my "precious time"? that sounds a little bit insulting.

in any case, after 12.Nd2 b5 (12...e5 13.0-0-0!, 12...d5 Nf4!) 13.Nf4 (I bleieve there is more than one road to Rome, and 13.Ng3 bxc4 14.Nxc4 and 13.cxb5 as in the old game Flear-Plaskett 1982, are also very good) 12...bxc4 (12...Nxd4? 13.Ng6 Kf7 14.Ne5+ and 15.Qxd4+-) Nb4 14.Bg6! Ke7 (there's not much else) 15.Bb1! d5 16.Ne5! +/- looks rather miserable for black. If you want to play this line sharply, 5...Bb4+ is certainly playable, at least in a practical sense. 5...Bxg2 black is just trying not to get butchered- and unsuccessfully.

fluffy

Welcome back Suttercane! I recently took a look with some clubmates at your suggestion, in what is possibly the most critical line of the Owen's (3 Bd3 e6 4 Nf3 c5 5 c3 Nf6 6 Qe2 Be7 7 0-0 d5 8 e5 Nfd7 9 a3), of 9 ...Nc6!? 10 b4 g5!?, and they were quite impressed! I, and I'm sure others, would love it if you could (without giving away all your secrets!?) say some more about this line -- how each side should be handling the position -- or even give a game or two of yours with it! ...

I notice Black has tried numerous other tenth moves too, for example 10 ...h6, 10 ...Qc7, 10 ...a6, and also 10 ...c4 11 Bc2 and then 11 ...g5, 11 ...Qc7 or 11 ...h6. Obviously some of these might transpose into 10 ...g5. Any thoughts on this? What the final verdict on the Owen's will be who knows, but showing it to be inferior is absolutely not a trivial task!

Just curious: isn't 11...Nc6 the only move?
a)12.Nbc3 e5
b)12.Nbd2 b5 or Kf7
c)12.Nf4 e5 or Nxd4.

It would be nice, to bury 4...f5 definitely.

25...Rh7, 26.Qh7 Qf3, 27.Re3 Qh1, 28.Ke2 Qb1, 29.Bh6 Qb2, 30.Kf1 Bh6, 31.Qf5 Kg8, 32.Qd5 Kh7
33.Qe4 Kg7, 34.Rg3 Kf7, 35.Rf3 Kg7, 36.Qa8

1-0

What si Bauer`s evaluation of this line:
1.d4 b6 2.Bg5 Bb7 3.e4 Be4 4.d5

Hello All. 

Its Finally here. I have with me a coy of Play 1...b6! 

i must say the games so far have been instuctive. I was hoping for a few more games from Blatny and Filipovic as they seem to play the owens in good style. 

The book itself is rather big for a first book writer, This was a pleasent surprise. 

The thoery level is jsut about right but i wouldnt say the book it self is complete. I share Suttercanes assesment alot of things were left uncovered. 

But overall to the amateur or expert who is looking for a system for the weekend or maybe for a while in their carreer as a player i would say this is a great place to start. Along with the book perhaps using the resources provided to us here. Im sure i will be asking questions in the near future about some of the games and some of the variations. 

Oh and a note to you amateurs and experts Bauer himself states that the owens is not a god like opening. But it is rather a flexible way to begin a game. The possibilites of both sides are many. Black may often have to defend for a long time before the counter play may begin. 

The other 3 sections 1 deals with d4 and systems with out c4 and the other deals with c4 and Nf3. Both transposing into a dutch or english defense. 

I think that with this and also with Adrew Martins book coming out it may be a new trend to try the strange, or at least take a look at the so called "unorthodox" tries. 

Maybe we will come into a new age of a slightly more sane Bassman approach. 

Here is to opening with b6 against almost every thing.

I wish I knew what you’re trying to say, LH. Of course one can argue, if one wants to, about relative strength. The simple fact is that, every six weeks or so, a chessplayer of around 2300 or above (and sometimes well above) loses to the Owen’s Defence. Not vast NUMBERS of losses as the sample itself is not big, but REGULAR losses. Why does this happen if the opening itself is “almost like ‘Black to play and lose’” as you’ve alleged? Mainly because the losers of these games gain winning positions then screw up? Come off it!

The winners of these games, who include players of the calibre of Ivanov, Torre, Nevednichy, Kurajica, Spassky, can hardly have considered the Owen’s a “dreg” opening. GM Flear, on this site, does not. We’ve repeatedly asked you why we should believe you and not them, and you’ve repeatedly failed to provide an answer. What is it that prevents you from acknowledging that if you can’t or won’t at least try to bolster your claims with some actual evidence in the form of actual chess moves, you’re just a clashing cymbal?

I understand very well. Like I say: preposterous. Even if you forget for a moment the logic of chess, elementary psychology should tell you that if this had been Bauer's belief and motivation he'd have been unlikely to conclude from his examination of 1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7, as the other thread on this subject reveals that he did, that Black equalises more slowly than in other openings and that some lines, e.g. 4 Qe2, could pose a real problem for the Owen's -- he'd have been far more likely to brush that honesty too under the carpet and declare the opening a little-regarded, exciting and unproblematic counter to 1 e4.

But we can't forget the logic of chess. To put it kindlily, anyone would think, from your posts on this subject, that we're talking about the opening moves 1 e4 h6?! 2 d4 h5?. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that sooner or later someone, whether it be Bauer or someone else, might show clearly how White can gain a stable advantage against the Owen's, but until such a time comes most people will take the view that a great deal less dogmatism is called for. This is an defence with which distinguished titled players regularly defeat distinguished titled players. It is preposterous, then, to imply that it is "dreg" that can be destroyed without being able to show why. Since you famously evaded this challenge haughtily asserting that the opening is so transparently bad that working out why wasn’t  worth your trouble (in other words fatuously compared it with 1 e4 h6?! 2 d4 h5?), how can you expect what you say about it to be taken seriously?