1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

Main

Date: 20 Apr 2006 06:20:45
From: ben carr
Subject: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
anything about this move and the proper responses?

Date: 21 Apr 2006 16:53:40
From: Nick
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

David Richerby wrote:
> ben carr <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen
> > it and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> > anything about this move and the proper responses?
>
> It's apparently called the Tartakower or fantasy variation.
> It looks like it ought to be bad, because it weakens the king.
> On the other hand, if it has Tartakower's name on it, it can't
> be so bad that you should expect to win within ten moves.

According to ChessBase, 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 has been
played as White by GM Alexander Morozevich (2730 FIDE),
GM Judit Polgar (2711 FIDE ), GM Francisco Vallejo Pons
(2666 FIDE), GM Ni Hua (2607 FIDE), GM Luke McShane
(2605 FIDE), and other GMs.

I suppose that these GMs did not expect their opponents
to defeat them within ten moves after 3 f3.

> Play sensibly, develop and attack White's weaknesses.

According to ChessBase, GM Viktor Bologan (2666 FIDE)
lost as Black after 3 f3 in the 2004 Russian Championship.
Perhaps GM Bologan failed to "play sensibly, develop
and attack White's weaknesses".

--Nick

Date: 21 Apr 2006 15:31:45
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Maroczy Bind (was: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?)

Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> > It is named after Geza oczy (Hungarian, 1870-1951) ...
> >
> >> He's also the guy who all but refuted the entire open Sicilian with his
> >> Bind. A truly brilliant opening player.
> >
> > I'm having trouble making sense of that rek. The oczy Bind is a
> > white formation against the Sicilian, distinguished by pawns at e4 and
> > c4. It occurs, for example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6
> > 5.c4, to mention only one of several lines. For many years it was
> > considered to give White a definite advantage, and so Black would
> > generally avoid it by 4...Nf6, to induce 5.Nc3 blocking the c-pawn.
> > Since the choice of entering an open or closed Sicilian is up to
> > White, and the oczy Bind is played by White, how then can the bind
> > be considered a "refutation of the entire open Sicilian"?
>
> I was referring to the Bind after d4 and cxd4 is played for White, but Black
> technically enters the open sicilian by capturing, as that's what "opens"
> the board.

The ...cxd4 capture is more or less obligatory in most lines, so the
main decision of open-vs-closed Sicilian rests with White, and is
usually made as early as move 2, i.e. 2.Nc3 instead of 2.Nf3.
The fact remains that the oczy Bind cannot be viewed as a
"refutation of the entire Open Sicilian" from either White's or Black's
standpoint.

> > And one wonders, if "the entire open Sicilian" was refuted back in
> > oczy's day, why is it still played so often now, with good results
> > for White?
>
> Good results that require a lot more study, and with more and more players
> electing to play other lines, like 3. Bb5+ against 2...d6.

But that is a line in which White does not play the oczy Bind.
Why, if the bind refutes the Sicilian, would White avoid it? As I said,
I am having great difficulty understanding the point you're trying to
make.

> > The term "oczy Bind" is actually rather a misnomer. IIRC, the stem
> > game of the entire line is Swiderski-oczy, Monte Carlo 1904. I'm not
> > sure that oczy ever even played the bind as White.
>
> I'd have to check that, as the books I grew up on didn't mention him much.

Then on what did you base your claim that he refuted the open
Sicilian?

Date: 21 Apr 2006 19:10:29
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Maroczy Bind (was: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?)

>> I'd have to check that, as the books I grew up on didn't mention him
>> much.
>
> Then on what did you base your claim that he refuted the open
> Sicilian?

I said *almost* but should have said the "entire Sicilian" rather than
"entire open sicilian," but most of Black's strategies are geared towards
the open sicilian. Black does not always have to take on d4 either, so it
is still up to Black.

A non-open sicilian might be 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d5. The other moves can all
lead to the bind by way of the open sicilian, though I see what you mean
about it being associated with White due to 3. d4.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 21 Apr 2006 10:08:52
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Maroczy Bind (was: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?)

Ray Gordon wrote:
> > It is named after Geza oczy (Hungarian, 1870-1951) ...

> He's also the guy who all but refuted the entire open Sicilian with his
> Bind. A truly brilliant opening player.

