1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

Main

Date: 05 Feb 2006 09:59:31
From:
Subject: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.

I am playing a series of games with this move order at
www.SlowChess.com

I would appreciate it if someone could give me the name of this opening
and point me to a website or two that has some strategy for both sides,
particularly black as I feel very constricted already.

If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
well.

Date: 12 Feb 2006 22:50:55
From: Falkentyne
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

On 5 Feb 2006 09:59:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>
>I am playing a series of games with this move order at
>www.SlowChess.com
>
>I would appreciate it if someone could give me the name of this opening
>and point me to a website or two that has some strategy for both sides,
>particularly black as I feel very constricted already.
>
>If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
>well.

For one thing, who would even play ...e5 ?! on the second move in this
system?
The only reason to play e5 is to (1) follow with d5 quickly, (2) stop
d4 long enough to castle and gain enough control over d5 (usually by
moves like d7-d6 and Be6), so if White ever pushes d2-d4, black's
isolated pawn (usually at d6) will quickly go to d5, after exchanges.

The arguably best move after 1. e4 c5 2. a3, is simply to fight for
control of the dark squares with 2...g6 ! Then b4?! Bg7 Nc3 d6 just
looks silly for White. Even playing 4...b6 !? 5. bxc5 bxc5 is fine.

However, White does have the option of going into a Grand Prix type
position after 3 f4, but time is important in this opening (where
White is going to sacrifice a pawn on f5), so a3 must be considered a
loss of tempo, and Black should be able to equalize easier vs older
Grand Prix lines.

1. g6 is also a good move against 1. a3. Sure, Black can't get any
advantage but is 1. g3 any threat to Black? Of course not...and a3 is
a move of debatable value, so Black would have no problems equalizing
with 1...g6.

Now, 2...d5, challenging white's center at once isn't exactly a bad
move (then f2-f4 would look silly), although White does get rapid
development, but Black can still simply develop in sicilian style and
equalize. (if white ever plays d2-d4 after the pawn exchange on d5,
then it will be a lot like sicilians where Black was able to force in
...d6-d5).

After exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd8, Black will quickly follow with e6, Nc6 and
Be7, with an easily equal game. Sure, Black has shuffled his Queen
around a bit, but White didn't do anything useful with a3, and Black
has nice control of d4. Bb5+ Bd7 gives White nothing, and Nf3 e6 d4
exd4 Nxd4 a6 doesn't cause any problems either.

Notice that 2. d5 is the most common move after 1. e4 c5 2. f4,
initiating a temporary pawn sacrifice.

While we're on the subject of transpositions (and people mentioning
White will play b4):

Also notice that 1. e4 c5 2. b4 (the line where a2-a3 is often played
later) is not good (Black scores a decent % in my database) because
Black immediately challenges with 3 (after 2 cxb4 3. a3)...d5, and
White loses control of some important squares. Black doesn't even
need to hold the b4 pawn to equalize.

Anyway, 2...g6 is probably the easiest solution vs 2. a3.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 19:30:55
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

1.e4 c5, 2.a3 g6 seems a good reply. 2...e6 is ok too as is 2...d6 or
even 2...a6 or 2...Nc6 or 2....Nf6. 2....g6 is good because a3 isn't
usually useful for White in the Dragon.

Date: 08 Feb 2006 12:29:40
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

<[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> 1.e4 c5, 2.a3 g6 seems a good reply. 2...e6 is ok too as is 2...d6 or
> even 2...a6 or 2...Nc6 or 2....Nf6. 2....g6 is good because a3 isn't
> usually useful for White in the Dragon.

After 2 ... e6 or 2. ... Nc6 white plays b4 anyway leading to an improved
sicilian wing gambit (as white can take back on b4) . 2.... a6 I have never
seen played, but it doesn't seem to stop white from playing b4 to harras the
c pawn. After 2. ... Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 white
has some advantage, white has other possible 4th moves too. After 2. ... d6
lines are more slow white continues b4, Bb2 Nc3, f4 trying to achieve
kingside pressure. 2.g6 is indeed a very logical move but white has several
trys he can go to a rather normal closed sicilian with an early b4 :1. e4 c5
2. a3 g6 3. b4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. g3. Or if white is in an aggresive mood he
can 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 leading to a morra gambit with the moves a3 and g6
inserted; the idea behind that is that black is suffering in the fianchetto
lines of the mora gambit and that a3 may become useful in the morra. White
can also play 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.c3!? which doesn't seem to be very logical
but the fianchetto isn't very good against the alapin either and concrete
lines seem to give white good play here too

Date: 08 Feb 2006 20:32:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>> 1.e4 c5, 2.a3 g6 seems a good reply. 2...e6 is ok too as is 2...d6 or
>> even 2...a6 or 2...Nc6 or 2....Nf6. 2....g6 is good because a3 isn't
>> usually useful for White in the Dragon.
>
> After 2 ... e6 or 2. ... Nc6 white plays b4 anyway leading to an improved
> sicilian wing gambit (as white can take back on b4) . 2.... a6 I have
> never seen played, but it doesn't seem to stop white from playing b4 to
> harras the c pawn. After 2. ... Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3
> Nc6 7.Qe4 white has some advantage, white has other possible 4th moves
> too. After 2. ... d6 lines are more slow white continues b4, Bb2 Nc3, f4
> trying to achieve kingside pressure. 2.g6 is indeed a very logical move
> but white has several trys he can go to a rather normal closed sicilian
> with an early b4 :1. e4 c5 2. a3 g6 3. b4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. g3. Or if white
> is in an aggresive mood he can 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 leading to a morra gambit
> with the moves a3 and g6 inserted; the idea behind that is that black is
> suffering in the fianchetto lines of the mora gambit and that a3 may
> become useful in the morra. White can also play 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.c3!?
> which doesn't seem to be very logical but the fianchetto isn't very good
> against the alapin either and concrete lines seem to give white good play
> here too

The premise of this man's argument is that the Wing Gambit forces a slight
advantage for White even in the main lines. In other words, it should be on
a par with the Open Sicilian, or any lines involving the very natural
developing 2. Nf3.

Players like this are not weak. Often they have excellent middlegame and
endgame play, and use that to justify their opening analysis. You
effectively have to beat them twice: your opening has to survive their
immediate analysis, and then you have to show flawless technique in the
middlegame and endgame so that he can't "prove" your opening was weak by
beating you in those phases of the game as well.

America is chock full of players like this, and I view them as a bit of a
cancer on our international strength. While the European juniors get to
sharpen their teeth on openings they will actually be playing
internationally, our young players get a steady diet of crap, gimmicks,
traps, and other unsound openings like this one that moderately skilled
players attempt to pass off as the main line. The problem is so bad that
there are openings which are barely even in ECO (such as 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5
3. Nc3 cxd4 4. Qxd4), that you might see 5-10 percent of the time in
tournaments.

