English Chess Forum

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:22 am

I'd argue it is an exception that proves the rule, since a specific reason to play something offbeat against a particular opponent despite having objectively better lines available. I wasn't saying 2 f4 is bad or criticising Davies for recommending it. Magnus has played it in blitz too. But I am saying offbeat lines are offbeat for a reason.

I agree. One of my weaknesses in the Opening, is that sometimes I play something offbeat then adopt it as one of my main openings.
For example, a number of years ago, I adopted the Owen's Defence, had a couple of early major successes then adopted it as one on my main openings. I then suffered a lot of reverses as I ended up in bad French positions.
The 2.f4 Labourdonnais Variation/McDonnell attack for my level has a lot of merit against people the same standard or slightly higher.
There is a number of other games in OTB classical with wins by white including :
Nakamura- Seirawan 2016
Weiss - Maroczy Budapest 1895.
Yasser Seirawan also played it himself and beat a Soviet GM back in 1988.

Never had difficulties with it and never been able to work out why anyone would ever play it. I once had 1. e4 e6 2. b3 played against me by the current county champion, whose rating was usually just above 200. He attempted to castle queenside and got it all wrong. It resulted in one of the fastest checkmates I've ever had for the simple reason he realized he'd played a load of rubbish and lost all interest.

Actually, b3 seems to have some merits to me. If you are not enjoying playing the normal closed French centre the line below with 0-0-0 and g4 is at least something entirely different.

Still a sideline of course, the only way you can hope for an advantage is if you know more than you opponent, whereas with a main line you only need to know as much as them.

I generally start 1. d4 when 1...e6 is a already something to think about. I am sure 2 e4 is the best move, and I have always done ok with the Tarrasch. But as Petrosian said, if you think your opponent wants to play the Dutch, don't discourage them!

1. e4 e6 2. b3 d5 3. Bb2 de4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2

2 b3 against the French falls into the "semi respectable" category I would say, and has claimed a few notable scalps in the past.

And one for the pot (an ebook from Everyman) -

"FIDE Master Alexis Harakis provides a complete overview of the underrated and underplayed 3...h6 in the French against both 3.Nd2 and 3.Nc3. This is a pet topic of his and a line he has been flirting with for more than 15 years now. He is also a French expert of more than 30 years."

After that one from the starter menu here's a taster of a vintage main -

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.Be2 Bb5 7.c4 Bc4 8.Bc4 Qb4 9.Nbd2 dc 10.a3 Qb5 11.Qe2 cd 12.Nd4 Qd5 13.N...

rn2kbnr/pp3ppp/4p3/3qP3/2pN4/P7/1P1NQPPP/R1B1K2R

Which N move would you choose?

This happened in my classic game against Beliavsky. Lloyds Bank, 1985.

I played N2f3, but I'm by no means sure it's correct.

An unforgettable draw then, Nick, but it seems that GM Pedrag Nikolic gave 13.N4f3 an exclamation mark annotating in the mid-1990s.

I used to play the French until the early 2000s and then for some reason (following Dreev's example perhaps) switched to the Caro-Kann.

I wanted the position to be a genuine pawn sac. I'm sure Pedrag has the right idea. The one time I played him, incidentally, I also played a pawn sac, on the Black side of a Tarrasch. To my great good fortune, that game has never made its way onto the databases...

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:55 pm

This happened in my classic game against Beliavsky. Lloyds Bank, 1985.

I played N2f3, but I'm by no means sure it's correct.

[Event "Lloyds Bank Open-09"] [Site "London"] [Date "1985.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Ivell, Nicholas W"] [Black "Beliavsky, Alexander G"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C02"] [WhiteElo "2350"] [BlackElo "2635"] [PlyCount "71"] [EventDate "1985.08.??"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "9"] [EventCountry "ENG"] [SourceTitle "MCL"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "1999.07.01"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"] [SourceQuality "1"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Qb6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. Be2 Bb5 7. c4 Bxc4 8. Bxc4 Qb4+ 9. Nbd2 dxc4 10. a3 Qb5 11. Qe2 cxd4 12. Nxd4 Qd5 13. N2f3 Bc5 14. Be3 Bxd4 15. Bxd4 Nc6 16. O-O-O Nge7 17. h4 O-O 18. Bc3 Qb5 19. Ng5 h6 20. Ne4 Rad8 21. Nd6 Qb6 22. h5 Nf5 23. Nxf5 exf5 24. e6 Qc5 25. exf7+ Kxf7 26. Qf3 Kg8 27. Qf4 Rxd1+ 28. Rxd1 Rf7 29. Re1 Rd7 30. g4 Nd4 31. Qb8+ Kh7 32. Qe8 Qc6 33. gxf5 Nb3+ 34. Kc2 Na1+ 35. Kc1 Nb3+ 36. Kc2 1/2-1/2 That is world #5 on the January 1985 rating list younger readers.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:15 pm

2 b3 against the French falls into the "semi respectable" category I would say, and has claimed a few notable scalps in the past.

When is be ever anything than semi-respectable at best. Seeing an early b3 shifted into the Sicilian with Anand and Carlsen a few years back didn't exactly put anyone on the edge of their seat.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:22 pm

Actually, b3 seems to have some merits to me. If you are not enjoying playing the normal closed French centre the line below with 0-0-0 and g4 is at least something entirely different.

Still a sideline of course, the only way you can hope for an advantage is if you know more than you opponent, whereas with a main line you only need to know as much as them.

I generally start 1. d4 when 1...e6 is a already something to think about. I am sure 2 e4 is the best move, and I have always done ok with the Tarrasch. But as Petrosian said, if you think your opponent wants to play the Dutch, don't discourage them!

1. e4 e6 2. b3 d5 3. Bb2 de4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2

It is a side-line yes but sometimes people play them purely to escape main lines or just fancy something a bit different for once, which was the case with my much higher rated opponent. But the bottom line is if you play something you aren't really into and don't know much about, the chances of it back-firing are increased greatly. I don't think you should play side-lines unless you know them very well.

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:08 am

It is a side-line yes but sometimes people play them purely to escape main lines or just fancy something a bit different for once, which was the case with my much higher rated opponent. But the bottom line is if you play something you aren't really into and don't know much about, the chances of it back-firing are increased greatly. I don't think you should play side-lines unless you know them very well.

The game can continue
1. e4 e6 2. b3 d5 3. Bb2 de4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2 Be7 6. 0-0-0 0-0 7. g4


That looks like home brew, but is actually known to some players from both sides. The best reply may be a matter of debate.

At my level. Off beat Openings and sidelines are a lot more common especially in Congresses and League.
I've faced things like the St George and Basman Defences as white.
As black, I have faced nearly every possible white Opening.

Same here but my opponent was rated around 200, and when he realized he made a bit of a mess over a sideline it seemed like he just lost all interest. If you are much lower rated I don't think your standards are so high, so it doesn't bother you so much.

I'm afraid I am just a mortal compared to most forum members and my weakness is certain Openings. My strength is middlegames.