Originally posted by Eladar
The 1.b4 thread got me to thinking why not 1.b4 for 1.b3 players. I can see several advantages for 1.b4 over 1.b3 and not a single reason why 1.b3 is better.
The most obvious advantage to 1.b4 is that it actually puts some sort of pressure on black by taking away c5. Attacking one of the less important central squares is better than attacking no central ...[text shortened]... to make 1.b4 a better move than 1.b3.
Your thoughts other than don't play either at all 😀
Why play 1.b3 in the first place if you are worried about contesting the center immediately? The point of 1.b3 is to let black occupy the center with pawns and then attack them.
Also, getting your bishop kicked in said position by ...a6 isn't bad as I would assume black will want to play a5-a4 later so you aren't really losing a tempo.
So I would say an advantage to b3, other than a more solid pawn structure, is that you can still play b4 later if you want to contest the center that way.
Edit: In short they are two different moves that lead to two different types of games for white and you can make an argument for either as I have never seen someone lose because of the first move