Date: 08 Feb 2006 20:57:12
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>> 1.e4 c5, 2.a3 g6 seems a good reply. 2...e6 is ok too as is 2...d6 or
>>> even 2...a6 or 2...Nc6 or 2....Nf6. 2....g6 is good because a3 isn't
>>> usually useful for White in the Dragon.
>>
>> After 2 ... e6 or 2. ... Nc6 white plays b4 anyway leading to an
>> improved sicilian wing gambit (as white can take back on b4) . 2.... a6 I
>> have never seen played, but it doesn't seem to stop white from playing b4
>> to harras the c pawn. After 2. ... Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6
>> 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 white has some advantage, white has other possible 4th
>> moves too. After 2. ... d6 lines are more slow white continues b4, Bb2
>> Nc3, f4 trying to achieve kingside pressure. 2.g6 is indeed a very
>> logical move but white has several trys he can go to a rather normal
>> closed sicilian with an early b4 :1. e4 c5 2. a3 g6 3. b4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6
>> 5. g3. Or if white is in an aggresive mood he can 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 leading
>> to a morra gambit with the moves a3 and g6 inserted; the idea behind that
>> is that black is suffering in the fianchetto lines of the mora gambit and
>> that a3 may become useful in the morra. White can also play 1.e4 c5 2.a3
>> g6 3.c3!? which doesn't seem to be very logical but the fianchetto isn't
>> very good against the alapin either and concrete lines seem to give white
>> good play here too
>
> The premise of this man's argument is that the Wing Gambit forces a slight
> advantage for White even in the main lines. In other words, it should be
> on a par with the Open Sicilian, or any lines involving the very natural
> developing 2. Nf3.

First of all, the immediate wings gambit (2.b4) isn't good at all for white;
but the lines after 2.a3 Nc6 or 2.a3 e6 transpose to the better lines of the
wings gambit which do give white sufficient compensation for the pawn in my
opinion. This said I don't claim at all that 2.Nf3 isn't best or that 2.a3
is on par with it; but I only say 2.a3 is a viable move which has an idea
behind it and is an option for people who like to avoid the main lines and
their opponents preparation.

Date: 09 Feb 2006 06:32:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>is an option for people who like to avoid the main lines and
> their opponents preparation.

Most GMs are very well prepared for all types of formations and any move
orders which might lead to them.

I think that playing against "garbage" like this is a reality check for
players who think they are booked up, because this has to be part of the
book as well. The move does not lose, but only because White is allowed one
semi-blunder in the opening due to the first move.

The only time I recommend avoiding the main lines is when the "theory" lets
one down, rather than as a way of avoiding the theory. Diving out of the
books before your opponent does and still being in your preparation while he
is not is the only true value of a move like this, but if he's prepared for
it, and has any decent intuition or technique, you're fucked.

Date: 09 Feb 2006 12:26:17
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>Diving out of the books before your opponent does and still being in your
>preparation while he
> is not is the only true value of a move like this, but if he's prepared
> for it, and has any decent intuition or technique, you're fucked.

You're not fucked but black will equalise and you'll have to play chess. I
have seen no lines yet that lead to a black advantage.

Date: 09 Feb 2006 21:14:37
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>Diving out of the books before your opponent does and still being in your
>>preparation while he
>> is not is the only true value of a move like this, but if he's prepared
>> for it, and has any decent intuition or technique, you're fucked.
>
> You're not fucked but black will equalise and you'll have to play chess. I
> have seen no lines yet that lead to a black advantage.

This would put 2. a3 on a par with every main line of the Sicilian, none of
which lead to any advantage for Black either, but also not for White.
Unless you know something that every champion from Botvinnik to Topalov does
not, I would tend to side with their practice.

Equality for White is also not the general goal for move two.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 09:04:20
From: Luigi Caselli
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
> >>Diving out of the books before your opponent does and still being in
your
> >>preparation while he
> >> is not is the only true value of a move like this, but if he's prepared
> >> for it, and has any decent intuition or technique, you're fucked.
> >
> > You're not fucked but black will equalise and you'll have to play chess.
I
> > have seen no lines yet that lead to a black advantage.
>
> This would put 2. a3 on a par with every main line of the Sicilian, none
of
> which lead to any advantage for Black either, but also not for White.
> Unless you know something that every champion from Botvinnik to Topalov
does
> not, I would tend to side with their practice.
>
> Equality for White is also not the general goal for move two.

2.a3 doesn't seem so strong but look at this game with 4.a3 with more or
less the same ideas.
Typical Nakamura game when he's in a good mood...

[Event "Young Masters"]
[Site "Cuernavaca MEX"]
[Date "2006.02.08"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Nakamura, H."]
[Black "Felgaer, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B30"]
[WhiteElo "2644"]
[BlackElo "2607"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2006.02.03"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6 4. a3 Bg7 5. Rb1 Nf6 6. b4 d6 7. bxc5 dxc5 8.
Bb5
Bd7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 Ne8 11. Nd5 Nd6 12. Bf1 e6 13. Ne3 Nd4 14. d3 Ba4 15.
Bb2 Qa5 16. Nd2 Rfd8 17. Qc1 Rac8 18. c3 b5 19. Ba1 Nc6 20. f4 Rd7 21. e5
Nf5
22. Ne4 Qb6 23. Ng4 Kh8 24. Kh1 Rcd8 25. Qb2 Rxd3 26. Bxd3 Rxd3 27. Ngf2 Rd7
28. Qe2 c4 29. Qf3 Bc2 30. Rb2 Bxe4 31. Qxe4 Qc5 32. Qb1 a6 33. Ne4 Qa7 34.
a4
h6 35. axb5 axb5 36. Rxb5 g5 37. fxg5 Bxe5 38. Rc5 Qc7 39. Qb5 Nfe7 40. h3
Bg3
41. Rf1 hxg5 42. Rxg5 Be5 43. Qxc4 Ng6 44. Qe2 Bf4 1-0

Luigi Caselli

Date: 10 Feb 2006 01:21:44
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>>Diving out of the books before your opponent does and still being in your
>>>preparation while he
>>> is not is the only true value of a move like this, but if he's prepared
>>> for it, and has any decent intuition or technique, you're fucked.
>>
>> You're not fucked but black will equalise and you'll have to play chess.
>> I have seen no lines yet that lead to a black advantage.
>
> This would put 2. a3 on a par with every main line of the Sicilian, none
> of which lead to any advantage for Black either, but also not for White.
> Unless you know something that every champion from Botvinnik to Topalov
> does not, I would tend to side with their practice.
>

I never knew that it was so clear cut that black can equalise against every
main line of the sicilian. And I actually quite doubt that every champion
from Botvinik to Topalov thought it was so easy either.

Date: 05 Feb 2006 20:54:05
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

2.a3 should be called van Duyn Opening after a dutch politician and strong
chess amateur who wrote some articles about it during the 70s.
Recently Alexei Bezgodov reinvented the opening and wrote a very nice book
on it called "Challenge the sicilian with 2.a3!" He dedicated a whole
chapter, to this specific line 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5(?) 3.f4!?. But he also wrote
a chapter on 3.Nc3 which I personally think is even better and leads to a
nice advantage for white.

<[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>
> I am playing a series of games with this move order at
> www.SlowChess.com
>
> I would appreciate it if someone could give me the name of this opening
> and point me to a website or two that has some strategy for both sides,
> particularly black as I feel very constricted already.
>
> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
> well.
>

Date: 05 Feb 2006 20:46:21
From: Ron
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
> well.

I guess my first question is, if you're white, white 2.a3?

