scared to play you. Yes, that's it I'm just too scared.
Any more comments??
polydiatonic wrote:
southpawsam wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
boy678 wrote:
southpawsam wrote:
You are all worng.
I am playing right now and have had three players and they all have lost badly
Any more comments
No, i wouldnt play it. It looks horrible in order to control the centre squares. 1...a3 gives your oppenent the idea you have no idea whatsoever what you're doing. If you want something better, try playing 1...d4.
You have a very closed and limited view of the opening. I'm basing this on your comments, your "game" that you included and lastly your anemic rating. Btw, it's not a bad idea to give your opponent the idea that "you have no idea" of what you're doing. It's actually a pretty good stratedgy at times. Especially if the thing that you're doing is actually not really bad. Point being 1.a3 is not "bad", it's just not good. It's really a non-commital "pass" of the first move to black. In other words all of the negative comments you made about white's opening are the same thing as saying about blacks position b4 he's made his first move. If you don't understand what I mean try thinking really hard about it before you respond with some nasty/aggressive comment as if you were some sort of master. As a real life chess player my rating is around 2000uscf (although only 1820 here). That doesn't make me = kasparov or anything, but it does mean that I have a very good working knowledge of the game and that I'm in the top 10% or so of all rated chess players in the world. That's pretty good in my book. You, as a 1200 player should be less concerned about how "horrible" a move looks and more concerned with what, if any, problems or solutions a move creates. 1.a3 doesn't solve anything, but it also doesn't create any problems. As a 1200 player your main goal should probably be learning how to survive the first 10 -15 moves of the game without doing anything really dumb.
"As a 1200 player your main goal should probably be learning how to survive the first 10 -15 moves of the game without doing anything really dumb."
Make sure I don't make any "nasty/aggressive comment"???
What do you call your comment???
I am pretty sure of a few things...
1) You probably never played against 1.a3!?
2) You have never seen an antidote to 1.a3!? in any opening book
3) You have never even thought of playing 1.a3!? before
Your making a very harsh jugdement on an opening you have rarely seen. I think it would be better to study some games after 1.a3/2.b4 and then make your judgement.
Another point about 1.a3 is playing it against amatuers only. Here is my point. If you know you can play stronger positional chess than your opponent, why not play 1.a3? He cannot rely on any theory he has learned and you can come in for the kill.
Maybe I will have to play you in a CC game and see how you do.
Any more comments???
You might think my comments harsh, but the the fact is that the truth sometimes hurts. Besides I'm certain you're no really reading my posts with any care because as I mentioned in my VERY FIRST POST HERE I've have in fact played a3, for fun. My only problem with you is that you seem to think a3 is somehow a great move. Somehow you fail to see that there is a distinction between a move that is good and a move that just doesn't completely suck. 1.a3 comes in the latter category.
The sad thing about your last post is that you seem to completely miss the point that, I'm more or less, agreeing with you that 1. a3 is an ok move. You're apparently so spoiling for an "fight" here that you don't even notice who people are talking to. My interest in taking you on and mopping you around the chess board with your mighty 1258 ratings is absolutely ZERO. If it makes you feel better just tell yourself that I'm too scared to play you. Yes, that's it I'm just too scared.
Any more comments??
When did I every say that 1.a3 was a good move?
It is a fun move to play that has some suprise value, nothing more.
But it is perfectly playable, and it seems nobody gets that.
Any more comments??
How does nobody get that it's playable?
Any decent player would rip you apart with this opening, unless of course you have a fantastic grip of positional play. I wouldnt play this opening as I feel you are giving black the first move back