For 3.f3 v 2...g6 you might do well with this text. Not so new, but it's a pretty good book:
https://www.newinchess.com/the-ultimate-anti-grunfeld

3.f3 is worthy as an anti-Grunfeld line

4.f3 is a tricky line against Nimzo. 

3.f3 v. Nf6/d5 or Nf6/e6 is typically not played. There must be some reasoning here.
Q. But why not?
A. The argument is likely that black hits with a straight ...c5. White likely wants the N on f3 there and may quickly fall behind with pieces on poor squares. But white is white, and nothing can be too bad yet. It's all still chess.

Useful to learn some theory. Start the game off well, and we fight from a solid base. 

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/28/25 at 15:39:43:


1) I have clearly stated some of the ideas above
2) I don't want to win as White, I want to draw!  At the Reykjavik Open based on last year's entrant's ratings, I will be in the lowest 10%.  My strategy is going to be, play for a draw as White, which my repertoire should help, and play sharply with chances to win as Black (e.g. the QGA, or the Siesta variation of the Spanish).  I figure, as Black, I have nothing to lose.  Furthermore just this morning I got an email from my IM coach (with GM nor or two) in which he wrote "Opening repertoire to play with white solid and positional and with black sharp and active is strategy of some gm's likes Hungarian gm Zoltan Ribli, or Swedesh gm Ulf Anderson."

Quote:

The acid test of the so-called novelty is simple. Will it help me win a game against a strong player?

Once upon a time the theoreticians (basically strong players who either knew a lot of openings, or had a really big card-file, or both) would attach the label Theoretical Novelty (TN) to a move that was not merely "new" as in not having been played before, but "better" as in white moving the needle towards += or black moving it back towards =. That was when data was scarce, engines didn't exist, and even professional players had to sift carefully through recent master games to find the best ideas. The theoreticians published some of their findings in magazines, but in many cases the hardest working masters already knew of these TNs long before they appeared in print.

The Informator series started out as a kind of super card-file service for professionals and enthusiastic amateurs. They awarded the Novelty (N) symbol to any move that had not been published before in their volumes. One can understand why they chose such a simplistic criterion. Firstly, the games they received and published were good games with mostly good Ns. Secondly, their main audience (the professionals) would look at the Ns critically anyway. Finally, if some enthusiastic amateurs were led astray by copying a flawed N, that mistake was on them, and so much the better for the professionals.

Today gigabases are readily available, everyone has a world-champion-beating engine, and enthusiastic amateurs still don't understand how to critically examine a "new" move. Like the Informator editors before them, they attach N to any move that doesn't appear in their database. Unlike the Informator editors, however, their source data is not a filtered selection of good and recent master games. The complete democratization of awarding the N symbol means it can be, and frequently is, applied to basically a random move. The amateurs use their engine to check their precious N, and think that's enough. Professionals of course can do the same thing with a database and engine, but still with the difference: they can discern whether their N has a point or not.

George Jempty wrote on 07/27/25 at 23:37:26:


White has Bc3 at this disposal, not to mention e3, and also not to mention an eventual 0-0-0, all of which bolster d4.  

3.Bd2 is a *completely viable* TN.  That's probably why SF17 does not disapprove. 

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Bd2!? (SF17-NNUE does not disapprove; aganst 2...e6 3.Bd2 is ?!) and now if Black, a Gruenfeld player, reflexively responds 3...d5?! then 4.cxd5 Nxd5?! 5.e4 and there is no White knight on c3 to capture; better is 3...Bg7 after which 4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 and we have transposed into an offshoot of the Exchange Gruenfeld, played in the first game of the Anand-Carlsen WC match.   

On 3...Ne4 White need not care if Black wants to capture his semi-bad Queen's bishop, and just replies e3 with Nc3, in whichever order.  This could constitute a good system for players who want to avoid a lot of theory.

There is also the Chit-Chat board for "whatevers". That is where I've posted humor before. No 'dis.

MOD hat on

Respectfully, not clear why these posts are separate or how they particularly relate to chess theory. 

George Jempty: perhaps this is more suitable for your own blog or YouTube channel or similar? 

***

Have a nice day George and all, and enjoy your chess!