If you're black, why 2. ... e5?

What are you trying to accomplish?

-Ron

Date: 05 Feb 2006 21:03:09
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

> I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?

to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit after
most of black moves

> If you're black, why 2. ... e5?

This is a positional mistake as it weakens d5 too much and whites bishop on
c4 will be too strong.

Date: 06 Feb 2006 07:35:45
From: Ron
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

In article <[email protected] >,
"bruno de baenst" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>
> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit after
> most of black moves

Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
response that it makes you change your plan?

-Ron

Date: 06 Feb 2006 18:13:33
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ron" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "bruno de baenst" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>>
>> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit
>> after
>> most of black moves
>
> Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
> response that it makes you change your plan?
>

Obviously because e5 controls d4 and would also block the b2-bishop. But
2.e5 weakens d5 and f7 too much so white can get a nice advantage simply
developing with Nc3, Bc4,0-0,d3,f4 .

Date: 07 Feb 2006 07:24:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>> Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
>> response that it makes you change your plan?
>>
>
> Obviously because e5 controls d4 and would also block the b2-bishop. But
> 2.e5 weakens d5 and f7 too much so white can get a nice advantage simply
> developing with Nc3, Bc4,0-0,d3,f4 .

More like he can get a position he understands with White. As the engines
point out, Black has no difficulty equalizing against 2. a3.

Many master-strength players rely on their opponent's inability to correctly
place their pieces in a sound formation move after move. Moves like 2. a3
take them out of their book, and make this type of blunder more likely.

To say the move has practical value is correct; to say it leads to any type
of objective advantage for White is preposterous.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 19:14:04
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>> Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
>>> response that it makes you change your plan?
>>>
>>
>> Obviously because e5 controls d4 and would also block the b2-bishop. But
>> 2.e5 weakens d5 and f7 too much so white can get a nice advantage simply
>> developing with Nc3, Bc4,0-0,d3,f4 .
>
> More like he can get a position he understands with White. As the engines
> point out, Black has no difficulty equalizing against 2. a3.
>
> Many master-strength players rely on their opponent's inability to
> correctly place their pieces in a sound formation move after move. Moves
> like 2. a3 take them out of their book, and make this type of blunder more
> likely.
>
> To say the move has practical value is correct; to say it leads to any
> type of objective advantage for White is preposterous.
>

I agree that 2.a3 probably doesn't lead to an objective advantage for white,
black can equalize (but no more than that) in some ways. GM Bezgodov wrote
more than 200 pages of analysis of this opening, obviously with the help of
engines and he doesn't at all think it's that easy to equalize for black. I
would think a 2600+ rated gm who analyses an opening for hundreds of hours
would know more about it than Ray Gordon who looks 10 seconds at his chess
engine and concludes that black can equalize easily.

In the specific line 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5? 3.Nc3 white does have a clear
advantage however . Compare it to the vienna game, it's the same position
but with a3 and c5 inserted, this is definately beneficiary for white.
Cause a lot of blacks defensive resources he had in the vienna aren't
possible now; he can't put his bishop on c5, he can't go after whites bishop
with Na5 as white can retreat it to a2 now, and the field d5 is perminately
weakened.

Date: 09 Feb 2006 21:17:37
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>>> Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
>>>> response that it makes you change your plan?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously because e5 controls d4 and would also block the b2-bishop. But
>>> 2.e5 weakens d5 and f7 too much so white can get a nice advantage
>>> simply developing with Nc3, Bc4,0-0,d3,f4 .
>>
>> More like he can get a position he understands with White. As the
>> engines point out, Black has no difficulty equalizing against 2. a3.
>>
>> Many master-strength players rely on their opponent's inability to
>> correctly place their pieces in a sound formation move after move. Moves
>> like 2. a3 take them out of their book, and make this type of blunder
>> more likely.
>>
>> To say the move has practical value is correct; to say it leads to any
>> type of objective advantage for White is preposterous.
>>
>
> I agree that 2.a3 probably doesn't lead to an objective advantage for
> white, black can equalize (but no more than that) in some ways. GM
> Bezgodov wrote more than 200 pages of analysis of this opening, obviously
> with the help of engines and he doesn't at all think it's that easy to
> equalize for black.

His perspective is tilted towards White.

>I would think a 2600+ rated gm who analyses an opening for hundreds of
>hours would know more about it than Ray Gordon who looks 10 seconds at his
>chess engine and concludes that black can equalize easily.

I have spent thousands of hours developing my opening repertoire, and I am
familiar with almost every formation that can result (there are only about a
dozen or two main formations). General principle alone is enough to
discount 2. a3 (as most of the world has done), as it is what the move
doesn't do that stands out a lot more than what it does do. The development
is too specified and too far on the wing to be sound that early in the game.

As for my opening strength, most 2600s don't get advantages against me in
the opening at all.

>
> In the specific line 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5? 3.Nc3 white does have a clear
> advantage however . Compare it to the vienna game, it's the same position
> but with a3 and c5 inserted, this is definately beneficiary for white.
> Cause a lot of blacks defensive resources he had in the vienna aren't
> possible now; he can't put his bishop on c5, he can't go after whites
> bishop with Na5 as white can retreat it to a2 now, and the field d5 is
> perminately weakened.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 01:30:53
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

>>I would think a 2600+ rated gm who analyses an opening for hundreds of
>>hours would know more about it than Ray Gordon who looks 10 seconds at his
>>chess engine and concludes that black can equalize easily.
>
> I have spent thousands of hours developing my opening repertoire, and I am
> familiar with almost every formation that can result (there are only about
> a dozen or two main formations). General principle alone is enough to
> discount 2. a3 (as most of the world has done), as it is what the move
> doesn't do that stands out a lot more than what it does do. The
> development is too specified and too far on the wing to be sound that
> early in the game.
>
> As for my opening strength, most 2600s don't get advantages against me in
> the opening at all.
>

Can you show some fide rated games against gms to illustrate this, please?
Like games where you aren't worse after 20 moves?
As an example I'll give you one of my games (not that I claim my opening
strenght is anywhere near that af a gm).

Gagunashvili,Merab (2580) - De Baenst,Bruno
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Qxd4 exd5 7.Qxd5 Nc6 8.a3
Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.e3 Qe7 11.b4 Bb6 12.Nf3 0-0 13.Be2 Rfd8 14.Qc2 Rac8 15.Bb2
Bc7 16.0-0 Ne5 17.Rfd1 Nfg4 18.h3 Nxe3 19.fxe3 Nxf3+ 20.Bxf3 Qxe3+ 21.Qf2
Bh2+ 22.Kf1 Rxc3 23.Bxc3 Bb5+ 24.Be2 Bxe2+ 25.Ke1 Qxc3+ 26.Kxe2 Re8+ 27.Kf1
Qc4+ 0-1

Also if your opening strength is of 2600+ level how come you are so lowly
rated? You're middlegame and endgame skills must be really pathetic then,no?

