Hadron, I really appreciate your support.

But I got to thinking about what Markovich was saying, and I also played a couple of offhand games with 1...h6 and 2...g5, and I just felt like I've gone a little too far. If there were reasons I wanted to play 1.Nf3 h6 (and 2...g5) other than avoiding theory, then I don't see the problem. But I couldn't think of a good reason!

And then I realized that I don't see 1.Nf3 a whole lot and that I haven't exactly been crushed straight out of the opening in those games, so I figured it was time to get over my fear of theory.

As for 1.Nf3 h6 itself, after playing it a few times, I must say that I don't know what it's theoretical standing should be, but it is almost definitely easier to play as White if know what you're doing.

I'll take a look into the lines you mentioned when I get the chance. Thanks.

Markovich wrote on 01/04/13 at 02:58:23:

Isn’t that what he was doing? Unless you developed mind reading skills to go alone with your great charm and wit, how do you know that all the theory he needs to know win against 1.Nf3 at his level is to play 1…h6 and 2…g5

Markovich wrote on 01/04/13 at 02:58:23:
 
For once, I agree with you….to a point. The problem with bringing up such a broad concept as “good principles” is just what ‘good principles’ are you talking about? Since the dawn of the modern game in about the 16th century The Oxford Companion to Chess 1996 (page 359) points out there have been six main schools of chess thought on the strategy of the game whose “principles” are decidedly different. Such as the Hypermodern’s setting out to control (and attack) squares rather than, as The Modense and Phildor Schools advocated, coming forward with pawns and pieces on to those squares. If you are going to give out advice to players seeking input, it might be helpful to be less obscure with one’s comments.

Markovich wrote on 01/04/13 at 02:58:23:

My god, it must be really awesome to be you…..Anyone who talks about respecting a game, a board game no less, says more about themselves then anything else that can be said by anyone and not in a good way either.

Pikachulord6 wrote on 01/04/13 at 19:26:36:

Never mind Mark-o-vich Pikachlord6. You say don’t like having to memorize theory? I am sure there are a few of us out there on the internet ocean who feel the same which is why they have bog standard opening lines for all certain occasions. As you point out though the problem with 1.Nf3 is that it can go screaming off at several different opening angles at a moment notice. So I can (perhaps) understand why you have been looking at a singular system like 1…h6 & 2…g5 to combat it. I think Mark-o-vich is right about one thing, although he could have expressed himself less contemptuously, you will find that the stronger your opponent the more suspect 1…h6 & 2…g5 is going to be, positional wise at least. Simply because of the potential weakness it brings to the kingside White squares. If you want a singular system to deal with 1.Nf3, I believe there is much better in the form of the Polish Defence 1.Nf3 b5 which has been used by such players as Tal, Bronstein, Timman, Miles and Karpov. I would recommend “The Polish Defense by Thomas Kapitaniak (Chess Enterprise) if you can get it. If that is too eccentric for you then there is always the “Wade Defence”, 1…d6, 2…Bg4 and 3…e6. Check out Smyslov v Wade Hastings 1972/73 and Kasparov v Short, TV match London 1987 for practical examples.
Good luck
Regards
Hadron

At your level you should not concern yourself with theory beyond what you need to win your games. Tactics are one thing, but unless a tactic is on the board, the essential thing us to play according to good principles. 1.Nf3 h6?obviously fails to satisfy that. 2...g5 is even worse.

And that's all the free chess lessons I feel like handing out right now to somebody who seems not to have much respect for the game.

Pikachulord6 wrote on 11/30/12 at 23:22:39:


You're interested in the objective evaluation of an opening, yet you claim not to care much about playability/soundness. Sounds rather self-defeating, no?

It's equivalent to a smoker asking "Doc, how can I best maintain my health without abandoning my pack-a-day habit?" 

If I may, what lines have you tried against 1 Nf3 before? Also, what do play against 1.d4?

Vass wrote on 11/16/12 at 19:07:56:


1. Ktf3 h6 ; 2. e4 e6 ; 3. d4 d5 makes sense in the lines 4. Ktc3 transposing to the 4.Kf3 variation of the Eingorn French where I agree 4. ...Ktf6 is fine for Black and 4. ed transposing to a French Exchange when ...h6 fits in nicely with a variety of set-ups. 
Even 4. Ktbd2 transposes to an existing line although I believe 3. ...Be7 and 3. ...a6 are better waiting moves than 3. ...h6 in the Tarrasch. However Black does in this case rule out 4. Bd3 and other alternatives to 4. Ktf3.
4. Bd3 doesn't impress me. After 4. ...de ; 5. Bxe4 Ktf6, the Bishop cannot retreat to-f3 as in the line 1.e4 e6 ; 2. d4 d5 ; 3. Bd3 de ; 4. Bxe4 Ktf6 ; 5.Bf3. 
The real problem must be 4. e5 when the ...h6 tempo is worse than useless. It only serves to weaken the Kingside and deny the -h6 square for the Black K Knight.

Another idea is 3. Ktc3 after which ...h6 must be out of place in the Two Knights French.

Pikachulord6 wrote on 11/19/12 at 16:18:57:

Well Pikachulord6, I think it is actually hard to answer your question with any certainty because you have not told us at what level you are playing and at what level you intend to attempt the system of play you have asked about. What I mean by this is if you are just testing this idea, say, over the internet on ICC against players of lesser or same strength as you then I really do not see much wrong with the method of play you have set out in your question as long as you are comfortable in dealing with a potential Qa5+ & Qxc5 should white attempt dxc5. On the other hand though, you might be stretching it a bit against players stronger than your current level as lashing out with 2...g5 (offering an immediate target/weakness) against much stronger players I would suggest is not a recipe for continuing success.
However to give you some of idea of what to look at:
(From my collection of Basman's games)

Look at, not that Basman lost but how he delayed lashing out with g5.  I think Basman's own opinion is that a reverse London system (d5, c6 and Bf5) works well for Black against a queenside fianchetto where h6 fits in nicely where h7 has been cleared for the Bf5 if need be. So why not against a kingside fianchetto? The next two games show show you do not even have to lash out with g5 at all.



It is all in the Basman theory of flexibility.
Good Luck
Hadron 

Yes, you should look more deeply and go through several books/articles and whatnot ...so that you don't have to learn any theory on how to play against 1. Nf3.  Or something like that.