[quote author=Glenn Snow link=1142445517/15#18 date=1143233481]
Heh!, well I just meant the jury was still out.
CraigEvans says that 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nc6 3.a3 favors White.  Did you already suggest a reply to that?  3.a3 Nf6 4.Nf3 would transpose to the "2-Knights Indian" or "Tango" variation.  Does White have anything better than 4.Nf3 and does Black have good alternatives to 3...Nf6?[/quote]

Dear Glenn,

 The jury's only just out, and I expect it to remain so for a long, long time. A good thing it is too. If a new opening was immediately accepted as being valid, there'd be no point in discussing it here. They've been trying to refute the Modern Benoni and Dragon for the past century now, and they've come pretty close, but there quite a few murky points that persist.

Where did Craig post his suggestion of 3. a3 ? A good answer is 3. ...f5, playing a Classical Dutch where the move a3 is more or less a wasted tempo.

                                                                               Regards,
                                                                                  Hubert

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1142445517/15#15 date=1143113544]
Against 1. c4[...] it's time I looked into 1. ...Ktc6!?
[/quote]
Actually, 2. Ktc3 e6 ; 3. e4 Ktf6 ; 4. Ktf3 e5 ; 6. d4 Bb4 transposes to a line I mentioned earlier : 1. c4 Ktf6 ; 2. Ktc3 e6 ; 3. e4 Ktc6!? ; 4. d4 e5 ; 5. Ktf3 Bb4. It's funny because it's usually [i]White[/i] who uses this line to avoid the Nimzo, not Black! If 2. g3, Black could play 2. ...e5, with a Reversed Closed Sicilian when he has avoided some early d4 lines and White is commited to the standard g3 development. So this seems to be a reasonable repertoire if you like these lines. 

[quote]=Glenn Snow] It amazes me that such a seemingly solid dynamic move (with many unique variations) can still be found on the second move! [/quote]

Actually there are more examples than you might imagine. I've got quite a few others up my sleeve, which I may share with you at some point. But then again I should probably keep some to myself because I'm not a very strong pratical player (bad nerves, bad memory, rather limited tactical vision) so these unknown lines are one of my main assets OTB.

Keep sending the flattering comments though!

                                                                        Regards,
                                                                            Hubert

P.S. Glenn, what do you mean "seemingly" (just kidding)

Erratum previous post :
[quote]  1. d4 Ktf6 ; 2. c4 e6 ; 3. Ktc3 Ktc6 is a valid alternative to 3. ...b6 and 3. ...Bb4+.[/quote]
It should of course be read 3. Ktf3.

Dear Strptzr,
 
I've already given my views on transpositional problems and there are no simple solutions.
The best attitude is perhaps to treat each opening move independantly, taking advantage of your opponent's move-order, rather than giving him the only extra options. 

For example, 1. c4 may be met by 1. ...b6, when White cannot reach the Main Lines of the English Defence with 4. Bd3. Of course, he himself can maintain the independant nature of the English Opening with 2. ...g3 or the Two Pawns' Attack, but these matters are for each individual player to work out within his own repertoire.

Since you've expressed interest in my repertoire here are some lines that I consistently employ. I usually answer 1. Ktf3 with 1. ...Ktf6 :
- 2. d4 e6 ; 3. c4 Ktc6 we've already discussed
- 2. c4 e6 ; 3. g3 a6!? is an interesting line of Kortchnoi's
- 2. g3 b5 is quite valid as well

I believe these lines form a coherent whole, while Black is not desperately trying to get his QP Defence against other moves than 1. d4

Against 1. c4 I play on and off 1. ...e6/1. ...Ktf6/1. ...b6 and even 1. ...e5 (mutual zugzwang!),
but it's time I looked into 1. ...Ktc6!?

                                                              Regards, 
                                                                Hubert

Maintaining the independant nature of a position is an interesting subject.
The Two Knights' Indian is itself prone to transposition to the Nimzo, but Black may be happy that he has avoided a few critical lines.
In the UD, 3. Ktf3 may indeed be answered by 3. ...Ktf6, and I maintain that 
1. d4 Ktf6 ; 2. c4 e6 ; 3. Ktc3 Ktc6 is a valid alternative to 3. ...b6 and 3. ...Bb4+.
In this case Black has avoided the Nimzo and the 3. Ktc3 Two Knights'.
But he also has 3. ...Bb4+ if he's intent on maintaining independance. I should check this some time.   
As for 1. d4 e6 ; 2. Ktf3, well Black has plenty of options apart from 2. ...Ktf6, which is what I usually play.
If he's an ...e6 Sicilian player and is comfortable with a d4/...e6 Symmetrical English, then 2...c5 is a good move. 
But 2. ...Ktc6?! ; 3. e4 d5 (is there another move?) 4. e5 (even stronger than 4. Ktc3) is an advance French without counterplay for Black. 

Certainly, flexibility is a requirement for any valid opening repertoire. Rehashing the same moves against any reply is not likely to get you far, whatever you play!

The Nimzo lines after 4 Nf3 Nf6 (here or Nf3 Nc6 in the Nimzo) seem decent enough - they're well covered in the recent Tango book from Everyman.

3 Nf3 might be more annoying here if white wants to play slowly (3 .. Nf6 4 a3 is iirc one the critical Tango lines which is still maybe ok for black. Not very independent though.).

2 Nf3 might a bit more annoying.... (2 .. Nc6 3 e4 etc is I suppose a main line Nimzowitch defence which is a bit marginal. No need to play Nc6 here of course ).

Hello,

I very recently got interested in the English Defence, after looking at a few games of Speelman in Best games book.

However, after a bit of DB searching, seems black finds white's big centre hard to handle after the line,

1.d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4. e4 Bb7 5.f3 ...

especially since the line 5 ...f5 6. p*p Nh6 7. p*e6 doesn't look so playable in this computer age. Found a game where Speelman played 5 ...e5, but game nothing like as much fun as games in book.

My first thought is that your line, is interesting because lets black get in Qh4 earlier, before white is set with f3. However, this leads to my second thought.

White can stop the Qh4 monkey buisness, with 4.Nf3. Then black can play a Nimzo or dutch, where Nc6 is inferior.
Sorry not much details here, but only beginning to get into this mad stuff, more typically play something dry like the QGA.

Bye John S

Hi Hubert!

I’m extremely interested in your defence, and also in the Eingorn French. The only real reason I haven’t responded before is pressure of work. In my few spare moments I’ve been looking at (and been fascinated by) the Deferred Cozio Ruy Lopez, and haven’t, unfortunately, had time for any other researches. I guess, then, that I’m living proof of the soundness of the theory that sometimes one has to wait before interest is shown in a given post. Moral, don’t give up too soon!

As you’ll gather, I’m afraid I haven’t really got anything to contribute at this stage. But I can tell you where to find the stuff on 1 d4 Nc6. Have a look at the threads ‘X***THE QUEEN'S KNIGHT DEFENSE***’ and, later, ‘Is 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5!? Ne5 definitely considered +- ?’ and ‘1. d4 Nc6 2. d5 Ne5 – theory’, all in the Daring Defences forum. At the end of the first of these threads I suggest a line that might be good for White. Is this (still) correct? If you can suggest any improvements for Black I’d love to know!

I’m interested too in your comment on the theoretical soundness of 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 e5. Tony Miles was famously of the opinion that this defence was OK for Black, the ‘problem’ being 2 Nf3 after which Black had better play 2 …e5. Do you disagree with him, and if so how should White play against the Kevitz-Mikenas Defence?

PS.  I too v. much hope you might register!