Artificial anger puts me in the appropriate state of mind to win tournaments and that is what I did yesterday in the Pézenas rapid…thanks to the Prie attack against GM Bricard not hesitating to play a3-a4 at the right moment.  

Everyone will understand I cannot develop here what happens against 1.d4 d5 2.a3 c6 or the neo-Prie attack 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.a3 (for it is not because I have to find something independent on 2…c5 that I have to prevent myself from meeting joys like 2…e6 3.Bf4, 2…c6 3.Bf4 2…Bf5 3.c4 and so on. Could somebody more patient then me indicate uberdeker why it is dubious to play a London system 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 (3.c3) c5! or 2.Nf3 (2.c3) Nf6 3.Bf4 (3.c3) c5! on the base of what I have written for the section ?) when NIC 79 which deals with the matter is just out.  

Some hints though :1.d4 d5 2.a3 inaugurates a new concept about the opening.
It is not trying to a adapt a defence to the first move like the King’s Indian attack, Bird opening but actually a systematic adaptation to what Black has done with his also excellent first move.

To try to grasp some of its spirit let’s invent a new rule where White starts from the ranks 7 and 8. So he plays 1.d5! a very good move putting a strong pawn in the centre! I bet everyone reading this thread shares this opinion otherwise they would not be here…
Then Black has the right to play two moves in a row provided that they are no captures.
And he plays 1…d4…a3. Who is better and why? Maybe it is just equal but let us check some of the suggestions of this poll. :

-.”the bishop attack” 2.Bg4 then 2…f3! Refutates it.  This is planned for the July update in normal chess where I recently crushed Mr Trompopoulos with it. OK I was Black and played a7-a6 a few moves later.

-“The Veresov” 2.Nc6 Nf3 3.Bg4 Nbd2 but I prefer to warn you that a2-a3 is very useful against any White 4th move now.

-“The Nf3 Torre” This variation should not appear on the poll because it is only a consequence of Black compromising himself with e7-e6 too early. In our case of “Prie chess” 2.Nf6 Nf3 3.Bg4? Ne5 and c2-c4 next

-“The Nf3 Colle3 2.Nf6 Nf3 3.e6 Put that way doesn’it look a bit ridiculous 3…Bf4 or Bg5 4.c5 c3.

-“The Nf3 London” 2.Nf6 Nf3 3.Bf5? c4! 4.c6 (4.e6 Qb3) cxd5 5.cxd5 Qb3 6.Qb6 only move Qxb6 7.axb6 Nc3 with a pleasant edge for…the camp that has already moved his a pawn.

-"the neo-London" 2.Bf5 c4! the move a2-a3 renders the dangerous reaction 3.e5 dxe5 impossible here.

-“e3 the Stonewall attack” 2.e6 Nf3 3.f5 Bf4 or 2.f5 Bf4 no comment…

-You can add “the BDG” 2.e5? dxe5 3.Nc6 e4! a2-a3 is extremely useful in the Lemberger.

-The fianchetto 2.g6 Nf3 3.Bg7 c3 4.Nf6 Bf4 The move a3 is useless ... just like White's bishop on g7 hitting the granite of the Black's d4 pawn.

-2.c6 what a lame move! Think of 1.d4 d5 2.c3 In the d pawn specials sphere, White need his c pawn to unbalance the position! So Black replies 2…Nf3 3.Nf6 (or 3.Bf4) 3…Bf4 ( the bishop to f4 taljechin not g5) then 4.Qb6 is dubious like in Prie-Van Wely in “normal chess” where the dutch played his a pawn two moves later because of 4…Qc1 followed by c2-c4.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 What a ridiculous move! Somehow, being a specialist of this Chameleon-Chebanenko Slav, I know how to use it, in "Prie chess", however.  


1.d4 Nf6 2.a3 does not work because of 2…g6 with a2-a3 serving nothing and not because of 2…e6.
1.d4 e6 2.a3 Nf6 3.c4 is OK for White but I prefer 3.Nf3 first and if 3…c5 4.c3.

I am sorry I did not reply to you in French, dear Hubert, but I did not understand it. It looks so thrown together  it cannot be your mother tongue!
Possiblmy you should have written in a third language so that we could make the effort to understand each other ?        

Quote:


I'm not convinced that it's better than the usual solids either, but it tends to provoke black a whole lot more! 

As for the objective merits of 1.d4 d5  2.a2-a3, I see the following

i) it makes a reversed QG a real gambit as 2...c5 3.dxc5 Qa5+ can be met by 4.b4

ii) control of b4 is useful, especially in lines where white can react with c2-c4, or if black tries to open the centre with e7-e5.

iii) the option of a reversed Chebanenko is a further discouragement of a black reversed QG set-up.


Compared with the Petrosian line in the QI - a2-a3 there doesn't seem to accomplish anything more than avoiding Bb4 and generally fit in with a c4+d4 set-up.


Black might have some set-ups that avoid the strong points of 2.a3 but presumably those would involve some other drawback. So it's hard to say anything without a concrete line...



As for 1.d4 e6 2.a3 - Here I don't see the light either. It just looks ugly to me.

Unless I'm mistaken, 1.d4 d5 2.a3 Nf6 3.Nf3 c6, or 1.d4 d5 2.a3 c6, has yet to be covered in GM Pries' section.  I for one would like that to happen!  I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but I for one haven't had any trouble understanding Mr.Pries'  English.  Unless of course I just think I'm understanding it, when in fact I'm not, after all I'm not an Englishman or Smyslov_Fan.  

Cher ( en temps perdu!) hubert

1.e4 c5
This black move serves no real purpose ( Are in a rush to move your queen ? ) but avoids White taking a full centre.
I have no time to explain what your visibly quite limited chess understanding, confusing prophilaxy, rythm with incoherence for instance, is not in measure to apprehend.
I good first step though would be to subscribe to this section!

Cordially

In the interesting free arcticle written by GM Prie he often points out how the move a2-a3 was beneficial.  Things like allowing a b2-b4 push, simply guarding the b4-square, and in at least one example White got an edge because there wasn't a pawn hanging on a2.  Perhaps the move isn't always relevant, but it does seem have some merit.  If you already play similiar structures as Black you might want to give it a try.

Dear Hubert

"I believe 2.a3 is a necessary move to prevent the free shot c7-c5! when the Bc1 comes out the pawn chain."
Need a drawing or you are just not a chesspublishing subscriber?

In the structure d4-d5, if you find me a way to play a London or Torre when Black's queen bishop is alive ie when Black has not played the suiting my purpose e7-e6 in his first two moves, I shamelessly drop the Prié on the spot!

But I would rather suggest you start to investigate and figure out yourself the mecanisms of adaptation in the openings and reversed play, buy some good books like the a6 Slav (Everyman 2003) the latest NIC 79, since the first part of the article on the Prié published an announced on the NIC 78 frontpage is already on line and observe how many times this useful little a pawn move is employed nowadays at the highest level ( 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 a6!? Anand) and then come back to me (in a couple of weeks maybe ?) with something more constructive than your hollow incredulity I do not give a weary regard about

Eric  

Dear Eric,

 Are we then to assume that you like to give your opponents pleasure?!

Surely you will admit that the move a3 serves no purpose in the positions that you wish to obtain (Torre, London...), regardless of what you have managed to avoid.

Once again, I can understand that such a variation as 1. d4 d5 "!" ; 2. a3 "!" is useful for you in practice, but extolling its theoretical merits is a bit odd, no?
                                           
                                 Regards,
                                    Hubert