kylemeister wrote on 06/01/15 at 17:41:57:


hmmm - interesting tit for tat.

But 4...d5 must surely be the principal move.

Fllg wrote on 05/31/15 at 07:43:46:


No, its more of a useful waiting move, avoiding the 4.Bb5 Bd6 line. Knowing Jobava though, g4 is alwas an option for the future 

anybody see Jobava's new move:

1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.h3!?

Seems like a very interesting new idea.

A slight surprise that there isn't a dedicated sub-forum on 1. b3. Anyone looking for a mad opening should try Rapport - Adly from the World Team Championship.

After 1. b3 a5, what is White's best second move? Candidates include 2. Bb2, 2. a3, 2. a4 (unlikely) plus more recent tries of 2. c4 and 2. e4 as in the game in question. After 1. b3 a5 2. e4 a4, should White take and then 3. bxa4 Rxa4 4. Nc3, or play 3. b4 as was played by Rapport?

Here's the whole game

Your commentary is unfair to Odessky. I've read the book from cover to cover unlike you. Odessky is quite original. His book is the best one out there on the Nimzo Larsen Attack. Lakdawala's book pushes the boundaries a bit but the heart of the issue lies with Odessky.

Like you, I had trouble with Odessky's writing style but unlike you I persevered. I'm much better off for doing so and, like the author, I have a friend for life.

RoleyPoley wrote on 06/07/14 at 21:27:43:


I don't have either book (only the older one by Tait/Jacobs and a Dunnington (?) book which also covered 1.f4, 1.b4 and 1.g4), but having seen both authors' other work, Lakdawala is bound to be much more optimistic.

Anybody who's seen both care to comment on how well Lakdwala, with several years of theoretical progress on his side, solves the problems raised by Odessky?

Why does this book receive so much praise (or any at all for that matter)? He doesn't sell the opening at all. Chapter 4 is pathetic - where he makes excuses that this is somehow a blitz/rapid opening (?? Jobava would beg to differ). Many (all?) of his chapters end on a pessimistic note where some Black idea is presented and no white plan to try and counter it; one would conclude not that the positions are equal (which a nimzo-larsen player would have made peace with) but that white is struggling for equality (???). Very uninspiring and not impressed by the quality of the analysis either.

Thank you Troilus, BPaulsen

It usually helps in understanding the evaluation if you understood the NID/QID hybrid position that this springs from (but reversed, so white's d3 is a valuable extra tempo).

ECO thought 8. Bxc6 with the idea of Ne5 would be slightly better for White. 

parisestmagique wrote on 08/19/10 at 15:52:21:


1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 f6 5.d4
A. 5...e4 6.c4 a6 (6...Bd7? 7.Qh5+)
A1. 7.cxd5 axb5 8.dxc6 bxc6 7.Qc2 (Jacobs & Tait) however Black gets the advantage after 7...f5! 8.Qxc6+ Bd7 9.Qc2 Qg5
A2. 7.Bxc6+! bxc6 8.Ba3 with a good reversed French Winawer.
B. 5...exd4 6.Qxd4 Bd6 (6...Ne7 7.Nc3 Be6 8.Qd2) 7.Nf3
B1. 7...a6 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.c4 Nh6 10.Nc3 Nf5 11.Qd3 Ne7 12.e4  with advantage White, Finegold - Polgar 1990
B2. 7...Nge7 8.Qd2!? (White wants to keep the light-squared bishop; 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 Ernst - Lemmers 1995) 8...O-O 9.Nc3 a6 10.Be2 intending 0-0-0, Rg1, g4.

Well put. Thanks for the intro to the site.

The move c2-c4 comes back again on page 50. That is, in the stem game 5. d2-d4 is weak and should be replaced by 5. c2-c4=.

Also after 4. Nge2 Bg4 is not hard to find. Then 5. h3 Bg4 6. g4 Bg6 7. Bg2 e5 8. d4 (the point of it all) cd 9. ed h5!? 10.gh Rxh5 and it is Black who has the comfortable game.

So I'm thinking c2-c4 is not so bad after all.

