08 May 10
Originally posted by ErekoseYes, this is the point and it's not a bad opening. As white, the idea is essentially to force black into something like an Italian where the pawn on a3 will be used to support b5 or just keep the bishop out in some of the sharper variations. There was a master somewhere in the Deep South- forget his name- who played this a while ago.
I'd rather play 1 e4 e5 2. c4 than 2 a3.
One decent e4 opening featuring a3 is:
1 e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3. Then a3 has a real point, preventing black for playing Bb4 (especially after white plays 5 d4, if black lets him).
09 May 10
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI think I can answer this a little bit. My database have several hundred examples of this in master play, but white only scores in the mid 40's % wise, compared to fifty something for more standard approaches.
Well that's true ... i'd probably leave out the 'at best' bit but otherwise I'd have to agree with both of your sentences.
That doesn't answer the question of what the point of 2. c4 is though.
I think the logic of 2. c4 is essentially the logic of the Botvinnik system, taken to a logical extreme. White puts an iron clamp on the d5 square, while giving up the d4 square. There are shades of Fischer's "You gotta give squares to get squares" in this thinking.
The Botvinnik System and the Stonewall Dutch are examples of reputable openings that reflect this strategy, so the question is whether Black can immediately exploit the hole on d4 in a way unique to the move order. If he can, it's bad, if he can't, then it should be playable.
It reminds me of the type of approach a stronger player would use against a weaker player, where he hopes to make some strategic imbalances and capitalize on his better understanding of positional nuances. But that could be the BS talking!
09 May 10
1 edit
I played it a couple of times (and also 1.e4 c5 2.c4 a few times).
I aimed for a locked and drawish position and I was interested to see how black would react, hoping for recklessness. As you can see from the two games below, black played an early Bc5 and then exchanged bishops (which I wouldn't have done), leaving an open f-file and defending the hole on d4. In all the database games I found, white almost always aims for a kingside fianchetto. I did in the second games, but only because it was forced.
In this game, swapping my knight for three pawns turned out bad. The position needed knights and I was the one being reckless. I should have just played something quiet like 22.Kh1 :
09 May 10
Originally posted by sylvanderYes, those are nice examples indeed. I've got one of my one, it started as an English but the 3rd move was e4 so... it shows how easy it is to go badly with black if you approach the attack on d4 wrongly. Also, it shows the counter-punching character of these kind of positions - notice how black's pieces as chased away very quickly in the early middle game giving white a nice initiative. Black ended up blundering, but still a nice example.
I played it a couple of times (and also 1.e4 c5 2.c4 a few times).
I aimed for a locked and drawish position and I was interested to see how black would react, hoping for recklessness. As you can see from the two games below, black played an early Bc5 and then exchanged bishops (which I wouldn't have done), leaving an open f-file and defending the hole ...[text shortened]... 7 42. Kf3g4 Kg7f6 43. Kg4h5 Bb5d3 0-1[/pgn]