Latest Updates:
Normal Topic 1.c3?!? (Read 3585 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10368
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #7 - 10/08/04 at 15:58:38
Post Tools
The Saragossa move 1.c3 makes sense if Black fianchettoes the King's Bishop, but everyone should know by now that I play that bishop to e7 ...
1.c3 f5 2.d4 Nf6 3.g3 e6! 4.Bg2 Be7 with 5...o-o and 6...d6 to follow and Black is very comfortable - even slightly better in my opinion.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Geof Strayer
Guest


Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #6 - 10/08/04 at 00:46:26
Post Tools
  Another idea behind 1.c3!? (which I have seen called the Saragossa Opening, for reasons unknown to me) is the potential tranposition to a reversed-Philidor position after something like 1.c3 d5 2.d3 e5 3.Nd2 (even 3.e4 isn't so bad) Nf6 4.e4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0, and you have reached a position that is somewhat similar to a King's Indian Attack but with White's light-squared bishop on e2 rather than g2.  There are even some lines (particularly where Black plays an early dxe4) in which the bishop is actually better on e2 than g2. 

  Similarly, if Black plays a setup with pawns on c5, d5 and e5, then White can often achieve a kind of reversed Old Indian.  There are numerous other potential transpositions to "tempo up defenses" as well.  In general, I doubt that playing the Philidor and the Old Indian (and the other "reversed" openings that 1.c3 often ends up transposing into) a tempo up is anything special, but it probably does give White easy equality in types of positions that may be unfamiliar to the player of the Black pieces.

  There was a local player here in Southern California who used to sometimes play 1.c3 back in the mid to late '80s , and as I recall he used to get surprisingly good positions with White after this move, sometimes even against strong players.  I seriously doubt there is any "refutation" of such a solid move as 1.c3, partiicularly if White is sensitive to transpositions into lines in other openings where White plays c3 (or the reverse of lines where Black plays c6).  But it is probably better as a surprise weapon than your main repertoire choice, unless you are satisified with a slightly unusual equality out of the opening.

  I don't know how much theory there is on this opening but, given the times, some German FM has probably written a 300-page book on it.  Hard to avoid theory completely these days.

   -Geof
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tracke
Senior Member
****
Offline


Introite tam etiam ibi
dei sunt

Posts: 381
Location: Kiel
Joined: 09/21/04
Gender: Male
Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #5 - 10/01/04 at 05:09:33
Post Tools
I´m aware of the fact that I´ve posted about 1.b3 but I think that by analysing 1.c3 we overcross the boundaries from opening theory to opening psychology!?
As 1.c3?! "defends" the black squares it makes sense to "attack" on the white squares with 1...d5, 1...f5 or 1...b6 as mentioned. That´s all!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rudi Pauwels
Guest


Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #4 - 10/01/04 at 04:54:02
Post Tools
b6!? looks indeed very interesting. After 1.c3 b6 2. e4 Bb7 White could try 3. Bd3 with the possible sequence 3...f5!? 4. ef5: Bg2: 5.Qh5+, when a very messy position arises, reminiscent of a variation of the English Defense.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
alumbrado
God Member
*****
Offline


Esse quam videri bonus
malebo

Posts: 1418
Location: London
Joined: 02/17/03
Gender: Male
Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #3 - 10/01/04 at 04:00:05
Post Tools
I think if someone plays 1.c3 they are basically trying to transpose to another opening, whilst gaining time on the clock while black worries about what he might find himself playing.

For example, 1...e5 2.d4 exd4 3.cxd4 d5 4.Nc3 and suddenly we have an Exchange QGD.  Or 1...c5 2.d4 (2.e4 is obviously a 2.c3 Sicilian) cxd4 3.cxd4 d5 and it is an Exchange Slav.

After 1...d5, it will probably end up as a Colle.

If I were to face 1.c3 over the board, my temptation would be to try and cross this up.  I like MNb's suggestion of 1...f5.  I would be tempted to play a Stonewall set-up then, although there is nothign wrong with Black's position in the Leningrad set-up Rudi suggests (and for which I know MNb has a soft spot).

Another option is 1...b6!? when 2.e4 Bb7 might be a bit annoying for White.
  

If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rudi Pauwels
Guest


Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #2 - 10/01/04 at 03:06:46
Post Tools
1.c3!? f5!? 2. d4 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5.Qb3!? and White has a perfect playable position against the Dutch Leningrad! So, I don't think f5 is the refutation of c3...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10368
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 1.c3?!?
Reply #1 - 09/30/04 at 22:41:03
Post Tools
1... f5!
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blacklion1985
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 9
Location: College
Joined: 09/29/04
1.c3?!?
09/30/04 at 15:56:29
Post Tools
hey im friends with a strong 2200 player who has employed 1.c3 as of recently and insists it is great. He has scored many wins with it, although i havent played him yet hehe. What do you think is the best move for black to take advantage of what i think is a weak opening for white?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo