b3 is more of a novelty move/surprise weapon. it's very premovable (b3 bb2 e3 are usually instantly premoved) which makes it good for blitz/bullet. but i dont think it's the best choice for slower time formats tho.
b3 is more of a novelty move/surprise weapon. it's very premovable (b3 bb2 e3 are usually instantly premoved) which makes it good for blitz/bullet. but i dont think it's the best choice for slower time formats tho.
1 b3 is fine. Fischer played it 5 times in classical time control games and won all 5.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=white&pid=&player=fischer&pid2=&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=A01&eco=&result=
I you like spending time learning about openings, then it generally pays off more to learn some of the sharper lines starting with 1. e4 or 1. d4.
1 b3 (or first Nf3) is fine of course, but it's like saying "I don't care about opening advantage, I just want a familiar position." Black can usually level with natural development, but some players get confused how to respond and spend time, and usually few pieces are exchanged which leaves lots of play to the middle game.
Some players push their pawns aggressively as black when they see something like 1. b3, which may leave their center pawns vulnerable and easily drop in blitz.
I you like spending time learning about openings, then it generally pays off more to learn some of the sharper lines starting with 1. e4 or 1. d4.
1 b3 (or first Nf3) is fine of course, but it's like saying "I don't care about opening advantage, I just want a familiar position." Black can usually level with natural development, but some players get confused how to respond and spend time, and usually few pieces are exchanged which leaves lots of play to the middle game.
Some players push their pawns aggressively as black when they see something like 1. b3, which may leave their center pawns vulnerable and easily drop in blitz.
@tpr said ^
1 b3 is fine. Fischer played it 5 times in classical time control games and won all 5.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=white&pid=&player=fischer&pid2=&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=A01&eco=&result=
Fischer played 1 b3 three times in 1970 in tournaments against Tukmakov, Filip and Mecking and won all three. He played 1 b3 against Andersson in an exhibition game and I do not know the time control. The games against Peinado and Lentze are from simultaneous exhibitions. Fischer even played 1 b4 in those.
1 b3 was good enough for Nimzowitsch, Larsen and Fischer. Nakamura and Keymer are among those who play it now. Nimzowitsch liked the move order 1 Nf3 and 2 b3 which avoids 1... e5.
The real question is not if 1 b3 will get you to 1700 but whether you are strong enough to be 1700. If you are, you'll get there regardless of what opening you play.
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/0YijfKDV)
> 1 b3 is fine. Fischer played it 5 times in classical time control games and won all 5.
> https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=white&pid=&player=fischer&pid2=&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=A01&eco=&result=
Fischer played 1 b3 three times in 1970 in tournaments against Tukmakov, Filip and Mecking and won all three. He played 1 b3 against Andersson in an exhibition game and I do not know the time control. The games against Peinado and Lentze are from simultaneous exhibitions. Fischer even played 1 b4 in those.
1 b3 was good enough for Nimzowitsch, Larsen and Fischer. Nakamura and Keymer are among those who play it now. Nimzowitsch liked the move order 1 Nf3 and 2 b3 which avoids 1... e5.
The real question is not if 1 b3 will get you to 1700 but whether you are strong enough to be 1700. If you are, you'll get there regardless of what opening you play.
It is telling that Fischer played 1 b4 in simultaneous exhibitions and 1 b3 in serious classical time control tournaments.
He must have felt that 1 b4 was good enough for a simultaneous exhibition, but 1 b3 is more solid to play against grandmasters.
Andersson was so impressed by his game against Fischer that he adopted 1 b3 himself.
It is telling that Fischer played 1 b4 in simultaneous exhibitions and 1 b3 in serious classical time control tournaments.
He must have felt that 1 b4 was good enough for a simultaneous exhibition, but 1 b3 is more solid to play against grandmasters.
Andersson was so impressed by his game against Fischer that he adopted 1 b3 himself.
- b3 is not top-tier, but still good. 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4, and 1. Nf3 > 1. b3, 1. e3, 1. c3, and 1. g3 > 1. Nc3, 1. f4, and 1. b4 > everything else.
1. b3 is not top-tier, but still good. 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4, and 1. Nf3 > 1. b3, 1. e3, 1. c3, and 1. g3 > 1. Nc3, 1. f4, and 1. b4 > everything else.
Problem I had with 1.b3 was I found it a bit passive. This can be best reflected in the problem with the light squared bishop where there are 3 paths for development
- You play e4 and opponent plays e5 and you transpose into a 1.e4 e5 line where you play b3 and Bb2 where dark squared bishop is blunted.
- You play e3 and get a Queen's Indian structure a tempi up that's solid but due to lack of centre pawns it's hard to get an early initiative
- Double fianchetto that is solid but often more counter attacking.
Having said that above it's perfectly playable and should have less theory to memorise and as you can see from https://lichess.org/opening/Nimzo-Larsen_Attack/b3 it scores fine. Important thing is you don't change openings like clothes since each hour spent learning a new opening is an hour you could've spent improving middlegames and endings.
All you need from an opening is confidence it's sound and reaching middlegames that are at least equal so if happy with course there's nothing wrong with going for it.
Problem I had with 1.b3 was I found it a bit passive. This can be best reflected in the problem with the light squared bishop where there are 3 paths for development
1. You play e4 and opponent plays e5 and you transpose into a 1.e4 e5 line where you play b3 and Bb2 where dark squared bishop is blunted.
2. You play e3 and get a Queen's Indian structure a tempi up that's solid but due to lack of centre pawns it's hard to get an early initiative
3. Double fianchetto that is solid but often more counter attacking.
Having said that above it's perfectly playable and should have less theory to memorise and as you can see from https://lichess.org/opening/Nimzo-Larsen_Attack/b3 it scores fine. Important thing is you don't change openings like clothes since each hour spent learning a new opening is an hour you could've spent improving middlegames and endings.
All you need from an opening is confidence it's sound and reaching middlegames that are at least equal so if happy with course there's nothing wrong with going for it.
B3 is good and is superb to move forward as most players will be caught offguard.
When you play something like e4/d4, they will play based on practical expeirence.
Here you have a slight advantage of knowing the structure better than you opponents
But just asking, why are you trying to change english. I think rather than changing you can maybe change the variations you play. If you want you may buy a chessly subscription. Once you buy it you can access all courses in it till the subscription ends. There is a course on both 1.b3 and 1.c4. I love both and i have been playing them for about 3 years. I.e on more than 30+ rapid otbs
B3 is good and is superb to move forward as most players will be caught offguard.
When you play something like e4/d4, they will play based on practical expeirence.
Here you have a slight advantage of knowing the structure better than you opponents
But just asking, why are you trying to change english. I think rather than changing you can maybe change the variations you play. If you want you may buy a chessly subscription. Once you buy it you can access all courses in it till the subscription ends. There is a course on both 1.b3 and 1.c4. I love both and i have been playing them for about 3 years. I.e on more than 30+ rapid otbs