There is life in outer space...
Check this to get some intersting information on the pros and cons of 1.a3:

http://sverreschesscorner.blogspot.com/search/label/1.a3

After all with White all moves are playable


motörhead

If you're just looking to avoid theory, play something sound, but uncommon on the first move, like f4 or Nc3.

KoKko wrote on 02/23/10 at 13:35:19:


Then the Rini Kuijf Opening definitely is for you. As he pointed out any early pawn move gives away information, so play 1.Nc3 ...(anything but b5) 2.Nb1. As the Dutch master himself formulated: White keeps on benefiting from pawn moves he has not played yet.
You should be strong as industrial diamond here.

KoKko wrote on 02/19/10 at 22:55:15:

BPaulsen wrote on 02/19/10 at 22:59:24:

My advice: go the other extreme. Develop a highly aggressive gambit repertoire with White. Promise yourself to play it for a year. This what I did myself a long time ago, it is extremely liberating. Don't worry about being a pawn down, concentrate on development, open lines, attack, activity, threats... Even if your opponent defends well, you can usually convert the initiative to a drawn endgame (which is educational in itself). The point is to learn to play with the initiative. Perhaps you will drop in rating during that period. But perhaps you will be pleasantly surprised.

KoKko wrote on 02/23/10 at 13:35:19:


Post of the year. Already. For so many reasons.

Bibs wrote on 02/22/10 at 07:35:39:


Hm, take a look at that impressive (to my - weird? - mind) Karpov - Illescas-game I posted in the thread "Tarrasch with black and white" in the 1.d4 d5-section. There you can see how a sophisticated waiting policy unfolds. Karpov played a2-a3 - only superficially a no-move. Now it was black to move. Illescas used it with Be7-f8, which slightly weakens the command on f6 and so at the end Qd8-d7 wasn't possible.
You may laugh on this reflections and call it overstretched. But make up your mind a bit. 
I have the feeling, that if you would not conceed slight or severe tactical mistakes in a game against Karpov (I don't know how strong you are - I quite surely would lose that simple way), that would be the way he walks to outplay you. I believe, these are the sublte reasons, why a position slides in the orcus.
So, to use your metaphore, it is not like taking this bus or the next, because these busses allways take the same routes. It's much more of choosing between own feet, bicycle, motorcycle, car, bus, train, ballon, propeller plane, jet, jumbo or even a bungy-rope - depending on the traffic situatiation and how the street is built and how the wheather is etc and with you in the driver's seat... and sometimes it's like the Chinese saying: If you are in a hurry, take the detour...

TN wrote on 02/22/10 at 04:40:28:


Studies allways help. And so I'm not surprised that you uncovered the chess solution: That's why the Colle-Koltanovski-Opening dominates the international scene. It crashes through what ever black does - e3-e4xd5 - Bxh7+ - win.
To save our beloved game, we in the woods secretly founded the "rimsters connection (copyright)". Deliberately we assault the basics with the rimster moves a2-a3 or h2-h3. Doing so we generously give the first move to black who now can try to win with a reversed Colle - what a feeling. But we do so only to show the white's lead in development will be decisive anyway. 
For the adventurous players we have the more active h2-h4 in the pipeline or the restraining a2-a4

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/22/10 at 14:02:06:

 
I don't feel, that's the right way to sum it up. To avoid theory does not mean to throw away all the knowledge about the center an development etc. As once for Réti and Nimzovich it is infact the unchangeable core of the game. To avoid all theory would really mean to pass over all knowledge, to make your living only on the edge. Simply impossible, as a knight on the rim only commands two to four squares in comparison with eight in or near the center, likewise it is with the queen, the bishop and normall the rook too to some extend (okay, on an cleared board he commands fourteen sqaures from ervery position on the board).

So again it is a game of information - to me it is quite impressive that KID is nearly in a better shape than the KIA which should be up due to the extra move. But in reality you may find variations, where black is better preparded due being a move down. You can find it in one of my earlier posts.

Not to be misunderstood. I don't call 1.h3 to be ready to achive an oscar. It does nearly nothing for white, as it commands only one new square. There is no move with a lesser result. So it by far can't stand the richness of 1.e4 (comanding at once 10 new squares - as does 1.e3...) or 1.d4 (9). But as posted there are some meager effects to the good anyhow. And the more you push against it with black the more you risk to rush over the edge. Quite normal chess.
White is not obliqued to play the pawns in the center. As Réti wasn't (but his 1.Nf3 at least touches four new squares) any other is, but he is even allowed to push his rimsters. 