Date: 09 Feb 2006 21:17:45
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"bruno de baenst" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
>>>> response that it makes you change your plan?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously because e5 controls d4 and would also block the b2-bishop. But
>>> 2.e5 weakens d5 and f7 too much so white can get a nice advantage
>>> simply developing with Nc3, Bc4,0-0,d3,f4 .
>>
>> More like he can get a position he understands with White. As the
>> engines point out, Black has no difficulty equalizing against 2. a3.
>>
>> Many master-strength players rely on their opponent's inability to
>> correctly place their pieces in a sound formation move after move. Moves
>> like 2. a3 take them out of their book, and make this type of blunder
>> more likely.
>>
>> To say the move has practical value is correct; to say it leads to any
>> type of objective advantage for White is preposterous.
>>
>
> I agree that 2.a3 probably doesn't lead to an objective advantage for
> white, black can equalize (but no more than that) in some ways. GM
> Bezgodov wrote more than 200 pages of analysis of this opening, obviously
> with the help of engines and he doesn't at all think it's that easy to
> equalize for black. I would think a 2600+ rated gm who analyses an opening
> for hundreds of hours would know more about it than Ray Gordon who looks
> 10 seconds at his chess engine and concludes that black can equalize
> easily.
>
> In the specific line 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5? 3.Nc3 white does have a clear
> advantage however . Compare it to the vienna game, it's the same position
> but with a3 and c5 inserted, this is definately beneficiary for white.
> Cause a lot of blacks defensive resources he had in the vienna aren't
> possible now; he can't put his bishop on c5, he can't go after whites
> bishop with Na5 as white can retreat it to a2 now, and the field d5 is
> perminately weakened.
>

Date: 06 Feb 2006 17:49:14
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:35:45 GMT, Ron <[email protected] >
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "bruno de baenst" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>>
>> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit after
>> most of black moves
>
>Fine. If that's the reason to play it, why is ...e5 such a compelling
>response that it makes you change your plan?

Because nobody wants to just throw away a pawn for nothing. The idea
of b2-b4 is to prepare d2-d4, taking over the center. If there's a
pawn on e5, it's not so good. Therefore, other methods for controlling
d4 must be implemented.

Date: 05 Feb 2006 22:31:47
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>> I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>
> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit after
> most of black moves

In other words it's an attempt to cheat in the opening against a dumb
opponent in the hope of getting a superior formation in a dubious line, for
the purpose of avoiding study of the main lines. In other words, it's
shit.

It's amazing that Anand, Leko, and the rest of the world title contenders
don't understand the potency of this move!

Date: 05 Feb 2006 22:58:54
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>> I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>>
>> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit
>> after most of black moves
>
> In other words it's an attempt to cheat in the opening against a dumb
> opponent in the hope of getting a superior formation in a dubious line,
> for the purpose of avoiding study of the main lines. In other words,
> it's shit.
>
> It's amazing that Anand, Leko, and the rest of the world title contenders
> don't understand the potency of this move!
>

Anand, Leko and the rest of the world title contenders also don't play the
closed sicilian, the alapin sicilian, the vienna game, the bishop opening,
the italian game, ...
Does this mean that no club players should?
Of course 2.a3 isn't gonna refute the sicilian but it usually leads to very
wild and unbalanced positions which is good enough for me. I scored 3/3 with
it this year with two games won in 21 moves against 2000+ rated opposition.
This one I like best and shows how quickly black can go down in the gambit
accepted.
1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.e5 Nd5 7.c4 Ne7 8.Na3 0-0
9.Nc2 Ba5 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Qh5 Bb6 12.Nf3 Qe7 13.Ne3 Nc6 14.Ng4 Rd8 15.Ng5 h6
16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.exf6 Bxf2+ 18.Kf1 Qf8 19.Bxg6 Bd4 20.Bxf7+ Kh8 21.Qg6 1-0

Date: 06 Feb 2006 06:07:13
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>>> I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>>>
>>> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit
>>> after most of black moves
>>
>> In other words it's an attempt to cheat in the opening against a dumb
>> opponent in the hope of getting a superior formation in a dubious line,
>> for the purpose of avoiding study of the main lines. In other words,
>> it's shit.
>>
>> It's amazing that Anand, Leko, and the rest of the world title contenders
>> don't understand the potency of this move!
>>
>
> Anand, Leko and the rest of the world title contenders also don't play the
> closed sicilian, the alapin sicilian, the vienna game, the bishop opening,
> the italian game, ...

They would sooner play those lines than this one.

> Does this mean that no club players should?

See above.

> Of course 2.a3 isn't gonna refute the sicilian but it usually leads to
> very wild and unbalanced positions which is good enough for me.

Actually, it gives Black a free ride from the second move if he's wise
enough to realize you're just slowing down your own development.

>. I scored 3/3 with it this year with two games won in 21 moves against
>2000+ rated opposition.

If your goal is to defeat 2000-rated players, you have a lot of leeway.

> This one I like best and shows how quickly black can go down in the gambit
> accepted.
> 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.e5 Nd5 7.c4 Ne7

What about 7...Nf4? My computer (with my help) gives 8. Nf3 O-O (-0.90).
The score is not bad given that Black is up a pawn, but where is the
compensation?

In your line, White's light-squared bishop gets out without a scratch; here
he is stuck at f1 and to avoid Nxg2, White has to fianchetto, at which point
Black's material superiority looms.

>8.Na3 0-0 9.Nc2 Ba5 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Qh5 Bb6 12.Nf3 Qe7 13.Ne3 Nc6 14.Ng4 Rd8
>15.Ng5 h6 16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.exf6 Bxf2+ 18.Kf1 Qf8 19.Bxg6 Bd4 20.Bxf7+ Kh8
>21.Qg6 1-0

Irrelevant if 7...Nf4.

The 1/x rule strikes again.

Date: 06 Feb 2006 20:16:22
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>>>> I guess my first question is, if you're white, why 2.a3?
>>>>
>>>> to play 3.b4 and get an improved version of the sicilian wing gambit
>>>> after most of black moves
>>>
>>> In other words it's an attempt to cheat in the opening against a dumb
>>> opponent in the hope of getting a superior formation in a dubious line,
>>> for the purpose of avoiding study of the main lines. In other words,
>>> it's shit.
>>>
>>> It's amazing that Anand, Leko, and the rest of the world title
>>> contenders don't understand the potency of this move!
>>>
>>
>> Anand, Leko and the rest of the world title contenders also don't play
>> the closed sicilian, the alapin sicilian, the vienna game, the bishop
>> opening, the italian game, ...
>
> They would sooner play those lines than this one.

Did you ask them?

>> Does this mean that no club players should?
>
> See above.
>
>
>> Of course 2.a3 isn't gonna refute the sicilian but it usually leads to
>> very wild and unbalanced positions which is good enough for me.
>
> Actually, it gives Black a free ride from the second move if he's wise
> enough to realize you're just slowing down your own development.
>
>
>>. I scored 3/3 with it this year with two games won in 21 moves against
>>2000+ rated opposition.
>
> If your goal is to defeat 2000-rated players, you have a lot of leeway.

My goal isn't really defeating 2000-rated players, I'm rated 2200 myself.
But the fact that players with more than 2000 elo (so players who clearly
know how the pieces move) get mated in 20 moves says something about how
dangerous the opening can be.

