Originally posted by Paul LeggettI think it is incorrect to say that 1. g3 does not influence the center. When the bishop goes to g2, it immediately influences e4 and d5, and cuts right through the center of the board[/b]When greenpawn mentioned that blacks g7 bishop was a conker, I thought what he meant was it was a conker in a game of conkers.
It swings, hits and wins.
Another way to think of whites g2 bishop is like a haymaker punch, a wild swing. It can be devastating if you stand in the way but it is your opponents fault if he blunders into it.
g2 influences e4 and d5 yes, but there isnt anything there yet. Like the ever popular response to the oranguatan opening:
1. b4 e3
You could play 1. ... e4, but it is unnecessary.
But I state again: Im no expert. And 1. f4 is still the king of openings!
Originally posted by Paul LeggettBy your logic, 1.a3 influences the center if you play 2.Nf3.
This might seem like splitting hairs, but Reti made this point, and I am a fan of his.
I think it is incorrect to say that 1. g3 does not influence the center. When the bishop goes to g2, it immediately influences e4 and d5, and cuts right through the center of the board.
Looking at 1. e4, it does cover d5, but that's it (development is a HUGE b ...[text shortened]... out, and they have had a significant influence on my understanding and approach to the game.
I really wouldn't put too much stock into it if Reti actually recommended 1 g3. His games as white were mostly 1.e4.
Opening theory during his time also regarded the Sicilian as unsound.
You shouldn't base your repertoire on the recommendations of an endgame specialist who was born in the late 19th century.
Hi Tiwaking.
Glad you like my king conker ref.
this bit:
"Bg2 influences e4 and d5 yes, but there isnt anything there yet."
Nimzo tells us you do not control the centre by occupying it,
you control the centre by attacking it. (or something like that).
So the Catalan 'Clown' Bishop does play a role.
Hi Thabtos.
I liked that bit:
"You shouldn't base your repertoire on the recommendations
of an endgame specialist who was born in the late 19th century."
Yup my database shows Reti 1.e4 = 159 1.Nf3=59.
However, his Modern Ideas in Chess and Masters of the Chess Board
are actually quite good, ground breaking and influential.
He only had the games up to the point that the book was written
and does an excellent job of showing the different styles up to that period.
But you are right they are dated.
The trouble is what is better?
I feel modern writers tend to gloss over or miss out the basics
when appoaching this subject so they can get onto the more juicier
points (backed up with a box).
They can give you the error free cold variations but cannot explain them
in a Reinfeld/Chernev clear cut way.
Also they often give the same old games time and time again
as if they are copying from each other.
The good ideas are the ones that last. Like the Reti study where you sneak into the box, or the one where you draw with a passed pawn against three of black's.
I am in no way disparaging the chess mind of RR.
However, I seriously question the logic of white's first move being one that neither develops a piece nor makes a claim on the center.
The 1.g3 plan is to get a Modern/Pitc reversed and use the extra tempo.
Though it puts no opening pressure on Black.
Develop and try to hinder your opponents development is a rule of thumb
but it's a good rule of thumb and has a proven track record.
If was a 1.g3 player I'd worry about 1...g6 (yawn).
Originally posted by ThabtosI think the "logical" difference here is that 1. g3 is necessary to play Bg2, whereas Nf3 can be played without any prep. Personally, I mix 1. Nf3 and 1. g3, as they mostly transpose, but I can bait 1. ... e5 with g3, while 1. Nf3 is more likely to have a ....d5 style position at some point.
By your logic, 1.a3 influences the center if you play 2.Nf3.
I really wouldn't put too much stock into it if Reti actually recommended 1 g3. His games as white were mostly 1.e4.
Opening theory during his time also regarded the Sicilian as unsound.
You shouldn't base your repertoire on the recommendations of an endgame specialist who was born in the late 19th century.
The comments with reference to Reti are such that I will just let them speak for themselves, and others will make their own judgments. Reti actually recommended 1. Nf3.
With regard to the Sicilian, I think "out of style" and "unsound" are different, and the former is the more accurate phrasing.
I think Fischer would laugh at the the shot at 19th century chess, as he drew from that well many times. But to each his own!
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
Since I kind of started this mess, although a very very interesting one I just want to say something.
