Your experience with 1.b3

This is a prime example of the attitude that will get you killed!

In the latest edition of American Chess Magazine, they had amateurs submit their best game annotated.  Mine was one of the ones published.  My opponent was an IM and he played 1.b3.  Either he thought he could get away with a dubious 11th move and bad 12th move, or I knew the theory more than he did.  It was the main line with 5.f4, and he played 11.Nd3?! Instead of 11.Nxc6 and then followed up with 12.Nf2?.  Black (myself) was then winning the game all the way from move 12 to the end with White resigning after 59 moves.

Am I saying 1.b3 is refuted?  Absolutely not!  But anyone that is of the attitude that an opening is good on the sheer basis of others not knowing it deserve to get their heads chopped off like this IM did!

As White, I have played it maybe 6 to 8 times over the board and am not amused at all about it.  Feels like black gets way too much in the main line (1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6).  If White follows book all the way, I'll take the Rook, Bishop, and better development over the 2 Knights and 2 Pawns, despite the fact that it is equal in theory.

can you post the game here?

Don't have the time to re-key it all here, have something in 10 minutes, but if you do not get American Chess Magazine, you can find it at the following link, though the annotations are lighter here.

It is the final game in the following article:

http://charlottechesscenter.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-art-of-miracle-draw.html?m=0

Of course, I really like the resulting positions after pretty much any line, the surprise element is just a bonus

I guess 1.b3 is a good choice if your name is Nakamura. He could also play 1.a3 with the same success in blitz. I think like most of you that black will get good positions if he knows what he is doing.

I've had a fair amount of good experience with it in blitz, however the problem is (for me) that there are a lot of different ways to play against it, and basically if you choose something that isn't the mainline (putting pawns on e5 and d5) then unless you know the theory, black equalizes super easily.

I also think that the mainline is better for black.

the mainline is objectively (engine eval) better for black, but its very tricky to play, and there are a lot of tactics.

honestly, i just try to get this setup

The bishop exchanged for a night on c6, and the knight jumps to e5. If my opponent prevents this setup, i switch to the d4-c4 plan

I archived the book 1.b3 in Chessable and will try something different,  like 1.d4

I have played it some 45 years ago for a while, because I wanted to play like Larsen.

I abandoned the effort quite quickly, becuse I was scoring very poorly: apparently I could not play like Larsen.

ironically, the most famous 1.b3 game of all time was the game where Larsen got completely crushed. 

I actually played it for quite some time, including tournament games. Generally speaking, it was nice when opponent played 1...d5 and 2...c5, which allowed me to play Black lines tempo up. d5 without c5 was Reti, which now I prefer to enter via normal move order. As for 1...e5, I gradually switched from 3.e3 shenanigans to 2.c4, played like that for a year, and then noticed that it is just a toothless version of English. The added benefit is that sometimes my opponents try 1.b3 against me, and I get them into funny lines.

Thanks guys for your help.
The funny thing about my opening choice is the fact that I should not care much about openings at my level. I do nevertheless and this is probably one of the reasons why I don’t progress much in the game.

I think I will try again the QG. I know a book where the author goes for mainlines, playing f3 whenever is decent. It sounds good for me.

if you like that setup you might as well play the classical Bird's.

i guess i could, but its much more flexible trhough the b3 move order, and i have a lot of other options, eg. d4-c4 plan. its way less commital.

lol. I don't even play the Classical, I play the Leningrad.