It makes me so angry when people confuse lose and loose.
It's even more suprising coming from a non-native speaker (which I'll assume you are), because you shouldn't be confused by the similar sounds.
But yes, you can start the game with 1.a3 and there's nothing wrong with that. It's like being black, which is playable last time I checked, and you also have a useful move already done on top of that.
Yep I'm not a native speaker indeed :p
1.a3 still can be ok but 2.h3 and I get angry :/
I guess it's all about psychology, idk why...
Ya wanna get angry, lose against 1. f3.... 2. K-f2.
Ke2, Qe1, Kd1 would be a nice test...
But OP I think the best way is to relax and develop more pieces.. better development gives you better attacking chances and the initiative. Don't worry about h3/a3 in the opening. Most of the times they are patzer moves that gives you big advantage!
You could see these players as beginning chess players so they don't know what they are doing is faulty. It's your job to show them why it's faulty with better positional and tactical advantages.
Losing all those tempi's... it looks like horrible opening play from both sides, and this is 2000+.. Chess can be weird :)
Well, every grandmaster says that playing a3 and h3 in the opening is just patzer play, why not develop a piece in one go. And why would you want to have rooks on the front and not in the back supporting your pieces?
Also a random game which you won doesn't say anything statistically about h3 and a3. It's worthless as evidence to say h3 and a3 are good moves.
Some openings may have h3 or a3 in certain lines and h6/a6 but those are exceptions. IF Moves like h3 or a3 if they don't constrict your opponent pieces they don't make positional sense. Too much prophylaxis, your opponent gets free development thanks to patzer pawn moves.
If that angers you OP., I would not like you to experience a real problem in life.
False, and that's not a good attitude. Don't be so presumptuous and get personal please. Maybe you're not at the level yet where opening is important or you've spent a lot of time studying it yet.
It's perfectly valid to get annoyed over this. Every player is supposed to be trying their best, something which is obviously not true if you play these moves. It could even be argued as cheating, since it's bad sportsmanship. It's unethical to experiment on others without their persmission. Admittedly some sort of chess experimentation has to be expected online, but certain moves like 1. f3 or 1. ...f6 are taking it outside of the realms of the normal game of chess. It's a bit like starting a race running backwards and facing the opponent - it's disresrepectful.
On the flipside I admit I like when my opponent plays 1. ...a6 or 1. ...b6 though, because unless they play super accurately and know exactly what they're doing I always get a good kingside attack. However, I don't think the game is a proper one really.
Developing major pieces before minor is positionally weak, just like h3 and a3 or h6 and a6. That your opponent didn't capitalize on it doesn't mean your play is good.
Engine analysis show us that it's weak:
2. Rh3 (-1.1) -> better is Nc3
4. Rf3 (-2)
5. a4 (-1.8) -> better is d4
6. Raa3 (-2.6) -> better is d4
7. Rad3 (-2.8) -> better is d4
8. e4 (-3.1) -> better is Rb3
11. Ne2 (-2.2) -> better is d3
The only reason you won this game is that your opponent played worse between moves 15-19 and you were lucky with a mating net. But playing an opening which basically gives black a 2 pawn advantage seems terrible. But keep playing your patzer openings.
Is it only me or it is really frustrating loosing against people starting with the moves a3 then h3 or a6 h6, this kind of people who can't resist making double pawns in your army, moving the queen really early and raping almost all basic principles ? I feel like sometimes these people can be really good at calculation without having any chess knowledge and it makes me so angry :/
Whut about you?
I find it frustrating too becuase I can't get into opening theory but they are generally poor moves -- not controlling the centre and no meaningful development. But what really frustrates me is losing against a player who uses his queen almost exclusively.
Also a random game which you won doesn't say anything statistically about h3 and a3. It's worthless as evidence to say h3 and a3 are good moves.
Oh, you want another game? How about this?
Lol just looked at your rating. lol
Nah, you didn't even respond to the terrible opening play in your first game so why bother. Also an ad hominem is bad logic. Maybe I am a worse chess player then you but at least I am not as stupid as you, you don't even understand logic lol. Enjoy your chess career playing patzer bullet openings.
<UhohSpaghettio>
Cheating I wouldn't say - it's a form of giving odds, more than anything else. You grant your opponent an advantage straight out of the opening, and invite him to show you that he has teeth.
Of course being that opponent is frustrating - you believe that you're a reasonably capable player, and yet, they put that hand inside your mouth, and suddenly you can't bite!
The frustration is understandable.
<IM Kwaja1> I challenge you to a blitz match where you undertake to bring out BOTH your rooks to the third rank (or farther up the board - your choice) by move 15 each and every game.
If you fail to do that, you must resign the game.
I guarantee not to finish worse than 5:5, despite the fact that your rating is much higher.
Time control: 3 0
Oh, and RATED, of course. I could use the extra points.
http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=2&n=256&ms=a3&ns=256
Here's your terrible move. 1.a3 is not doing that bad. It is probably not bad at all.
It's so funny when bullet warriors brag about the garbage they play lol.
http://sverreschesscorner.blogspot.hr/2007/10/1a3-mystery.html
I'm just good at it, but since I'm not playing it much I don't consider myself as such. Isn't it poetic.
I'm not that good in 1 0 and there's no time to really use positional chess to benefit in that time control.
The fact that you're asking me this question shows that you're smart enough not to play with me under these conditions, with two more minutes on the clock...
It makes me so angry when people confuse lose and loose.
It's even more suprising coming from a non-native speaker (which I'll assume you are), because you shouldn't be confused by the similar sounds.
Not a non-native speaker...just another bad troll. Non-native speakers almost never confuse loose and lose, but more importantly, non-native speakers don't say "whut".
This is just another troll thread, by someone that sucks at it.
http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/49
Yep, Taimanov was regarded as the Russian, teoretically speaking, nullity. Kidding obviously.
Is it only me or it is really frustrating losing against people starting with the moves a3 then h3 or a6 h6, this kind of people who can't resist making double pawns in your army, moving the queen really early and raping almost all basic principles ? I feel like sometimes these people can be really good at calculation without having any chess knowledge and it makes me so angry :/
Whut about you?