Perhaps you could wait till you have finished it. Not sure we need updates every chapter.

Review on chessvibes described this as a 'postmodern' chess book. About right I guess. Structure all over the place, but an oddly engaging read. Highly unusual to find a chess book writer who can actually write, though not sure many more are needed. Many, particularly writers from England oddly enough, appear to have an unsure grasp of the language, so a refreshing change of sorts.

I'd like to make one more pursuit of these issues and comment on the B1 Variation, p.32-33 of the 1.b3 book. This, at least, is how an average Class Player views this game with the help of a chess engine. So, what should White think after looking at the game in this light?

1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.Na3 Na5 6.Be2 a6 7.c4 0-0 8.Nc2 Nc6 9.d3 b5!? This weakens the c6 square but a capture on c6 opens c8-h3 diagonal for the Bc8. 10.Nf3 bxc4 So what is the point of d2-d3 anyway? Is it to get rid of the e-pawn that has the potential to drive away the Nf3 or is it to prevent the opening of the b-file? Silence from the author.

11.dxc4 There is no longer a guard over the e4 square so the Nf3 can be driven away with ease. Sutovsky's assessment might have come in a flash like this: ...e5-e4 drives away the defending Nf3 and allows Black a pivot point at e5 for his minor pieces to access the K side for an attack.

[11.bxc4 seems to be more in line with the earlier "theoretical statements". Now, given the chance, White can play e4 and Ne3, I suppose.  11...e4 The White pawn structure and position may be preferable to what White would have to face if Black sacrifices a pawn after15.f4.]

11...Qe7 12.0-0 e4 13.Nfd4 Qe5 14.g3 Qg5?! 15.f4!

For the moment, Rybka 3 thinks it's best too. It has tactical justification that appears to be within the chess engine's horizon. It intends to pick off the c6 pawn. What appears to be beyond the engine's chess horizon is the effect of opening the c8-h3 diagonal and the increase in the activity of the Black pieces.

15...Qg6?! Ironically, the Nf3 has been driven from the defense of the K-side and Black has three minor pieces and a Q developed. Yet, after f2-f4 the pivot point at e5 has disappeared and the Nc6 and Bd6 are ineffective in carrying out an attack on the K side. The remaining Nf6 doesn't have penetrating power on the light squares as the Bc8 has no influence over g4.

[15...exf3!? 16.Bxf3 (16.Nxf3= but doesn't appear to be as entertaining.) 16...Rb8 (16...Bb7? 17.Nf5! Bc5 (17...Be5? 18.Bxe5 Qxf5 19.Bxc6 Qxe5 20.Bxb7; 17...Qxf5 18.Bxc6) 18.b4 Ba7 19.b5) 17.Nxc6 dxc6 18.Bxc6 For the price of a pawn the Bc8 can take a timely and active part in the game. 18...Ng4 Black seems to have an easier game to play (ie. ...h5, ...Ne5 and ...Bg4) and White has to adopt a wait and see mode of play. 19.Qd2 (19.Qe2 h5; 19.Qd5 Qh6 20.Qg2 Ne5=) 19...h5 and it is White who has to keep finding the best moves to maintain an advantage. 20.Rad1 Ne5 21.Bd5 Bh3 22.Rf4 (22.Bg2 Nxc4=) 22...Ng6=]

16.Ne1 Now White has an undisturbed wall of pawns around his K he is able to move his problem piece behind this wall and into position for a K side attack. 16...Bc5 17.Ng2 Ne7 18.g4

Hi All,
I've been plowing my way through Chapter 3 of Odessky's 1.b3 lately. I've managed to hang on to what the man has said up to page 33, Section B2. My issue is described below:

1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.Na3 Na5 6.Be2 a6 7.c4 0-0 8.Nb1 The game illustrations here are not at all convincing regarding his statement regarding this move. Neither does Odessky go into any detail about how Black exploits the White setup. I'm unconvinced about his conclusions here and there are a lot of gaps left in the analysis. 8...b6 [White wins it because of Black's Q trip across the board. ie., ‹8...c5 9.d4 Nc6 10.d5 Ne7 11.Nc3 Ng6 12.Nf3 Re8 13.h4 e4 14.Nd2 Nf8 15.g4 The real problem here seems to be Black's Q side development and his development in general.] 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nf3 e4 Why is there no comment made about this decision to block the long diagonal? 11.Nd4 g6 12.f4 c5 [12...exf3 Why is there no comment about this move?] 13.Nc2 Bc7 14.g4 d5 15.g5 d4 16.gxf6 Qxf6 Odessky says White can hardly avoid this position. He adds that Black stands better. Rybka 3 thinks it's equal after 17.h4 dxc3 [17...Bxf4 18.exf4 Qxf4 19.Nd5±;
17...Qd6 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.cxd5 d3 20.Bf1±] 18.Bxc3= seems like a logical follow-up here.

I'd like to hear some thoughtful comments about this variation. Odessky builds his readers up for the Na3-b1, citing GM J. Hodgson use of the move. I felt let down at this point in the book. I wondered if someone else had taken over the writing at this point or if Russian Vodka had created "an atmosphere" around the variation.

In any case, I felt like the show was over too soon. Does anyone reading this know what's going on?

I won this book at a youth day, and this was one of the only books that was left. I wanted the Budapest book (Not because budapest is such a great opening, but because I wanted to refute it). I looked at some pages, read some chapters (while I know I will never play 1.b3). and I love it. The only problem is.... It covers 1.b3

I am always amazed when i see this sort of statment : "What I have concluded after playing this opening (1.b3) is that you really can't have any advantage if black plays well." Because it sound's like white has the advantage anyway ... So tell me what is the move wich gives an advantage if Black plays well ? maybe it's better to say : Black has many ways of equalising ...

Gambit wrote on 03/01/09 at 00:57:06:


yes, an entertaining line

Gambit wrote on 02/28/09 at 20:27:12:


http://glennwilson.com/chess/labels/Wilson%20Gambit.html
hth

I prefer to postpone e4 for a move with 1.b3 d5 2.Nf3 c5 and now 3.e4!?. Some fascinating complications can result after 3...de4 4.Ne5 Qd4 5.Bb2 Qb2 6.Nc3 and White is down a piece, but Black's queen is trapped and White has a lead in development. Nc4 winning the queen is the immediate threat.

4...Nf6 is probably better, when after 5.Bb2 White is a tempo up on the Fajarowicz (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 Ne4), but this should only suffice for equality.

White's play in the following game is quite amusing:

[Event "Kavala op 10th"]
[Site "Kavala"]
[Date "2001.08.24"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Rigo, Gianfrancesco"]
[Black "Vasilev, Milen"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A06"]
[WhiteElo "2013"]
[BlackElo "2377"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2001.08.21"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GRE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2001.11.25"]

1. Nf3 c5 2. b3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Ne5 a6 5. Bb2 Nf6 6. g4 h6 7. Rg1 e6 8. h4
Nbd7 9. Nc4 b5 10. Ne3 Bb7 11. Bg2 Nd5 12. Nc3 Nxc3 13. Bxc3 Qxh4 14. d3 Qh2
15. Rh1 Qf4 16. g5 Ne5 17. gxh6 Rxh6 18. Rxh6 gxh6 19. dxe4 Bxe4 20. Qh5 Nf3+
21. Kf1 O-O-O 22. Qh1 Be7 23. a4 Nd2+ 24. Ke2 Bxg2 25. Qxg2 Ne4 26. Be1 Bf6 27.
Rc1 Bc3 28. axb5 axb5 29. Bxc3 Nxc3+ 30. Ke1 Qe4 31. Qh3 f5 32. Ra1 f4 33. Qh5
Qc6 34. Ng4 Qd5 35. Qxd5 Rxd5 36. Nf6 Rd4 37. Kf1 f3 38. Re1 Rh4 0-1

For me the simplest way for Black is : 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d6(!) for exemple in the game Minasian - Adams 1992 4.Bb5 Bd7 (Qg5!?) 5.Ne2 a6 6.BxN BxB 7.00 Qg5! Black is already better and won a fine attacking game. Adams in his coments give a ? to 4.Bb5 but what to play is this thematic move is a mistake ?

