1. g3

Tomorrow I'll be playing the top under 18 player in Britain. He usually opens 1.g3, which is one of the few openings that I don't have a tried and trusted reply to. On the rare occasions I've met it I've just assumed it would transpose into the English and played some sort of Kings Indian set-up.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask you lot if you have a system you can recommend against 1.g3, or should I just resign straight away and go down the pub?

Throw g6 at him and see what he does next.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Throw g6 at him and see what he does next.

One transposition I don't fancy is a Closed Sicilian, which might happen after 1.g3 g6. e.g.

Have you got time this evening to cook up some 'brummie badness' with ...b6?

If you're going to be roadkill anyway, at least have some fun.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
Tomorrow I'll be playing the top under 18 player in Britain. He usually opens 1.g3, which is one of the few openings that I don't have a tried and trusted reply to. On the rare occasions I've met it I've just assumed it would transpose into the English and played some sort of Kings Indian set-up.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask you lot if you have a system you can recommend against 1.g3, or should I just resign straight away and go down the pub?

1....e5 if you don't want the centre, I'll take it.
Give him the 170 attack in reverse, (hold the e-pawn with d6).
And after you have scudded him tell to drop that wee girlie opening
and play big boys chess.

BTW he is winning because you are worried what you will play.
It should be the reverse.
You have to overcome these inferior and negative thoughts.

Relax, forget opening trifles, you are a better chess player than him.
Just play Chess.
These 1.g3 theory dodgers soon hit a ceiling.
Look carefully at his head before the start of the game, you will see bumps, add another.

Just say to yourself before the start of the game.
"if he was really any good how come he has ended up playing me?"

Good Luck. (get a good nights sleep.)

Funnily enough, I work beside an RHP lad who was playing a league match tonight.

I turned up at his club to give him a pre-game pep talk.

Don't make your first move till at least after two-three minutes whilst
you put yourself into the zone.

I then decided his opponent was ugly.
"You cannot lose to ugly people, you have to say well done and shake their hand."

And that was it.

As I left I noticed his opponent had just played 1.g3.

Thanks All.

I think I will play 1. ... e5. I play that sort of stuff as White sometimes, so I'll give it a whirl as Black. I've played this lad three times in online games with, I think 15 minutes each on the clock. One was an easy win for him, one an easy win for me and one he squeezed out a win in an equal ending when I ran short on time. However since then he's started duffing up Grandmasters and some of recent games have been very impressive.

Here is a game in which he lost against 1. ... e5. I don't think the way Black played is anything like my style, but it shows that e5 is a serious move.

Hi Fat Lady.

Was going to add this wee 17 mover to my last post.
I have dozens of these wins as Black. They don't know what hit them.

G. Soutar - G. Chandler, Edinburgh Chess League 1994

I think you should play to your style. He has to show that his approach is a challenge to your game, and he is the one who has the burden of a multitude of transpositions.

I often go between 1. g3 and 1. Nf3 OTB, and to me, the most annoying move to meet after 1. g3 is 1. ... f5. I play 1. g3 to steer the game in the direction I want, and with 1. ... f5 the other guy trumps me on the first move.

I score OK when I see it, but it is rare, so it's not a bother only due to the infrequency of its use.

All that said, I really think you should just play what you like. If you are fine playing against the fianchetto variation of the KID, then 1. g3 is a frivolous transposition against you.

Well, the good news is that I drew the game. The bad news is that my expected opponent didn't play. They felt that they didn't need to bring in their top guns, namely the GM (who they have to pay for) and the top British U18, and they were proved right.

My game was exciting and I felt I was better most of the way through, though probably worse when we agreed a draw (he had five minutes left, I had about eight, we both needed a pint).

Originally posted by Fat Lady
Well, the good news is that I drew the game. The bad news is that my expected opponent didn't play. They felt that they didn't need to bring in their top guns, namely the GM (who they have to pay for) and the top British U18, and they were proved right.

My game was exciting and I felt I was better most of the way through, though probably worse when we ag ...[text shortened]... hat we are favourites for relegation and our opponents have finished top for the last two years.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it reeks of skullduggery to be honest, is it usual for teams to dominate in this way, paying professional coaches? fielding players of unequal ranking? What happened to the spirit of fair play?

I am living in the past? oh its true! its true!

The only league I've played in where there were paid players was the London League. One team there, Wood Green, seemed to have an enthusiastic sponsor who paid GMs and IMs to play for his team and enable them to win the title year after year. Why he did this was a mystery to everyone else as there was no big prize and little publicity. Other clubs in the London League would occasionally have a titled player or two turn out for them, the standard of chess in that league was extremely high.

In the league I play in now, it's just the one player who is paid to play. Since the matches are over six boards he makes a big difference to his team's results as not only does he win most of his games, he also pushes everyone else down a board. The silly thing is, his team would be easily the strongest in the league even without him - they have about half a dozen players of roughly my grade (strong county player) and another ten not far behind. No other club has that sort of strength in depth. Having the GM in their squad as well just makes the season a bit less interesting as they win the title at a canter every season.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it reeks of skullduggery to be honest, is it usual for teams to dominate in this way, paying professional coaches? fielding players of unequal ranking? What happened to the spirit of fair play?