Uberdecker wrote on 02/27/07 at 17:34:55:
Yes, but if Black is willing to play an inferior Benoni (i.e. without c4), he might as well go for 1.d4 c5 immediately.
I've had my fair share of useless confrontations on this thread, and certainly don't want part of any more, but it's a bit odd to call 1. d4 e6 a passive move, no ? And no one has claimed 2. a3 to be unplayable, but the fact that White sometimes moves his a-pawn in the Tarrasch does not constitute sufficient justification (whether or not it comes from elsewhere. Please note this is not an attack on Eric or his creation). Black can play ...c5 without ...d5 and vice-versa.
Call it what you like, but in itself, 1...e6 is not exactly an ambitious move. The point about the Tarrasch is not that a3 is occasionally played there, but that it is entirely useful in that context; so
having played 2. a3 and seen 2...d5, White should steer toward the Tarrasch Defense, Normal Variation (as Tarrasch called it). In this way, though White's lack of ambition matches Black's,
White is still White. It's a joke, you know? It makes fun of 1...e6.
It doesn't matter much to White whether Black plays only one of ...d5, ...c5, or both. White's going to play d4, c4 and meet ...c5 with an immediate e3. In such a context, 2. a3 is useful, eh? For one thing, White can exchange on c5 and play b2-b4.
What, if White opened 1. e3 and Black played 1...d5, would anyone here just love to take White's game? Yet in the line we're discussing, the player with his d-pawn two squares forward has the added benefit (yes, there is some benefit) of having his a-pawn on a3. I rest my case.
Pages: [1] 
1.d4 d5 - what's white's best alternative to a QG? (Read 52438 times)