>
>> This one I like best and shows how quickly black can go down in the
>> gambit accepted.
>> 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.e5 Nd5 7.c4 Ne7
>
> What about 7...Nf4? My computer (with my help) gives 8. Nf3 O-O (-0.90).
> The score is not bad given that Black is up a pawn, but where is the
> compensation?
>
> In your line, White's light-squared bishop gets out without a scratch;
> here he is stuck at f1 and to avoid Nxg2, White has to fianchetto, at
> which point Black's material superiority looms.

7. ... Nf4!? is an alternative still mentioned by Bezgodov in his book but
it's not better than Ne7. White shouldn't follow up with 8.Nf3? as you give
,cause the knight blocks his own queen there. Instead white should play
8.h4! planning a kingside attack and taking advantage of the unstable
position of blacks knight.
Some sample lines:
8.h4 0-0 9.Qg4 Ng6 10.h5 Ne7 11.Bd3 with strong attack
or: 8.h4 Qb6 9.Bc3 Nc6 10.Qg4 Bxc3 11.Nxc3 Qd4 12.Qxg7 Qxe5+ 13.Qxe5 Nxe5
14.Nb5 with advantage
or 8.h4 h5 9.Nc3 d5 10.exd6 Bxd6 11.d4 Nc6 12. g3 Ng6 13.Nf3 with advantage

>>8.Na3 0-0 9.Nc2 Ba5 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Qh5 Bb6 12.Nf3 Qe7 13.Ne3 Nc6 14.Ng4 Rd8
>>15.Ng5 h6 16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.exf6 Bxf2+ 18.Kf1 Qf8 19.Bxg6 Bd4 20.Bxf7+ Kh8
>>21.Qg6 1-0
>
> Irrelevant if 7...Nf4.
>

7. Nf4 isn't better, so I guess it is relevant.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 05:38:12
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>> This one I like best and shows how quickly black can go down in the
>>> gambit accepted.
>>> 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.e5 Nd5 7.c4 Ne7
>>
>> What about 7...Nf4? My computer (with my help) gives 8. Nf3 O-O (-0.90).
>> The score is not bad given that Black is up a pawn, but where is the
>> compensation?
>>
>> In your line, White's light-squared bishop gets out without a scratch;
>> here he is stuck at f1 and to avoid Nxg2, White has to fianchetto, at
>> which point Black's material superiority looms.
>
>
> 7. ... Nf4!? is an alternative still mentioned by Bezgodov in his book but
> it's not better than Ne7. White shouldn't follow up with 8.Nf3? as you
> give ,cause the knight blocks his own queen there. Instead white should
> play 8.h4! planning a kingside attack and taking advantage of the unstable
> position of blacks knight.

White is down a pawn.

> Some sample lines:
> 8.h4 0-0

8...Qb6

>9.Qg4 Ng6 10.h5 Ne7 11.Bd3 with strong attack

If Black cooperates with 8...O-O

> or: 8.h4 Qb6 9.Bc3 Nc6

9...O-O

>10.Qg4 Bxc3 11.Nxc3 Qd4 12.Qxg7 Qxe5+ 13.Qxe5 Nxe5 14.Nb5 with advantage

If Black cooperates with 9...Nc6.

> or 8.h4 h5 9.Nc3 d5 10.exd6 Bxd6 11.d4 Nc6 12. g3 Ng6 13.Nf3 with
> advantage

If Black cooperates with 8...h5.

>
>
>
>>>8.Na3 0-0 9.Nc2 Ba5 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Qh5 Bb6 12.Nf3 Qe7 13.Ne3 Nc6 14.Ng4
>>>Rd8 15.Ng5 h6 16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.exf6 Bxf2+ 18.Kf1 Qf8 19.Bxg6 Bd4 20.Bxf7+
>>>Kh8 21.Qg6 1-0
>>
>> Irrelevant if 7...Nf4.
>>
>
> 7. Nf4 isn't better, so I guess it is relevant.

7...Nf4 is more active, and with Black up a pawn, he's threatening to
consolidate. There is no crushing kingside attack in the lines I gave.

Not being immediately busted does not equate to having an advantage.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 19:00:26
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>>> This one I like best and shows how quickly black can go down in the
>>>> gambit accepted.
>>>> 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.e5 Nd5 7.c4 Ne7
>>>
>>> What about 7...Nf4? My computer (with my help) gives 8. Nf3 O-O
>>> (-0.90). The score is not bad given that Black is up a pawn, but where
>>> is the compensation?
>>>
>>> In your line, White's light-squared bishop gets out without a scratch;
>>> here he is stuck at f1 and to avoid Nxg2, White has to fianchetto, at
>>> which point Black's material superiority looms.
>>
>>
>> 7. ... Nf4!? is an alternative still mentioned by Bezgodov in his book
>> but it's not better than Ne7. White shouldn't follow up with 8.Nf3? as
>> you give ,cause the knight blocks his own queen there. Instead white
>> should play 8.h4! planning a kingside attack and taking advantage of the
>> unstable position of blacks knight.
>
> White is down a pawn.

But has a strong attack!

>> Some sample lines:
>> 8.h4 0-0
>
> 8...Qb6
>
>>9.Qg4 Ng6 10.h5 Ne7 11.Bd3 with strong attack
>
> If Black cooperates with 8...O-O

8. Qb6 is not better

>> or: 8.h4 Qb6 9.Bc3 Nc6
>
> 9...O-O

For a future gm as yourself your analysis doesn't go very deep does it?
White has more than sufficient compensation after 9.... 0-0 and is probably
downright winning. But it doesn't make much sense to give lots of lines to
someone who only answers with one move. We would do better playing a game
then, I play 10.h5!, what do you do? (HINT: I'm gonna win your knight with
g3)

>>10.Qg4 Bxc3 11.Nxc3 Qd4 12.Qxg7 Qxe5+ 13.Qxe5 Nxe5 14.Nb5 with advantage
>
> If Black cooperates with 9...Nc6.

>> or 8.h4 h5 9.Nc3 d5 10.exd6 Bxd6 11.d4 Nc6 12. g3 Ng6 13.Nf3 with
>> advantage
>
> If Black cooperates with 8...h5.

8.Qb6 is not better

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>8.Na3 0-0 9.Nc2 Ba5 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Qh5 Bb6 12.Nf3 Qe7 13.Ne3 Nc6 14.Ng4
>>>>Rd8 15.Ng5 h6 16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.exf6 Bxf2+ 18.Kf1 Qf8 19.Bxg6 Bd4 20.Bxf7+
>>>>Kh8 21.Qg6 1-0
>>>
>>> Irrelevant if 7...Nf4.
>>>
>>
>> 7. Nf4 isn't better, so I guess it is relevant.
>
> 7...Nf4 is more active, and with Black up a pawn, he's threatening to
> consolidate. There is no crushing kingside attack in the lines I gave.
>
> Not being immediately busted does not equate to having an advantage.
>

The knight is indeed more active on f4 but it is also more vulnerable and
will have to move again sooner or later. White has more than enough
compensation for the pawn, even if your 3second analysis with shredder gives
another impression at first. Maybe you should look at some lines your pc
suggests and play them out instead of just looking at the current (and
wrong) evalution number of your engine.