And then he can try to swing back in black's openings, after browsing through the heavy theory (as you called it), and there use the extra move. Don't forget, that black quite regularlly survives even the heaviest opening blows 1.e4 or 1.d4.
Theoretically 1.h3 doesn't work in the sense of winning, I think (1.d5!), but neither does it loose. But a substantially stronger player would win a match against a weaker because he has a better feeling for the pros and cons of the moves. That's what I learn from playing with my chess pupils - I allways loose

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/22/10 at 14:02:06:


1.e3 is absolutely okay - see above, 1.c3 too but theoretically to a lesser degree. With 1.Na3 you again touch the "Reflex-Theorem". What to do after 1...e5? Is 2...Bxa3 a threat? Damages the white structure but conceeds the bishops. But black has the opportunity, to play for a closed position to tame the bishops and give a friendly environment for the knights. Possible? Don't know. Does white have to play 2.b3 or, with Alekhine in mind, 2.Nc4?
But take that idea with black. I once played 1.d4 Na6 2.e4 c6. I think, it's called De Bruyckers Opening. Now 3.Bxa6 will not damage black's structure cause there is 3...Qa5+ possible after d2-d4 has weakened the a5-e1-diagonal. 4.Nc3  Qxa6 Nevertheless white can play this, the queen isn't too pretty on a6. But perhaps 4.c3 is better?! (fluid pawns)
This again shows what I mean. It's all about the informations. So 1.c3 e5 2.g3 d5 and only now 3.Na3. 
But you may laugh on me, I think in the black version the second player can better accomodate to that as white in the reverse version because white has yet shown more informations (g2-g3 was played)...

cheese

SF, TN may well have been 'joking'.
That said, with chess players, on a chess forum, it is not always easy to tell. Ho hum.

Don't get this at all.

It's like your bus arrives. 
But you decide, 'Nah, don't think so. I'll get the next one instead'.

KoKko wrote on 02/21/10 at 10:10:49:


With 1.a3 you may lure the machines in some open variations of the sicilian, where the move a2-a3 is plausible. But always remember that the sicilian is a typical counter opening.
I was quite impressed when I once read about the “Reflex-Theorem”, a term invented by Rainer Schlenker, a German off-beat-guru (once publisher of the mag-/fan-zine “Randspinger”). I found an explanation in Keilhack’s “Die Tarrasch-Verteidigung”, only available in German - Uuh oh (you know what I mean if you are familiar with the discussion right now taking place in the 1.d4 d5-forum on Tarrasch as black and white).

That “Reflex-Theorem” resembles me to the martial art aikido where you use the power your opponent exerts to defeat him.
In chess that means: Every move you make has pros and cons (e.g. g2-g4 may attack but at the same time it weakens king’s side). So with every move you give informations to your opponent, you show your active ideas and you concede slight weaknesses (you may not feel at that time!).

But strong players can base their whole game on the cons. I think Petrosian played like this. With prophylaxis he tried to nip any attacking ideas of the opponent in the bud, and then he shifted his attentions to the weaknesses left behind...

Coming back to 1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (which in fact is a position known to theory by an other move order) and now say 3...d5 4.cxd5 4.Nxd5 we have reached a sicilian reversed with extra a2-a3. Wow! Wow? An aware player on black’s side knows what this means: Things to come like b2-b4. A ...0-0-0 would be very dangerous up to selfmurder. You gave him these informations right in the first move. So he will play patiently castling short, being aware of attacks on e5 with b4-b5 thus perhaps playing f7-f6 and so on. In the sicilian you need an opponent who overextends. With a tempo down simply the lack of free time makes this less likely. So you lack possibilities to use the "Reflex-Theorem" regarding his overextentions. 

But of course you can still play on for a win. I was totally stunned by the game Fischer - Andersson, Siegen 1970 (not at the olympiad but at an exibition), where the future WC scored a wonderful win.  No, Fischer didn’t play 1.a3, he was a bit more to the right, it was 1.b3... and only 4.a3

My experience is that humans behave quite differently when playing white or black. As black they play much more careful as with the white pieces. It is interesting how rarely especially in the lower to middle ranks a player with black takes the whole center, when he is allowed to do.  TN exactly highlighted this when he asked what you would do after 1.a3 g6.

Yes once and a while there are players who take the center with e5 and d5. More often they play some sort of slav or Tarrasch set-up, that is pawns on d5 and e6 combined with c6 or c5. As said, playing with black is much of psychology. With black you draw (hey, I was a tempo down...), with white you win (hey, I am a tempo up). So they are (too) careful, play modestly and your extra tempo may evaporate (which is not a total breakdown - just wait for the zeitnot and see...).