I'm having trouble making sense of that rek. The oczy Bind is a
white formation against the Sicilian, distinguished by pawns at e4 and
c4. It occurs, for example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6
5.c4, to mention only one of several lines. For many years it was
considered to give White a definite advantage, and so Black would
generally avoid it by 4...Nf6, to induce 5.Nc3 blocking the c-pawn.
Since the choice of entering an open or closed Sicilian is up to
White, and the oczy Bind is played by White, how then can the bind
be considered a "refutation of the entire open Sicilian"?
And one wonders, if "the entire open Sicilian" was refuted back in
oczy's day, why is it still played so often now, with good results
for White?
The term "oczy Bind" is actually rather a misnomer. IIRC, the stem
game of the entire line is Swiderski-oczy, Monte Carlo 1904. I'm not
sure that oczy ever even played the bind as White.

Date: 21 Apr 2006 17:10:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Maroczy Bind (was: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?)

>> > It is named after Geza oczy (Hungarian, 1870-1951) ...
>
>> He's also the guy who all but refuted the entire open Sicilian with his
>> Bind. A truly brilliant opening player.
>
> I'm having trouble making sense of that rek. The oczy Bind is a
> white formation against the Sicilian, distinguished by pawns at e4 and
> c4. It occurs, for example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6
> 5.c4, to mention only one of several lines. For many years it was
> considered to give White a definite advantage, and so Black would
> generally avoid it by 4...Nf6, to induce 5.Nc3 blocking the c-pawn.
> Since the choice of entering an open or closed Sicilian is up to
> White, and the oczy Bind is played by White, how then can the bind
> be considered a "refutation of the entire open Sicilian"?

I was referring to the Bind after d4 and cxd4 is played for White, but Black
technically enters the open sicilian by capturing, as that's what "opens"
the board.

> And one wonders, if "the entire open Sicilian" was refuted back in
> oczy's day, why is it still played so often now, with good results
> for White?

Good results that require a lot more study, and with more and more players
electing to play other lines, like 3. Bb5+ against 2...d6.

> The term "oczy Bind" is actually rather a misnomer. IIRC, the stem
> game of the entire line is Swiderski-oczy, Monte Carlo 1904. I'm not
> sure that oczy ever even played the bind as White.

I'd have to check that, as the books I grew up on didn't mention him much.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 21 Apr 2006 06:51:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?

To quote Men in Black:

"You see things that you need not see
And you be places that you need not be
Go on with your life forget that Tartakower crap."

Date: 21 Apr 2006 02:43:25
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

"ben carr" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>

I think this is an under-rated variation and have played it as white for
many years. One of the nice things is that many black players react quickly
with (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3) 3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 when, after 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Bc4!
white has a strong attack based on the weak f7 square.

White's point, of course, is to strong point the center and, perhaps castle
queenside while targeting the kingside for an attack.

Among black defenses, probably most solid is 3...e6, when I have had several
games transpose into a Steinitz French after 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.f4 etc.
There are ways, of course, to avoid this for both sides, although I'm not
sure they are all that great.

A radical attempt to change the game is 3...e5!?, hoping to capitalize on
the dark square weaknesses after 4.dxe5 Bc5. I've run into this twice and
won both games, but they have been nail-biters, and some people may not
appreciate this sort of position with the white pieces.

Randy Bauer

Date: 20 Apr 2006 23:09:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>>I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
>> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
>> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>>
>
> I think this is an under-rated variation and have played it as white for
> many years. One of the nice things is that many black players react
> quickly with (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3) 3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 when, after 5.Nf3
> exd4 6.Bc4! white has a strong attack based on the weak f7 square.

Black can defend this attack but White gets out of the opening in great
shape in many lines. Not only that, but Caro players can't stand this type
of position so many just get slaughtered.

> White's point, of course, is to strong point the center and, perhaps
> castle queenside while targeting the kingside for an attack.
>
> Among black defenses, probably most solid is 3...e6, when I have had
> several games transpose into a Steinitz French after 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7
> 6.f4 etc. There are ways, of course, to avoid this for both sides,
> although I'm not sure they are all that great.
>
> A radical attempt to change the game is 3...e5!?, hoping to capitalize on
> the dark square weaknesses after 4.dxe5 Bc5. I've run into this twice and
> won both games, but they have been nail-biters, and some people may not
> appreciate this sort of position with the white pieces.

I think a good opening student as White can forge a slight advantage from
almost any line in this variation, which is why I now consider it the "main
line" of the Caro, and believe that one day our top players will confirm
this.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 21 Apr 2006 05:46:13
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

I didnt think takeing the pawn looked good. First of all I didnt want to
run into some prepared line. Second I didnt see any good way to develop
my light squared bishop. Third I didnt want to give white control over
the center so easily. What I came up with at the time was to fianchetto
my king bishop. I like to play the KID, Sicilian Dragon, and Pirc so the
positions were familiar to me. Does anyone have any thoughts on if the
kingside fianchetto is any good?

Date: 21 Apr 2006 06:49:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>I didnt think takeing the pawn looked good.