Date: 06 Feb 2006 11:44:26
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

Well, 1.e4 c5 2.a3 was at least once played at the Norwegia
Championship, in the game between Kjetil A.Lie and Djurhuus (year 2005
player's ratings during the game 2481 and 2461). The game continue
2...g6 3.h4 h5. Looks crazy but everything is logical: 2.a3 intends b4
g6 prevents it, h4 attacks the kind side weakened by the g6-pawn (ide
h4-h5) and h5 stops this plan.White won that game. See
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=134803

--
alexmagnus

Date: 05 Feb 2006 19:41:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.

Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.

> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
> well.

Don't quit your day job.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 00:41:55
From: Leon Malone
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

In article <[email protected] >, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>
>Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.
>
>
>
>> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
>> well.
>
>Don't quit your day job.
>
>
>

Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening which
doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably why its
not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 19:26:18
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Leon Malone" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Ray Gordon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>>
>>Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
>>> well.
>>
>>Don't quit your day job.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening which
> doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably why
> its
> not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.

It's not listed cause it's only seriously analysed since very recently
(2004). It does aim to control the center of the board! That's whole idea
behind it: white wants to remove blacks c-pawn (often even at the cost of a
pawn) to get a better control of the d4 square.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 20:04:20
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>>>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>>>
>>>Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>>Don't quit your day job.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening which
>> doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably
>> why its
>> not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.
>
> It's not listed cause it's only seriously analysed since very recently
> (2004). It does aim to control the center of the board! That's whole idea
> behind it: white wants to remove blacks c-pawn (often even at the cost of
> a pawn) to get a better control of the d4 square.

The problem with that idea is that it is too easy for Black to construct a
formation where a3 is either useless or bad. The move has no flexibility
and is useful only in a limited number of formations.

There are players who try to sell openings like this as some amazing
resource, yet in this case, it's obvious that White is still going to have
equality even if he makes a useless move like this, so nothing can be
refuted anyway, but Black does get a very easy game against it.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 20:42:23
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>>>>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>>>>
>>>>Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>Don't quit your day job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening which
>>> doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably
>>> why its
>>> not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.
>>
>> It's not listed cause it's only seriously analysed since very recently
>> (2004). It does aim to control the center of the board! That's whole
>> idea behind it: white wants to remove blacks c-pawn (often even at the
>> cost of a pawn) to get a better control of the d4 square.
>
> The problem with that idea is that it is too easy for Black to construct a
> formation where a3 is either useless or bad.

Well, why don't you give such a formation?
.

Date: 09 Feb 2006 22:56:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>>>>> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't quit your day job.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening
>>>> which
>>>> doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably
>>>> why its
>>>> not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.
>>>
>>> It's not listed cause it's only seriously analysed since very recently
>>> (2004). It does aim to control the center of the board! That's whole
>>> idea behind it: white wants to remove blacks c-pawn (often even at the
>>> cost of a pawn) to get a better control of the d4 square.
>>
>> The problem with that idea is that it is too easy for Black to construct
>> a formation where a3 is either useless or bad.
>
> Well, why don't you give such a formation?

Against 2. a3? I would aim for a formation commonly associated with White
in an offbeat opening for Black. 2. a3 more or less gives Black...White.

Even the very simplistic 1. e4 c5 2. a3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8 5. Nf3
Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O e6 gets a silicon rating of 0.18, or
equality. If White doesn't play 3. exd5 then Black just builds a big center
and should be a quarter-pawn to the good. Black is not supposed to be able
to get away with an immediate 2...d5, so that would appear to be correct to
me as it "punishes" 2. a3.

Here's an adventurous try: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 Nc7 (0.39).

This presumes that I'd even play into this position in the first place.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 01:54:23
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> If you have any pointers yourself on this, I would appreciate that
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't quit your day job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening
>>>>> which
>>>>> doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably
>>>>> why its
>>>>> not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.
>>>>
>>>> It's not listed cause it's only seriously analysed since very recently
>>>> (2004). It does aim to control the center of the board! That's whole
>>>> idea behind it: white wants to remove blacks c-pawn (often even at the
>>>> cost of a pawn) to get a better control of the d4 square.
>>>
>>> The problem with that idea is that it is too easy for Black to construct
>>> a formation where a3 is either useless or bad.
>>
>> Well, why don't you give such a formation?
>
> Against 2. a3? I would aim for a formation commonly associated with White
> in an offbeat opening for Black. 2. a3 more or less gives Black...White.
>
> Even the very simplistic 1. e4 c5 2. a3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8 5. Nf3
> Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O e6 gets a silicon rating of 0.18,
> or equality. If White doesn't play 3. exd5 then Black just builds a big
> center and should be a quarter-pawn to the good. Black is not supposed to
> be able to get away with an immediate 2...d5, so that would appear to be
> correct to me as it "punishes" 2. a3.

Black doesn't get away with d5 at all, it just gives an easy advantage to
white. Black just loses a tempo with his queen (cause the c3 square is free
for the knight, not like in the alapin where d5 is more interesting). As
for you line white can just play 6.d4 cxd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 leading to a
long lasting advantage for white (queenside pawn majority, better
devellopment, more space).

> Here's an adventurous try: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 Nc7 (0.39).
>

First, what's wrong with a 0,39 advantage? And besides 4.Nc3 isn't best,
after 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 white keeps a nice positional
advantage as analysis in Bezgodovs book shows.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 09:36:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

bruno de baenst <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Even the very simplistic 1. e4 c5 2. a3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8
>> 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O e6 gets a silicon
>> rating of 0.18, or equality.
>
> Black doesn't get away with d5 at all, it just gives an easy
> advantage to white. Black just loses a tempo with his queen (cause
> the c3 square is free for the knight, not like in the alapin where
> d5 is more interesting). As for you line white can just play 6.d4
> cxd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 leading to a long lasting advantage for
> white (queenside pawn majority, better devellopment, more space).

You're wasting your time. The computer doesn't understand that
advantage so Ray doesn't, either.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Permanent Zen Beer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing lager that puts you in
touch with the universe but it'll be
there for ever!

Date: 10 Feb 2006 10:13:28
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>> Even the very simplistic 1. e4 c5 2. a3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8
>>> 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O e6 gets a silicon
>>> rating of 0.18, or equality.
>>
>> Black doesn't get away with d5 at all, it just gives an easy
>> advantage to white. Black just loses a tempo with his queen (cause
>> the c3 square is free for the knight, not like in the alapin where
>> d5 is more interesting). As for you line white can just play 6.d4
>> cxd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 leading to a long lasting advantage for
>> white (queenside pawn majority, better devellopment, more space).
>
> You're wasting your time. The computer doesn't understand that
> advantage so Ray doesn't, either.

So you'd be willing to play me for money with White at draw odds in this
"advantageous" position?

Date: 10 Feb 2006 13:12:44
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>>>> Even the very simplistic 1. e4 c5 2. a3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8
>>>> 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O e6 gets a silicon
>>>> rating of 0.18, or equality.
>>>
>>> Black doesn't get away with d5 at all, it just gives an easy
>>> advantage to white. Black just loses a tempo with his queen (cause
>>> the c3 square is free for the knight, not like in the alapin where
>>> d5 is more interesting). As for you line white can just play 6.d4
>>> cxd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 leading to a long lasting advantage for
>>> white (queenside pawn majority, better devellopment, more space).
>>
>> You're wasting your time. The computer doesn't understand that
>> advantage so Ray doesn't, either.
>
> So you'd be willing to play me for money with White at draw odds in this
> "advantageous" position?
>

I would!

