# Underestimated van't Kruijs, Reversed French and Nimzo-Indian attack

It turns out that Explorer makes great estimations of van't Kruijs opening 1. e3:

Maybe it's not so strange since it leads to the Reversed French:

as well as to the Nimzo-Indian attack :

Well, its perfect if u like to play exchange french because 1.e3 e5 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 etc... transposing.

Or Owen's reversed with 1.e3 e5 2.b3

There is nothing wrong with all openings u play with white, transposing into reverse reliable defence with black tempo up.

U just lose some advantage because u don't put enough pressure but for most, it is not so relevant...

1.e3, 1.d3, 1.g3, 1.c3, 1.a3, 1.h3 are all fine if u know the reversed openings.

The wise advice by our famous IM poucin.

Bumping this thread for Differentiation2 who is now interested by van't Kruijs.

Interesting, Bernard, especially this unorthodox 2. Be2 move. Maybe someone else could comment it too.

Black can play 3..e5xd4 4e4xd4 leading to an  exchange french, where white has chosen the slightly passive be2, instead of bd3. Black is content with unambitious choices in these reversed positions to get equality.

2c4 might be interesting too, if the white player plays e6 sicilian's.

1.e3 is ok as an opening for white, Yigor. It's bound to be solid at any rate.  Like against 1 a3, a very logical try against 1. e3 is 1. ... g6, which anticipates white's possible intention of b3 or b4 in the case of 1. a3. Perhaps the only relevant, off-beat try against 1. ...g6 is 2. h4!?

Optimissed wrote:

1.e3 is ok as an opening for white, Yigor. It's bound to be solid at any rate.  Like against 1 a3, a very logical try against 1. e3 is 1. ... g6, which anticipates white's possible intention of b3 or b4 in the case of 1. a3. Perhaps the only relevant, off-beat try against 1. ...g6 is 2. h4!?

Nice variation by Optimissed evaluated at +0.2 (lichess, Stockfish 8, d=21/21):

Differentiation2 wrote:

Yigor: Do you think 2.a3 against 1...e5 would work? Worst case scenario is black transposes to a reversed exchange French, which is equality anyways.

Normally, a3 pairs better with d3 and b3 with e3. But, curiously, 1. e3 e5 2. a3 seemes to be quite good here.

If you are going for a french structure as white, it is the dark squared bishop that needs improving. If that is the case, doubful can improve on 1e3 e5 2d4 anyway, can play a3, or be2 later if really want to. Probably after 2...exd4 pxp can't improve on bd3 at some point.

Yigor wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

1.e3 is ok as an opening for white, Yigor. It's bound to be solid at any rate.  Like against 1 a3, a very logical try against 1. e3 is 1. ... g6, which anticipates white's possible intention of b3 or b4 in the case of 1. a3. Perhaps the only relevant, off-beat try against 1. ...g6 is 2. h4!?

Nice variation by Optimissed evaluated at +0.2 (lichess, Stockfish 8, d=21/21):

I invented it, at least in my head, ten seconds before I posted it. However, I remembered seeing games in open sections of local tournaments where h4 and h5 had been played. I suspect black would be the weaker player to respond like that. I should have thought black can ignore it and develop, and the game would be more even than +0.20. Maybe even -0.10.