07 Nov 07
Black has a bunch of infamous responses to 1. d4 and 1. e4 that do not provide symmetry.
Why is it not (usually)* advantageous to play those responses as white? For Example, if you like Caro-Kann as black, why can't you play 1. c3 as white?! It's the same thing with a +1 tempo! can't be that bad, right? Others: why don't French players start with 1. e3?! Pirc players never play 1. d3?!
WHY IS THIS!
* the only popular exception is the English Opening, 1. c4.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by Fleabittenmakes sense, but white should be able to strike back at the centre as he would with black!
I would tend to think that moves such as 1.c3 or 1.d3 or 1. e3 would be too passive. At the very beginning of the game, the imbalance that can be cretaed is a control of space. The moves above seem to invite black to take conrol of more territory. Does that make sense?
Example line:
1. c3?! d5
2. d4 c5 with a Slav [Attack?!] position, and still a tempo.
07 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30True, they should be able to strike back in that way, but they've basically handed over the initiative to black, because now white is responding to black's moves as opposed to the other way around.
makes sense, but white should be able to strike back at the centre as he would with black!
Example line:
1. c3?! d5
2. d4 c5 with a Slav [Attack?!] position, and still a tempo.
07 Nov 07
I played one game in a tournament at school vs. a much lower rated opponent and he surprised me somethin like that.
He played 1. e3, e5 2. e4 ... A deliberately losing tempo but simultaneously blowing my mind.
I ended up taking an early draw anyways being as I only needed a draw to make the finals of that tourney.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by ih8senswhy were you freaked out? it's just like playing 1. e4 e5 as white! symmetry favors white (in theory, I'm not saying 1. ... e5 is unsound.)
I played one game in a tournament at school vs. a much lower rated opponent and he surprised me somethin like that.
He played 1. e3, e5 2. e4 ... A deliberately losing tempo but simultaneously blowing my mind.
I ended up taking an early draw anyways being as I only needed a draw to make the finals of that tourney.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Just didn't expect it...
why were you freaked out? it's just like playing 1. e4 e5 as white! symmetry favors white (in theory, I'm not saying 1. ... e5 is unsound.)
I ended up playing a KG in reverse... it made for a cool game but we never really got into the tactics.
Still confusing though, the board is sorta backwards.
The thing is, we had practiced the Traxler together for a week before the tournament so I didn't expect that from him.. I figured he'd give me another shot at the Traxler...
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30the general reason is that because you're a tempo ahead, there are better opportunities available than what you have as black. when you're playing the unreversed black side, white has prevented those possibilities, or taken the punch out of them. you can of course play the reversed version of any black opening, and do okay. some of the positions change their evaluation, but the ideas are very similar.
Black has a bunch of infamous responses to 1. d4 and 1. e4 that do not provide symmetry.
Why is it not (usually)* advantageous to play those responses as white? For Example, if you like Caro-Kann as black, why can't you play 1. c3 as white?! It's the same thing with a +1 tempo! can't be that bad, right? Others: why don't French players start with 1. e3? ...[text shortened]... er play 1. d3?!
WHY IS THIS!
* the only popular exception is the English Opening, 1. c4.
I play reversed dutch leningrad as white. it's very nice to have similar positions & ideas for both colors. especially as there's not much theory for the reversed dutch. it's not the most agressive way to open, but it's okay.
08 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by rubberjaw30You're in good company, rubberjaw30! The first World's Correspondence Champion, IM Cecil Purdy, posed the same question in an article in his "Chess World" magazine. He thought that if one had limited time to study, it might serve the player well to just study those Black defenses that he wanted to play, and then play those "defenses" when playing White, cutting one's opening study time in half! Then more time could be devoted to aspects of chess study that produce greater dividends than studying opening theory, like studying tactics, endgames and master games.
Black has a bunch of infamous responses to 1. d4 and 1. e4 that do not provide symmetry.
Why is it not (usually)* advantageous to play those responses as white? For Example, if you like Caro-Kann as black, why can't you play 1. c3 as white?! It's the same thing with a +1 tempo! can't be that bad, right? Others: why don't French players start with 1. e3? ...[text shortened]... er play 1. d3?!
WHY IS THIS!
* the only popular exception is the English Opening, 1. c4.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30In addition to the replies already given...
makes sense, but white should be able to strike back at the centre as he would with black!
Example line:
1. c3?! d5
2. d4 c5 with a Slav [Attack?!] position, and still a tempo.
The examples you cite, e.g. the Slav in this case, are a response to White taking the centre.
If you play this reversed, Black does not necessarily have to control the centre with pawns - i.e. if I had the position after 1. c3 d5, 2. d4 I wouldn't play ... c5 (probably ... nf6 or something).
Similar story with the other examples you give.