Date: 10 Feb 2006 12:09:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> You're wasting your time. The computer doesn't understand that
>> advantage so Ray doesn't, either.
>
> So you'd be willing to play me for money with White at draw odds in
> this "advantageous" position?

What is it with you and money, Ray? The evaluation of chess positions
isn't decided by money and it certainly isn't decided by how well I
can play them.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Devil Chicken (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ farm animal that's possessed by Satan
but it's covered in goo!

Date: 10 Feb 2006 23:08:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>> You're wasting your time. The computer doesn't understand that
>>> advantage so Ray doesn't, either.
>>
>> So you'd be willing to play me for money with White at draw odds in
>> this "advantageous" position?
>
> What is it with you and money, Ray? The evaluation of chess positions
> isn't decided by money and it certainly isn't decided by how well I
> can play them.

The point of the question is do you think White has a better position than
Black if Black has draw odds?

Black can afford a draw in high-level chess; White cannot.

Date: 13 Feb 2006 11:03:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> So you'd be willing to play me for money with White at draw odds in
>>> this "advantageous" position?
>>
>> What is it with you and money, Ray? The evaluation of chess
>> positions isn't decided by money and it certainly isn't decided by
>> how well I can play them.
>
> The point of the question is do you think White has a better
> position than Black if Black has draw odds?

But the question of how much money I'd bet that *I* could beat *you*
from that position has little to do with the objective evaluation of
the position.

> Black can afford a draw in high-level chess; White cannot.

Neither of us plays high-level chess. Again, your proposal falls wide
of the k.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Postman (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a man who delivers the mail but it's
twice as fast!

Date: 14 Feb 2006 09:24:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>> Black can afford a draw in high-level chess; White cannot.
>
> Neither of us plays high-level chess.

Speak for yourself.

Maybe you refuse to think you can ever grasp what the GMs do, but don't
project your views onto me.

Date: 14 Feb 2006 11:07:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> Black can afford a draw in high-level chess; White cannot.
>>
>> Neither of us plays high-level chess.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> Maybe you refuse to think you can ever grasp what the GMs do, but
> don't project your views onto me.

I forget who was it who posted his amazing recent game where his
opponent resigned in a level position with almost all his time
remaining...

Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface but it's
huge!

Date: 10 Feb 2006 09:37:28
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

>>>>>> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all.
>>>>>> Probably why its
>>>>>> not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not listed cause it's only seriously analysed since very recently
>>>>> (2004). It does aim to control the center of the board! That's whole
>>>>> idea behind it: white wants to remove blacks c-pawn (often even at the
>>>>> cost of a pawn) to get a better control of the d4 square.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that idea is that it is too easy for Black to
>>>> construct a formation where a3 is either useless or bad.
>>>
>>> Well, why don't you give such a formation?
>>
>> Against 2. a3? I would aim for a formation commonly associated with
>> White in an offbeat opening for Black. 2. a3 more or less gives
>> Black...White.
>>
>> Even the very simplistic 1. e4 c5 2. a3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8 5. Nf3
>> Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O e6 gets a silicon rating of 0.18,
>> or equality. If White doesn't play 3. exd5 then Black just builds a big
>> center and should be a quarter-pawn to the good. Black is not supposed
>> to be able to get away with an immediate 2...d5, so that would appear to
>> be correct to me as it "punishes" 2. a3.
>
> Black doesn't get away with d5 at all, it just gives an easy advantage to
> white. Black just loses a tempo with his queen (cause the c3 square is
> free for the knight, not like in the alapin where d5 is more
> interesting).

A tempo he can afford to lose thanks to White's very slow 2. a3. Relieving
the tension in the center is also worth any time lost. The computer
evaluations are comparable to most main lines with White, so Black can
neutralize White's trick preparation by simplifying.

Or is White the only side that gets points for slightly inferior moves that
have a very strong practical value?

>As for you line white can just play 6.d4 cxd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 leading to
>a long lasting advantage for white (queenside pawn majority, better
>devellopment, more space).

After 8...a6, Black is going to have a difficult time converting any of
these "advantages" to a win, since Black's formation is structurally sound
and the queens are off the board. Black's main advantage here is having
"draw odds" at least at the highest levels of the game.

I mentioned this line not because it gives Black a spectacular advantage,
but because it is very difficult for White to turn this into a win, and even
more difficult for White to avoid the *one* line that yields any type of
edge at all.

>> Here's an adventurous try: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 Nc7
>> (0.39).
>>
>
> First, what's wrong with a 0,39 advantage?

In a best-case scenario, it's nothing to write home about, and in a dry
middlegame without queens, it's more likely to revert to 0.00 than 1.00.

I'll take Black with draw odds in the above position any time. If you say
you aren't playing people where drawing with Black is a problem, then we
aren't training for the same type of competitions and what we need out of
the opening is different.

Keep in mind that I'm getting these scores from positions which are
intuitive, albeit "adventurous." If I *had* to deal with this line, I'd put
it through the ringer and likely find some very strong ideas, many of which
would be sacrificial. 2. a3 just gives Black too much to work with, too
early, for me to take it seriously.

Even the lines with 2...e5 seem to equalize as in the Closed Sicilian, and
probably offer Black a slight superiority, since a3 is hardly a frightening
threat in that line.

>And besides 4.Nc3 isn't best, after 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4
>white keeps a nice positional advantage as analysis in Bezgodovs book
>shows.

What he calls a "nice positional advantage" I might call "overextension." A
simple ...d6 creates nice positional tension for Black.

Even in your line, after 7...f5, the silicon says 0.27 is all you get.
White can hardly build an invasion around d6.

If you are a strong middlegame and endgame player rated 2200-2600 who simply
does not want major complications in the opening, I could see where 2. a3
might fit your needs. However, what I find most amusing about your analysis
of 2. a3 is that to justify the move, you cite all the positional principles
which would are generally cited as reasons that 2. a3 shouldn't be played in
the first place.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 13:12:02
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

>> Black doesn't get away with d5 at all, it just gives an easy advantage to
>> white. Black just loses a tempo with his queen (cause the c3 square is
>> free for the knight, not like in the alapin where d5 is more
>> interesting).
>
> A tempo he can afford to lose thanks to White's very slow 2. a3.
> Relieving the tension in the center is also worth any time lost. The
> computer evaluations are comparable to most main lines with White, so
> Black can neutralize White's trick preparation by simplifying.
>
> Or is White the only side that gets points for slightly inferior moves
> that have a very strong practical value?

But 2. ... d5 doen't have a strong practical value it just plain bad.
There's a reason why d5 is never played in the sicilians.

>>As for you line white can just play 6.d4 cxd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 leading
>>to a long lasting advantage for white (queenside pawn majority, better
>>devellopment, more space).
>
> After 8...a6, Black is going to have a difficult time converting any of
> these "advantages" to a win, since Black's formation is structurally sound
> and the queens are off the board. Black's main advantage here is having
> "draw odds" at least at the highest levels of the game.

