Quote:

Not only is the opening defective (aka junk), it looks like Owens was a very weak player.  Blackburne was probably boozed up and he still squashed the guy like a bug.

- Lost Highway

Quote:

Couldnt resist this, the only 3 games I found between the two on chesllive.de
Trhey're quite entertaining.
[Event "BCA-05.Kongress"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1862.06.16"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Blackburne,Joseph Henry"]
[Black "Owen,John"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B00"]
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.0-0 cxd4 
9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Bb5 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Nc3 Bb4 13.Re1 0-0 14.Rc1 Rac8 15.Re3 b5 16.Ne5 Rfd8 
17.Rf3 Qh4 18.Nxf7 Rf8 19.Ne5 Bxe4 20.Rxf8+ Rxf8 21.g3 Qh3 22.Nxe4 d5 23.Nc5  1-0

[Event "BCA-04.Challenge Cup"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1872.06.18"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Blackburne,Joseph Henry"]
[Black "Owen,John"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C00"]
1.e4 b6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Be2 Bb7 4.Nh3 Bb4 5.f3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.a3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 
9.d3 Nbd7 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Qe8 12.f4 d5 13.e5 Nh7 14.Qd2 f6 15.d4 Qg6 16.f5 Qe8 
17.fxe6 Qxe6 18.Nf4 Qc6 19.e6 Nc5 20.dxc5 g5 21.Ng6 Rfe8 22.Rae1 gxh4 23.Qxh6 Rxe6 24.Bg4 Rxe1 
25.Rxe1 Re8 26.Ne7+ Rxe7 27.Rxe7 Qxc5+ 28.Qe3 Qxe3+ 29.Rxe3 Kf8 30.Rh3 Ng5 31.Rxh4 Kg7 32.Bf5 c5 
33.Rg4 Kh6 34.h4 Ne4 35.Rg6+ Kh5 36.Rg7 Kxh4 37.Bxe4  1-0

[Event "Manchester"]
[Site "Manchester"]
[Date "1890.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Blackburne,Joseph Henry"]
[Black "Owen,John"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B00"]
1.e4 b6 2.Nc3 Bb7 3.d4 e6 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Nge2 d5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.0-0 Nd7 
9.exd5 exd5 10.Nf4 0-0 11.Nfxd5 g6 12.Be4 c6 13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.Qf3 Nxe4 15.Qxe4 f5 16.Qe6+ Kg7 
17.Rfe1 Qxd4 18.Rad1 Qf6 19.Rd7+ Rf7 20.Qxf7+ Qxf7 21.Ree7  1-0

Quote:



Mr. Kasparov himself that both sides of the Najdorf are very anti-positional. and that the founding fathers of chess would probley ridicule any one who played in such a manner. This is on his DVD. I can see where it gets it Anti-Positional Properties though. a6 is not a piece move and black is going to fall very behind in development. It could be argued that because it doesnt imeadiatley try to gain more space in the center that that could also be a reason. 

But the owens! it self i believe has been reached via d4 and e4 . See Finegold-Blatny. Interesting game where i think Pavel had Ben but just couldnt bring it home.

Quote:


I thought Owen's was strictly 1.e4 b6 (or positions where e4 is played early by white). The daring defences section is dedicated to 1.d4 openings.

Quote:


The Najdorf is very much a positional variation.

Always a pleasure hearing from you Mr.Ayton but i tried putting those ideas across on my original post. And yet no lines yet! 

I dont know if it is just a bias or lack of respect for this opening choice which to me seems quite "regular" 

But alas i dont think they show a bust or refutation because there isnt one! Schiller and Watsons "the big book of busts" trys but its not really a bust at all just a big center with e4,d4,c4 all abreast in the center and trying ot gain space. But its hardley intimidation.

I think if they were to even see the games of historical interest from John Owen himself that would be enough to show that it was a respectable system. One player Blackburne i think in a match against John Owen opened every game as white with 1.g3. When asked why he replied "of course everything else loses to his 1...b6!"

Thats quite an insight. I mean morphy crushed it in a match vs him but i mean hello paul was no fish he was probley the strongest in the world by about 1000 elo points if they would have excisted back then.

Other games of Not come from, Filipovic,Blatney,Gaprindashvili,Kramnik,Ivanov...so somthing about it that still appeals to some GMs.
If a GM is going to take the time to play it perhaps its not as bad as some of you think. If they can take home full points against equaly strong opposition maybe all of us should take a deeper look.

My own opinion, that the Owens is a good repertoire opening for certain players whose main ambition is to become a strong player, but not so good for a strong player to become a master, isn't in the list.   

The Owens is also a good surprise opening, but then in order for it to be a surprise, you'd have to invest quite a bit of energy into your main repertoire and make sure the Owen's never crops up, even by transposition unless you choose to make it so.

So, I abstain from the vote.

Ok I'll give you mine. This is an opening I have met twice in a serious game and both times they got blown away. Just develop agressively keeping in mind a potential French and keeping in mind black doesnt have to castle short and you shouldnt have any problem. Imo (not humble in this case) is that the only advantage it has over other openings like the center counter (e4 e5 Nf3 d5) is that it is a bit more solid.

I am sure more advanced players will beat me with this opening, but I am also sure they have to play much harder than if they played a regular opening.