I actually think taking the pawn is best for Black, but there are no
shortcuts. There are ways to "decline" that option but you'll still be
facing a battle. This line forces Black to be prepared or die.

>First of all I didnt want to
> run into some prepared line.

You've already run into one with 3. f3, not something White would play
without serious research backing it up. I hated playing against the Caro
for my entire life until I found this thing, another case where the "main
line" of the opening kept telling a story that I thought was way too good
for Black, and way too easily.

>Second I didnt see any good way to develop
> my light squared bishop.

What were you expecting when you play 1...c6? A Tostitos party?

>Third I didnt want to give white control over
> the center so easily.

What were you expecting with 1...c6? Try the double king-pawn games if the
center is so important to you.

>What I came up with at the time was to fianchetto
> my king bishop. I like to play the KID, Sicilian Dragon, and Pirc so the
> positions were familiar to me. Does anyone have any thoughts on if the
> kingside fianchetto is any good?

Until Black throws up some top GMs against this line, I wouldn't be able to
tell you much of what to do, since I only play this as White. Generally,
against the fianchettoed king's bishop, White can just solidify the big
center with an open f-file against Black's slow kingside development.

(Thanks to Mr. Bauer for spilling my pet line before I had a chance to
surprise someone with it in a big match LOL). Actually, I'll be releasing a
book that includes a full chapter on this variation alone, with most
plausible moves for both sides covered up to about move 10-12, but I'm only
doing that because I need training expenses.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 21 Apr 2006 03:08:40
From: Knight1
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

ben carr Wrote:
> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?
If you take the pawn, white is planning for devasting kind side attac
but it can be defended easily by proper player. If your the kind o
player who fears king side attacks and wont take your opponents paw
then you can use this variation

e4 c6, d4 d5, d5-e4 f3, Pe3 ... to avoid an kingside attac

--
Knight1

Date: 21 Apr 2006 12:46:20
From: Stephan Bird
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

In article <<[email protected] >,> Knight1
([email protected]) says...
>
> ben carr Wrote:
> > I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> > and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> > anything about this move and the proper responses?
> If you take the pawn, white is planning for devasting kind side attack
> but it can be defended easily by proper player. If your the kind of
> player who fears king side attacks and wont take your opponents pawn
> then you can use this variation
>
> e4 c6, d4 d5, d5-e4 f3, Pe3 ... to avoid an kingside attack
>
You seem to be missing a move there (or you have Black moving
twice with d7-d5, then dxe4

Stephan

--
Stephan Bird MChem(Hons) AMRSC
Currently in Caernarfon, Wales

Date: 20 Apr 2006 21:15:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
>> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
>> anything about this move and the proper responses?
> If you take the pawn, white is planning for devasting kind side attack
> but it can be defended easily by proper player.

Famous last words.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 20 Apr 2006 23:33:25
From: James
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

ben carr wrote :
> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>
Complete opening report here:
http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/b12d.html

It is usually called the Caro-Kann, oczy (Fantasy) Variation.
It is named after Geza oczy (Hungarian, 1870-1951), who was one of
the top players from 1900 to 1920, and was the one to introduce this
variation in 1899.

James

Date: 20 Apr 2006 18:48:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
>> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
>> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>>
> Complete opening report here:
> http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/b12d.html
>
>
> It is usually called the Caro-Kann, oczy (Fantasy) Variation.
> It is named after Geza oczy (Hungarian, 1870-1951), who was one of the
> top players from 1900 to 1920, and was the one to introduce this variation
> in 1899.

He's also the guy who all but refuted the entire open Sicilian with his
Bind. A truly brilliant opening player.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 20 Apr 2006 14:56:04
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: I'm being impersonated again! (was: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?)

FORGET WHAT I SAID ABOUT THIS LINE BEING SOUND. IT SUCKS FOR WHITE!!

"ben carr" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>

Date: 20 Apr 2006 18:42:43
From: Ron
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (ben carr) wrote:

> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?

It looks like white is going to try to steer black into an inferior
defense to the Black-Diemer gambit.

EG, 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 de 4.Nc3 ef 4.Nxf3 Nf6

Contrary to what some people have said in this thread, these lines can
be VERY dangerous for black if he doesn't know what he's doing. The
BDG's reputation isn't as strong as, say, the Evans Gambit or the
Smith-Morra (both fine choices, IMO, if white is comfortable with
dynamic equality and lots of chances to play for the win) but a slightly
misstep can send black to an early grave.

-Ron

Date: 20 Apr 2006 14:50:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
>> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
>> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>
> It looks like white is going to try to steer black into an inferior
> defense to the Black-Diemer gambit.
>
> EG, 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 de 4.Nc3 ef 4.Nxf3 Nf6

Please put this man on the other side of the board when I play in a
tournament.

