Stigma wrote on 04/08/10 at 14:07:49:


Right: sorry.  I failed to pick up on this discussion about just the two central pawns earlier in the thread when I replied.  In my limited experience, few players will have a prepared, critical line against 1...b6.  You'll note that in the second game I posted, I even offered a French.  I'll be sure to look out for Gawehns's articles, but I did have a few plans (likely not very good).

HgMan wrote on 04/08/10 at 11:13:21:


Maybe what linksspringer meant is, did anyone play d4 and e4 without c4? ...b6 is at its best when White throws all three pawns forward, OK against only d4 and c4, and likely dubious against only d4 and e4. Unless you have some new good ideas there of course.

The specific lines White chose in your games don't look critical; makes me wonder if they knew any theory at all! After 1.d4 e6 2.e4 b6 3.c4 Bb7 the best tries for an edge are 4.Bd3 and 4.Qc2 Qh4 5.Nd2, but both require deep knowledge. 4.Nc3 is often chosen on lower levels and White often loses real ugly. The only interesting try after 4.Nc3 Bb4 is 5.f3, i.e. 5...f5 6.exf5 Nh6 and now 7.a3 or 7.Bd3 are most circumspect.

HgMan wrote on 04/08/10 at 01:41:27:

Nice result, congratulations! Just curious, did any of your opponents switch to 2.e4 after 1.d4 b6 ?

You a GM? Don't play 1..b6. Not a GM? Play it!

Here is a Nakamura special:

[Event "3m + 0s, rated"][Site "?"][Date "2009.06.04"][Round "?"][White "Omnislash"][Black "Star Wars"][Result "0-1"][ECO "B00"][WhiteElo "3210"][BlackElo "3419"][PlyCount "58"][EventDate "2009.06.27"][EventType "blitz"]
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Bd3 Bb7 4.Ne2 Nf6 5.Nd2 d5 6.e5 Nfd7 7.c3 c5 8.O-O Ba6 9.Nf3 Qc8 10.Ng3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Qa6 12.Qe3 Nc6 13.Qg5 h6 14.Qg4 O-O-O 15.Be3 g6 16.Rfd1 Kb7 17.Qf4 Rh7 18.Rac1 cxd4 19.cxd4 Qxa2 20.Rc2 Nb4 21.Rcd2 Rc8 22.h4 Be7 23.h5 g5 24.Qg4 Rc6 25.Ne2 f5 26.exf6 Nxf6 27.Qh3 g4 28.Qg3 gxf3 29.Nc3 Qb3 0-1

kylemeister wrote on 08/17/09 at 17:55:29:


Sorry, forgot to say Ngf3.  You were absolutely correct.  As a matter of fact, she dashed out the move.  It goes to show the subtleties of an opening...I have heard many people disrespect the opening by saying it is too slow, or this or that...but it is dogmatic to say so.  I may not be the caliber of player that many others are, but I know that it does offer chances, in its own regards.   

Because of her lack of study of the opening, she was into an unfamiliar position quickly.  Obviously, she won because she was a much stronger player - but I was pleased that using an offbeat system gave me good chances in the opening.

Amazing! The very moment I was finally getting round to posting here, linksspringer beats me to it, making more or less exactly the points I was going to make!

The first thing I was going to mention was the literature. Craig, you can forget about Kapitaniak, and, really, forget about Soltis too. I remember looking at Soltis's book in Foyle's in London, then getting the Tube home, setting up the board with one or two of his recommendations, and refuting them! These books are just old stuff, and while you can learn from the games they contain, these are obviously all online anyway.

Gawehns' articles, however, are, quite simply, essential reading. In fact, to play the Owen's without reading/studying them is in my opinion seriously silly and illogical! You don't have German? Well, my own German is decidedly patchy, but a knowledge of chess writing in general, plus an occasional lunge at a dictionary, carries me through. This is a perfect opportunity for you to learn a bit of German, which will stand you in great stead reading other chess literature too. I'm convinced you'll pick up chess terms such as the names of the pieces, etc. in no time, and soon come to recognise standard explanatory phrases from your knowledge of chess lit. in English. You'll be sailing in no time!

I haven't read Bauer's book thoroughly, but it is both very interesting and seriously omissive. From time to time a strong German(?) player called 'SutterCane' used to come on here and give us an inspiring game or two of his with the Owen's, plus a few droll comments. There should still be threads on here where (1) he usefully summarises Bauer's omissions, and (2) I summarise his summary and try to give a brief overview of the theory (which, I stress, is pre-Gawehns -- 'pre-' from my point of view, that is, not from his!). 

My feeling about Matemax's posts is that his approach suffers from being general when it needs to be specific! The 'One simple system' he mentions is not really one among several such, but rather[i] the [/i]most important, if not the critical, line! Gawehns offers precise analysis here, and you need to get to grips with it. Both here and in the other, arguably less critical, lines, Gawehns offers inspiring suggestions. I know from reading your other posts that you'll love getting stuck in to what he has to offer!

Quote:

I fear with playing 1...b6 you raise your chances that exactly this will happen 

It's true e4 players very seldom get 1...b6. But the advantage is that you don't need to learn specific opening lines (as for example against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 - where you should know what you are doing next). White just conquers the centre and places his pieces on reasonable squares and has to be careful not to fall for ...Nb4 tricks and alike. One simple system I think of is e4/d4/Bd3/Nf3/c3/Qe2 and then wait and see... 

I think it's this kind of easy approach for White (giving him a slight but enduring opening advantage) that makes 1...b6 not attractive for stronger players - if you go for one of the traditional openings against e4 (1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...c6 - and perhaps 1...Nf6 or 1...g6) your chance as Black is better to get a good game.

1...b6 is certainly not outright bad or even losing but why give White all this space and free development? 

But back to books - I have Odessky and he is a very imaginetive writer and makes you wanna play 1...b6!? - but if, then I would certainly go for the sharpest lines possible - is ...f5 really refuted (according to Odessky it is still unclear!) and can White find something or remember the promising lines? Odessky himself becomes depressing in his book when White chooses the positional lines - no more tricks and counterattacks, just watch White developing. 

If I know White is a razorsharp player I would certainly go for 1...b6!? and give him the opportunity to slaughter me - but at the same time I have the chance to turn the knife around all of a sudden...