Hi, if Black plays well, i dont think we have an advantage with another first move, but you know : that's just my opinion !
After .1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.Ne2 as played by Morozevitch for exemple is interesting, after 0-0 6.0-0 Re8 7.Ng3 or 7.d4 White has some chances. (but ok Black has no big problems !)
I agree that after 4.c4 Black has a very easy game.

I thought the chess world was cured of the wrong idea, that one seems more clever when one points out other people's stupidity. If one wants praise oneself one should use phrases like: "alas author X, who otherwise has done a very good job, has missed ....". The idea of course is: author X is good, but I'm even better. And it's nicer to read.

Odessky doesnt analyse this variation :
1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 Qh4+ 6.g3 Qe7 7.Nf3 f6!?
it's looks good for Black, White can win a pawn but Black has very good conterplay.

I agree with you statistics and openings is a difficult question.
in line A : After 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6 there is 193 games White and Black have about the same rating 2668 and 2664 and White scores only 21,8% of wins Black 43,5 !!
But in line B this is more complicated after B: 1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Bd7 5.Nf3 e6 6.O-O Nf6 7.d3 Be7 8.Nbd2 O-O 9.Bxc6 Bxc6 10.Ne5 in 40 games White wins 40% of the games Black 45% and white has about 200 rating points more !! 2721 versus 2525. Quit catastrophic but if the game goes on like this 10.Ne5 Rc8 11.f4 Nd7 12.Qg4 NxN 13.BxN in 12 games white has a good score but ... the White's players are the great Bobby Fischer and Nimzowitsch ...

I dont know if you believe in statistics to see if an opening is good or bad but, i had a look at statistics after 1.b3 in two main lines :
A/ After 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6 White's score is very bad and still worse after :
B/ 1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Bd7 5.Nf3 e6 6.O-O Nf6 7.d3 Be7 8.Nbd2 O-O 9.Bxc6 Bxc6 10.Ne5 White has a miserable 47% being 200 Elo points stronger than his opponent !, so maybe it's time to change the title of Odessky book, i propose : Do not play 1.b3?

He says that white has nothing : 1b3! e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 f6 he analyse in depth 6.Nh3 and a little 6.Ne2 6.Nf3 and 6.Qh5+

having read this book, i must admit i like it a lot ! First, it's a pleasure to read, really clear,sincere and mind-challenging, with a nice touch of  Russian melancholy. What I like most with this book :
a) now I finally know what to play against 1. or 2. b3 with Black !
b) if you play b3, you know the positions are at best equal (if you play well!) but you know what's happening, why, and what to do in your game. What more can you expect from a chess opening nowadays ?
c) even if you don't play b3, you learn a lot about chess thinking, and this is a great occasion for questioning your opening play. The most similar book I can think of is Rowson's "Understanding the grunfeld".
d) to borrow from another thread, I also find it a perfect book to read in the train !

[quote author=nmga link=1215402377/0#7 date=1220047381]
I took a look at 1 b3 again recently and, not for the first time, was put off by the 1 ...e5 lines. So I was intrigued to see the book devoting no fewer than three chapters to the Petrosian Variation, because that's the only line that has ever really attracted me! Most books are highly sniffy about this, suggesting White gets nothing, so I guess that put me off. (Of course, in practical play, at my level it might be quite a good choice as many Blacks will lash out and just weaken themselves!) Does Odessky, do you (or linksspringer or pumi or anyone), have any higher opinion of it? [/quote]

Odessky does a fine job explaining all the nuances of the early c4 approach against ...e5. But he concludes that if Black plays correctly then White gets nothing and even has to take care to keep equality. Odessky likes the Bb5 approach better. But a look at those chapters reveals that White has problems to solve there as well!

So you see, it is a bit of a strange book. You will get a wonderful insight into all kinds of b3 positions, but... no easy solutions! I am not surprised if this book gets bad reviews. But still I love it!