By the way, this is the future main line of the Caro (not his line).

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 20 Apr 2006 20:28:27
From: Ron
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Please put this man on the other side of the board when I play in a
> tournament.
>
> By the way, this is the future main line of the Caro (not his line).

As a panov-botvinnik player who meets 1.e4 with e5, I'm happy to say I
have no idea what the "main line" Caro-Kann is. I have, however, seen
lots of surprisingly dangerous gambits in both the Caro and the French
where a black d-pawn is given the opportunity to gobble white's e- and
f- pawns.

There's a whole "BDG family" of gambits: the winkleman-riemer in the
French, or the Milner-Barry in the Caro-Kann.

I'm not very familiar with this Milner-Barry (not to be confused with
the gambit of the same name of the french) but 1e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de
4.f3 (look familiar at all?); this gambit has been, perhaps, unfavorably
dismissed because of 4. ... e5! but 5.Be3! keeps things interesting;
white may have enough activity to compensate for the pawn even without
queens, and there are lots of threats in the position.

But without the early e5 break, this gambit is extremely dangerous.

I've played it in some blitz games, with interesting results.

-Ron

Date: 20 Apr 2006 18:47:39
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>> Please put this man on the other side of the board when I play in a
>> tournament.
>>
>> By the way, this is the future main line of the Caro (not his line).
>
> As a panov-botvinnik player who meets 1.e4 with e5, I'm happy to say I
> have no idea what the "main line" Caro-Kann is.

I said it's the FUTURE main line!

>I have, however, seen
> lots of surprisingly dangerous gambits in both the Caro and the French
> where a black d-pawn is given the opportunity to gobble white's e- and
> f- pawns.

Shhhh. (Hint: I'm about to publish the defining work on the Fantasy
variation, and it should become the main line shortly thereafter).

> There's a whole "BDG family" of gambits: the winkleman-riemer in the
> French, or the Milner-Barry in the Caro-Kann.
>
> I'm not very familiar with this Milner-Barry (not to be confused with
> the gambit of the same name of the french) but 1e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de
> 4.f3 (look familiar at all?); this gambit has been, perhaps, unfavorably
> dismissed because of 4. ... e5! but 5.Be3! keeps things interesting;
> white may have enough activity to compensate for the pawn even without
> queens, and there are lots of threats in the position.

The Nc3 is not sufficient compensation. White has a much better approach in
the Fantasy variation (I beat a 3000-rated computer on ICC at one-minute
with one of them so that should give you a hint as to what it is).
Unfortunately, I hope people will reward me by purchasing my book when it's
out. The analysis is pretty deep and Caro players can't stand it because it
leads to a wide-open game, while avoiding it leads to a...bad Caro.

> But without the early e5 break, this gambit is extremely dangerous.
>
> I've played it in some blitz games, with interesting results.

There are many gambits in this line, but for now I have to keep the
discussion under wraps, not to mention double-check all my home analysis so
that it can survive public consumption. I'm not one of those "Winning With
This Stupid Trick Opening" type of authors.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 20 Apr 2006 14:34:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

ben carr <[email protected] > wrote:
> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen
> it and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?

It's apparently called the Tartakower or fantasy variation. It looks
like it ought to be bad, because it weakens the king. On the other
hand, if it has Tartakower's name on it, it can't be so bad that you
should expect to win within ten moves. Play sensibly, develop and
attack White's weaknesses.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Radioactive Spoon (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ piece of cutlery but it'll make you
glow in the dark!

Date: 20 Apr 2006 06:30:52
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

ben carr wrote:
> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?

The line is known variously as the Tartakower, ozcy, or Fantasy
variation of the Caro-Kann, and is not considered especially dangerous
for Black. It usually gets some (usually brief) mention in any decent
openings encyclopedia like MCO, NCO, ECO, BCO etc. For a more detailed
treatment you'd want a book just about the Caro-Kann, though since I
never play it, I can't recommend one.

Date: 20 Apr 2006 12:52:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>> I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
>> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
>> anything about this move and the proper responses?
>
> The line is known variously as the Tartakower, ozcy, or Fantasy
> variation of the Caro-Kann, and is not considered especially dangerous
> for Black.

Yet.

That's about to change.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 20 Apr 2006 08:02:27
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3???? what is it?

>I played a game that stared that way, with 3.f3. I have never seen it
> and i didnt respond properly(but i still won). Can anyone tell me
> anything about this move and the proper responses?

It's the fantasy variation of the Caro-Kan, i.e., your worst nighte.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918