KoKko wrote on 02/21/10 at 10:10:49:


Despite the above I continue to be somehow “infected” with 1.h3. But frankly said I wouldn’t play the exact continuation your engine gives as critical, cause I think it isn't. 1.h3 e5 2.e3 d5 3.d4 is a reversed french. And I feel white has yet given quite useful informations to black (Reflex-Theorem!). With 3...e4 it is an advance variation. You can proceed in normal manner (c2-c4 etc.) but you will have problems to nibble e4 with f2-f3 (which in the normal advance variation is on the schedule in some lines) due to the weakened h4-e1-diagonal - you gave the first part of this information right in your first move! 1.h3 weakened your control over g3 a bit. 
Besides black could also play 3...exd4 4.exd4 thus transposing into a french exchange variation with the unusual move 4.h3. 

But I think you can choose many other approaches - nearly all open or semi open openings at hand in a reversed form. 1.h3 e5 and now:

2.c3 (Caro-Kann, there the move h7-h6 is often useful)
2.d4 (scandinavian, there black’s queen’s bishop often needs a refuge on h7)  
2.e4 (all sorts of open games, and h3 stops the possible pin Bc8-g4)
2.c4 (all sorts of sicilian, h3 might be useful in quite some of the variations)  
2.Nc3 (Nimzovich, in variations comparable to ...d5, e5 Bf5 you have a refuge for the bishop; in variations comparable to ...e5 the pin Bg4 is prevented)
2.Nf3 (Alekhine, h3 stops Bg4)
2.d3 (Pirc, hm, at least h3 stops reversed Bg5 variations, but on the other hand it gives rise to a reversed 150-attack...)
2.b3 (well... perhaps hippopotamus)
2.g3 (well... perhaps hippopotamus)
2.a3 (Aaaah... yes, Basman live)

An equivalent list can be made for 1.h3 d5 or 1.h3 Nf6. But the more we move towards a noncomitting way of play by black (regarding the center and the resulting levers etc.) the more it is just muddy waters. Again 1...g6 may be a very good try against 1.h3 - you just spoiled a tempo if you want to lever the future fortress of black’s king with the h-pawn. On the other hand you’re right in the tracks for g2-g4... Oh, my dear...

One way or another, your opponent knows that you have played h2-h3. He will not give you all the cake... Reflexem-Theorem!

cheese

So what are the critical lines after 1. e4 and 1. d4 according to Rybka (after a week, or perhaps after months as in the earlier 1. c4-versus-1. Nf3 analysis), and what fraction of a pawn is White up in each case?  Enquiring minds need to know!

It might be mentioned that "regular" opening books sometimes mention 1. a3 (sometimes called "Anderssen's Opening"; he played it a few times against Morphy).  Incidentally ECO did give 1...g6 in reply to it.

Against KID players I just pretend to play black and patiently wait for thier plans to show...maybe trying to transpose into some english lines.
1.a3 Nf6 2. Nf3!? g6 3. g3 (or c4 followed by Nc3)

I analyzed some positions with engines, and it seems a3 and h3 have the same "strenght"  maybe a3 is more balanced against all lines, h3 is likely to be more effective in positional games (d4/Nf3 lines); its only drawback... it can't avoid reversed Ruy Lopez.

For the sake of statistic Rybka shows about +0.04 for a3 (critical lines...a3 e5 c4 Nf6 Nc6 and a3 d5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 e6 Bf4), and 0.00 for h3 (critical lines h3 e5 e3 d5 d4 Nc3 and h3 d5 d4 c5 e3).
One week analysis.

Anyway yesterday at the club I easily beaten some unaware opponents, in one game I even won early his queen thanks to b4 push in a Queen's gambit 

Maybe you guys are right, I got to just paint black my white pieces

I had a 2300ish team-mate called Xavier Delebarre who always opened 1.h3 with White. Perhaps you can check his games in a database? he is very experienced as a player, knows classical theory pretty well and worked hard to send opponents into foreign territory (with good success except against semi-slav iirc).
As for 1.a3,  you may end up a full tempo down in most KID lines, so perhaps you can show a little flexibility and play 1.h3 against KIDsters?
These little tricks are more likely to bamboozle an e4 player relying on "book theory", while a d4 player doesn't care which side of the position is equal. 

Realistically if one just wants to play chess then 1. a3 followed by treating the game like you're black isn't a bad thing.

That said, I'd rather try to put pressure on black. If you're scoring that much higher with black it's probably a good sign that your ability to play with the initiative needs work.