We didn't have to wait till November!
This book is more like a series of essays on 1.b3 than a repertoire book. Not suitable as a "starting out" book, but an absolute pleasure for "b3 heads".

Very strange: I am never entirely satisfied with my opening play when I play 1.b3, but practical results are not bad at all! After reading about Odessky's struggles I conclude that maybe it is just the nature of the b3-beast.  

[Sadly my handling of english language is not good enough to describe this book adaequatly as it would be necessary to use many scientific and philosophical terms very precisely. And only in German I´m able to do that. Hopefully you understand something of the following.]


I should start with some citing out of the "forword" (An Amazing Life):
"[...]In the first place, I decided to write simply. This does not mean primitively, nor does it mean spelling out the obvious. On the contrary, I think the mistake made by almost all first-time authors is that they think their reader is more stupid than themselves, and consequently, they subconsciously strive to explain every detail and spoon-feed the reader. There is no need to do this. The reader is as much a participant in the book as is the author. There is no need to do his job for him.
Secondly, the material is all jumbled up. It may even seem that, instead of writing an opening monograph, I have written an 'anti-monograph'. But this is definitely not so. That was not my aim. But mixing the material up was essential, purely to protect the reader. By itself, the move b2-b3 already looks like an extract from some medical notes, and there is no point in making things worse.[...]" -

Physically and in terms of layout etc.he book is produced very well (nobody would expect anything different from NewinChess).
It doesn´t deal with all variations of the Nimzo-Larsen as Jacobs/Tait did, for example you won´t find important subvariations like 1...e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.Nf3 (VanGeet) or 1...e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.c4 (Gretarsson). You can find many omitted subvariations.
It´s written from the white side for a potential or actual 1.b3 player, but it doesn´t offer concretely a complete white repertoire. Some very rare (and harmless) black possibilities are simply neglected as Odessky concentrates on the 5-8 most important black responses (~pawnstructures). More to the point, Odessky only tries to outline a possible white repertoire displaying his own problems as an experienced 1.b3 player, but he isn´t sure if he can succeed. That´s one of the reasons why he touches the main structures again and again (see contents above).
Typically each chapter starts at some point (tabiya) and than Odessky suggests several possible white continuations. First he shows ideas for white and often presents some (blitz)games where black is crashed after some natural moves. But then follows deep and original analysis and Odessky shows that Black could defend much better! In fact Black is better in (almost) all variations or at least comfortably equal if he knows how to counter white´s idea. And this way on and on with fascinating games, very offbeat subvariations, wonderful analysis, unforeseen resources and historical flashbacks. Odessky recalls his own experience with 1.b3 but only a small part of the games and fragments are his own ones, obviously he checked all important sources [for sure someone will disagree on this]. Finally each chapter ends either without solution (everything at least fine for black) and the problem is stored for one of the later chapters. Or Odessky succeeds in saving at least one possible white move and ends saying something like [my words]:"I don´t know if move xyz is good against this black setup. At least xyz is the only try as all other white moves are worse. After deep analysis on xyz the position is still unclear . I´m not sure if black can equalize at all but on the other hand white may be already slightly worse.  You simply have to put faith in this move. Go, play it at the board!"

It´s not a positive examination of sources but some kind of negative and narrative logic a la Hegel (thesis+antithesis->synthesis).
In my opinion it´s wonderful but it wouldn´t surprise me if many chessfriends (especially english/american-cultured people educated in the tradition of ~Locke/Hume/Wittgenstein etc.) absolutely dislike the book, claiming that science results from empirism and analysis but nothing else. Well maybe I´m exaggerating here a little bit but surely a liking for continental philosophy is helpful for understanding this unique opening book (or the other way round!?)

As a frequent 1.b3 player I´m sad that the book offers no solutions for all of my own repertoire problems. Instead I should be glad as most of Odessky´s problems are nearly the same as mine!

On a very subjective basis I recommend this book as must-buy for any nimzo-Larsen player and reward

9 stars (out of 10)!

tracke 

A long wait till November! A good chance the following line will feature:
1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 Bg4 3.f3 Bh5 (or … Bf5) 4.e4!?
see http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=105

Anyone know any details of this book?