Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 16 May '06 15:04
    I read a book with all the books and prices ffrom the Swedish chess shop when I come to the "New In Chess Year Book" section.
    I come down to Yearbook 73 (i think its 73...) and there I find the "Piére Attack".

    The Article was written by no other than Piére himself.

    The Opening moves was:
    1.d4 d5 2.a3!?

    a3?? Really?

    Is there ome kind of hidden (good?) idee behind this move or is it just a crappy opening that Piére made to come to history?

    Shadows
  2. 16 May '06 16:28
    ok, then I asume that its a crappy opening

    Shadows
  3. 16 May '06 16:29
    Looks crap.
  4. 16 May '06 20:48 / 1 edit
    2.a3 Isn't suicide, there are better moves to be made....

    to me, this is a rather duboius use of a valueable tempo....

    Perhaps the true "power" of the move comes when black castles short only to find 2.a3 allows a quick pawn storm


    Or, perhaps its for 'luft', when you castle queenside, in which case, a3 would have to of been played sooner of later

    Maybe its simply a played to make black scratch his head a little and leave his opening repotoires...
  5. 16 May '06 21:21
    I've seen lower rated players wary of the Nimzo-Indian play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3. It's not a terrible move...3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 is a real opening even. But it's not really that hot either. I suppose offhand I'd hit back with 3...c5 or 3...d5 if I saw this....hmmm....better think about it a little.

    1.d4 d5 2.a3 is pretty weird though. Offhand it seems to call out for either 2...c5 or 2...g6...
  6. 16 May '06 21:54 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Shadows
    I read a book with all the books and prices ffrom the Swedish chess shop when I come to the "New In Chess Year Book" section.
    I come down to Yearbook 73 (i think its 73...) and there I find the

    The Article was written by no other than Piére himself.

    The Opening moves was:
    1.d4 d5 2.a3!?

    a3?? Really?

    Is there ome kind of hidden hind this move or is it just a crappy opening that Piére made to come to history?

    Shadows
    I'll stick with Fischer! Develop your pieces towards the middle. The tactics will come. Look to the greats for the answers to your questions. Would Fischer have done it? Maybe. And, better yet, should you do it being a class player? NOPE! Stick with the principles of good opening play. Be a gambiteer as a class player. If not a gambiteer, play a tactical opening such as the Scotch Game or the Italian Game. With Black, don't be afraid to play: 1.) e4 e5! You're not playing grandmasters and you shouldn't be. Play someone no more or less than 200 points your rating strength. Nothing wrong with occasionally building up your ego/confidence by demolishing a 1300 player - especially when you've had a bad day. But, players 100 points stronger than you are make you stronger as well - even if you lose. Throw away the "Piére Attack." It sometimes takes a lifetime for one man to perfect one opening! Why just pick out some lame opening and try to perfect it? It's fine if you want to lose, but I want to win. How about you? My teacher - Lev Alburt - told me these same things. They are true and from the heart of a three time U.S. Chess Champion and the greatest chess coach who ever lived. Remember them well, young Jedi.
  7. 16 May '06 22:06
    That's a little simplistic. Fischer said "Tactics flow from a superior position".

    Sometimes simple development has to superceded by a broader plan.

    For example, the Nimzo-Indian line mentioned above, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3, although it doesn't develop anything, is not a bad move. It was, in fact, favoured by Tigran Petrosian, famed for his constrictive play.

    Simply developing towards the centre and waiting for your opponent to blunder won't get you very far.
  8. 16 May '06 22:10
    Originally posted by Positional Player
    That's a little simplistic. Fischer said "Tactics flow from a superior position".

    Sometimes simple development has to superceded by a broader plan.

    For example, the Nimzo-Indian line mentioned above, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3, although it doesn't develop anything, is not a bad move. It was, in fact, favoured by Tigran Petrosian, famed for his c ...[text shortened]... eloping towards the centre and waiting for your opponent to blunder won't get you very far.
    Develop your pieces. The tactics will come. If you develop your pieces correctly and with great thought, you will have a good position. But, most of the time, we usually mess up the good position, because we think it isn't good after all. But, development is of the greatest importance.
  9. 16 May '06 22:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Positional Player
    That's a little simplistic. Fischer said "Tactics flow from a superior position".

    Sometimes simple development has to superceded by a broader plan.

    For example, the Nimzo-Indian line mentioned above, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3, although it doesn't develop anything, is not a bad move. It was, in fact, favoured by Tigran Petrosian, famed for his c ...[text shortened]... eloping towards the centre and waiting for your opponent to blunder won't get you very far.
    I did not say that! I am responding to the PIerre attack! I am saying it's better to play good solid chess which has time and time again proven itself! I'm not saying you'll win if you develop your pieces, goof ball! We are talking about an opening - not exceptions! Everyone knows there is an exception to every rule in the game itself! GEEZ! GOOFY! Thanks for sharing!
  10. 17 May '06 08:21
    Interesting...

    When you mention it, a3 in the QID is not bad at all but after d5 I can´t spot the ide.

    The only reason someone would play it might be that they hate white and wants to play black after 1.d4 d5 with the extra move a6 throwed in but if you know anything about chess I don´t think that should be the case.

    Shadows
  11. 17 May '06 10:28
    Originally posted by Shadows
    I read a book with all the books and prices ffrom the Swedish chess shop when I come to the "New In Chess Year Book" section.
    I come down to Yearbook 73 (i think its 73...) and there I find the "Piére Attack".

    The Article was written by no other than Piére himself.

    The Opening moves was:
    1.d4 d5 2.a3!?

    a3?? Really?

    Is there ome kind of hidden ...[text shortened]... hind this move or is it just a crappy opening that Piére made to come to history?

    Shadows
    Let me annotate that

    1.d4?! (Waste of a move try e4, c4 maybe even take up fishing)
    1.d5?! (You like symmetrical games? Take up fishing)
    2.a3?! (Iv wasted my first move why not waste another)
  12. 17 May '06 11:20
    Well...

    I myself do´t pplay 1. d4 but alot of people do and I don´t think its a bad move, it leads to some interesting positions. (even thought i still prefer 1. e4)

    1...d5 is my own coice actually, not becouse it leads to symmetry, but so I can play my pet line, the Chigorin (2. c4 Nc6)

    And yes I don´think 2. a3 is a good move

    Shadows
  13. 17 May '06 13:36
    I once lost a game to a Hungarian IM who completely out-psyched me. Before the game started he offered to lose to me for £10, then when I refused this played 1.h4 and 2.a4.

    Paul Morphy lost to Adolf Anderssen when the latter opened 1.a3
  14. 17 May '06 13:47
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    I once lost a game to a Hungarian IM who completely out-psyched me. Before the game started he offered to lose to me for £10, then when I refused this played 1.h4 and 2.a4.

    Paul Morphy lost to Adolf Anderssen when the latter opened 1.a3
    Miles famously beat Karpov with 1.e4 a6 0-1
  15. 17 May '06 13:59
    Even thought, it does not mean that 1.a3 is a good move.

    You can´t lose just after that, there are no refutasion but when you get white I don´t think your ambition should beto play black with a6 as an extra move.

    There are better plans at your arsenal, you was given the first move, why not use it?

    Shadows