I wonder how many serious players would like to reach a clearly worse if not
technically lost endgame by move 8. Due to the queenside pawn majority white
is always gonna have an edge. And besides that if you really don't want an
endgame white is not forced at all to play 7.Qxd4 at all 7.Nxd4 gives white
a nice advantage too as do other moves.

> I mentioned this line not because it gives Black a spectacular advantage,
> but because it is very difficult for White to turn this into a win, and
> even more difficult for White to avoid the *one* line that yields any type
> of edge at all.
>
>
>>> Here's an adventurous try: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 Nc7
>>> (0.39).
>>>
>>
>> First, what's wrong with a 0,39 advantage?
>
> In a best-case scenario, it's nothing to write home about, and in a dry
> middlegame without queens, it's more likely to revert to 0.00 than 1.00.
>
> I'll take Black with draw odds in the above position any time. If you say
> you aren't playing people where drawing with Black is a problem, then we
> aren't training for the same type of competitions and what we need out of
> the opening is different.

I do play a lot of lower rated people who do play for a draw. But I don't
see why I wouldn't be able to win a clearly favorable endgame against them.

> Keep in mind that I'm getting these scores from positions which are
> intuitive, albeit "adventurous." If I *had* to deal with this line, I'd
> put it through the ringer and likely find some very strong ideas, many of
> which would be sacrificial. 2. a3 just gives Black too much to work with,
> too early, for me to take it seriously.

So instead of giving strong ideas of which many are sacrificial you just say
you would find them if you did some serious analysis. That's a pretty easy
way out, the only lines you currently give all lead to a comfortable
advantage for white.

> Even the lines with 2...e5 seem to equalize as in the Closed Sicilian, and
> probably offer Black a slight superiority, since a3 is hardly a
> frightening threat in that line.

2. ... e5? is a clear positional mistake after which black is vastly worse.
And I don't know what you mean with e5 seems to equalize as in the closed
sicilian; as e5 is never played immediately in the closed sicilian?! The
only time black plays e5 in the closed sicilian is after white has played
Nf3 blocking the f pawn, but when white hasn't played Nf3 it is a clear
error there too.

>>And besides 4.Nc3 isn't best, after 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4
>>white keeps a nice positional advantage as analysis in Bezgodovs book
>>shows.
>
> What he calls a "nice positional advantage" I might call "overextension."
> A simple ...d6 creates nice positional tension for Black.
>
> Even in your line, after 7...f5, the silicon says 0.27 is all you get.
> White can hardly build an invasion around d6.

I see I gave a wrong line really, not that it's so bad either but 4.d4 cxd4
5.Qxd4 e6 6.c4! (better cause you don't block fpawn, so later on you can
strenghten e5 with f4) Nc6 Qe4. And concrete analysis has shown white to
have a grip on the position even though your engines may only give +0,2
initially.

> If you are a strong middlegame and endgame player rated 2200-2600 who
> simply does not want major complications in the opening, I could see where
> 2. a3 might fit your needs. However, what I find most amusing about your
> analysis of 2. a3 is that to justify the move, you cite all the positional
> principles which would are generally cited as reasons that 2. a3 shouldn't
> be played in the first place.

2.a3 leads to major complications in a lot of lines where black accepts the
pawn. In your line of 2... d5? there's no need for white to seek
complications, he just has a big endgame advantage. And exactly what
postional principles is neglected by playing 2.a3? You can say there are
faster ways of developing which is certainly true but there is nothing
antipositional in the move 2.a3; the main idea is actually very positional:
trading blacks strong c-pawn (which controls the center) for whites a-pawn.
This is positionally speaking much more logical than the main lines in the
sicilian where white trades blacks c-pawn for a center pawn (d4). Of course
white has fast development as a compensation there.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 15:11:30
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:41:55 GMT, [email protected] (Leon Malone)
wrote:

> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening which
>doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably why its
>not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.

That's not strictly true, since for example after 1. e4 c5 2. a3 Nc6
3. b4 cxb4 4. axb4 Nxb4 5. c3 Nc6 6. d4 White does control the center,
albeit at a price.

Date: 07 Feb 2006 19:20:37
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

"Toni Lassila" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:41:55 GMT, [email protected] (Leon Malone)
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah this opening is not listed because it it a least used opening which
>>doesnt allow white to control the center of the board at all. Probably why
>>its
>>not listed is it is a ill-advised opening.
>
> That's not strictly true, since for example after 1. e4 c5 2. a3 Nc6
> 3. b4 cxb4 4. axb4 Nxb4 5. c3 Nc6 6. d4 White does control the center,
> albeit at a price.

1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nc6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Nxb4 5.d4! is probably better cause it
leaves less options for black (after 5. ... d5 6.c3 Nc6 7.exd5 Qxd5 8.Na3!
it is surprisingly hard for black to prevent the white attack on c7 with
Nb5+Bf4)

Date: 05 Feb 2006 21:29:23
From: Arnold Meijster
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

Ray Gordon wrote:
>>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>
>
> Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.
>

Well, not quite. It's a very playable opening. It develops
quickly the bishop on the queen side, and usually
also the Rook at a1, since most of the times somethin
like 3. b4 cxb4 4. axb4 follows.

I can recoomend everyone to read the book
"Challenging the Sicilian with 2. a3!?" by
GM Alexei Bezgodov. He's an expert on this
opening, and wrote a book about it. He was
champion of Russia in 1993, and vice-champion
in 1999. So, you can not call him a retard.

About the line at hand...he discusses it
in chapter 2.

Some lines are:
1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4 exf4

a) d4
b) Nc3
c) Nf3
d) Bc4

The conclusion in the analysis in the chapter
is that a and b are not very good for white.

OPtions c and d are ok for white.

Regards,

Arnold Meijster

Date: 05 Feb 2006 22:30:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

\ >>>I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>>
>>
>> Probably because only a retard would play 2. a3.
>>
>
> Well, not quite. It's a very playable opening.

It's a deliberate error that one can overcome against weak opposition. One
can also deliberately double-fault on the first point of every game of
tennis in which they are serving, and still come back to win, but that
doesn't mean they should.

>It develops
> quickly the bishop on the queen side, and usually
> also the Rook at a1, since most of the times somethin
> like 3. b4 cxb4 4. axb4 follows.

Since when is it sound to develop on the wing before one has contsted the
center?

> I can recoomend everyone to read the book
> "Challenging the Sicilian with 2. a3!?" by
> GM Alexei Bezgodov. He's an expert on this
> opening, and wrote a book about it. He was
> champion of Russia in 1993, and vice-champion
> in 1999. So, you can not call him a retard.

He also never contended for the world title. White can get away with
squandering the advantatge of the first move, but the best he should get
from this is a draw.

Date: 05 Feb 2006 11:38:48
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 c5 2. a3 e5 3. f4

[email protected] wrote:
> I could not find any games with this move order in chesslive.de.
>
> I am playing a series of games with this move order at
> www.SlowChess.com
>
> I would appreciate it if someone could give me the name of this opening

Interesting. The Oxford Companion to Chess gives the names of 1,327
different opening variations, but this is not among them. After 1.e4
c5, it gives only 2.b4, c3, Nc3, Bc4, d4, Ne2 and Nf3.