Personally I think it comes down to one thing. If you like long games then g3 is a perfectly sound move. Since few people plays it you have the phychological advantadge although that might be very little since the game most likely will be decided on finesses in the middlegame, that will be if you do not try to transpose to some early theoretical agressiveness but that I really don't know about. Black can play some standard setup and equalize (read some about this in Aagaards book on the tarrash). I think I remember "the infamous chesscafe reviewer" Carsten Hansen (benevolent dictator of damming everymans bad publications when they are bad! ehm I'm a bit tired excuse me for beeing longer than I intended) writing about a game of his where he played g3 and won because his very high rated opponent did not understand the game as good as he did. But for amatures trying to improve their game 1.e4 is clearly a better choice (since it's tactical) although not theoretically sounder but what do I know really.
By all means, let the flamewar continue. Really. I didn't really know anything about Reti before (besides a famous endgame-study). It was intresting to know, thank you all!
Originally posted by bikingvikingI just see this as fun banter! As GP said in so many words, the beauty of chess is in the diversity of opinions. The reason we play is because at the start of the game, each player thinks he is better!😉
By all means, let the flamewar continue. Really. I didn't really know anything about Reti before (besides a famous endgame-study). It was intresting to know, thank you all![/b]
Hi Paul,
It should stay friendly banter but often it dips.
Drink, hard day at work, a recent loss, scoring points from something
said in another thread, a misunderstanding, a joke without a smiley....
...any number of reasons.
This has been a mild thread. I recall a No1 v SG row that went on for about
10 pages and across 4 forums.
I appeared every other page to give readers an update.
I can't remember what it was about, don't suppose they can either.
I checked my old databse. I have a P3 W3 v 1.g3 and when I tried it
I have played 1.g3 twice and lost both games. So 1.g3 sucks.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
I have not problems playing openings wich other people think suck. Really. But 1.g3? That's just beeing passive.
And I do think 1.e4 sucks big time since I have a bad score with it... The sicilians is great fun though. No one understands it and when I meet a good opponent I try really hard, much more so than normal. And by this I learn! I think learning is great! 🙂 Sometimes playing g3 in blitz is great since I kind of playing a system and I often understand it better than my opponent. But I would swich to KG and the the dutch if only I weren't so lazy with my chess. When I play 1.g3 black does not really know what he is doing but so am I. Lately I found out that playing weard d-pawn openings is better since they are more agressive. I think the reason I don't really play d4 is that I don't really understands the QID/Nimzo complex or the semi-slav. Openings in general is waaay overrated, by everyone! 1.g3 does not suck but it's not great either. The dutch is a really great opening. Everything else kind of sucks in comparison.
Originally posted by Maxacre42If I may offer some psychoanalysis...
It depends on your style I guess, E4, and D4-C4 tap into different qualities. Personally I play C4. I used to play D4, but the Slav and Nimzo-Indian were very annoying to play against. Some people are seriously booked up, but with C4 you're almost guaranteed to know more than your opponent. I avoided E4 to avoid having to learn Sicilian and Ruy Lopez theo ...[text shortened]... some of the funnest games in chess and you do need to learn how to play open games to progress!
1.e4= You like to get into the action. You are not necessarily an over aggressive person, but you like fast paced games.
1,d4= You don't like the hustle and bustle of e4. You are willing to play tactical games, but prefer to have a bit slower paced, but still interested games. Maneuvering can be fun, and the reward of good play is a nice tactic or a fascinating endgame.
1.c4= You are cruel sadist.masochist who loves to force yourself and your opponents into long, drawn out games in completely closed positions with more fianchettoed bishops than is healthy. You simply bore your opponents to death who try to make something happen when nothing is.
Not the most accurate system, but when you meet 1.c4 over the board, don't say I didn't warn you.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
Chesskid, I think you are partially incorrect (these kids). Adams plays very posessionally and quiet and he always starts 1.e4. Christiansen on the other hand, one of the great attacking players, most often starts 1.d4 or 1.c4 while playing extremely aggressive when he is plaing black. So stick to the subject beeing discussed.
Is 1.g3 really a good move or is it only "beeing passive"? I tend to say it's the latter. I woud like myself some day playing 1.g3 and 2...g6 all games but that would be playing overly predictable and I really dont like playing the catalan. The modern however is contradictive being really passive but it's provocative so the games get real spicy and fun. I've been smached myself by the Robatsch a few times. I tend trying to attack the his king but in the end It's me beeing attacked.
Originally posted by chesskid001I on the other hand, am very happy when my opponent plays 1.c4 - finally an interesting game were the whole board plays a part. Never have I had a boring game after my opponent plays 1.c4, unlike what happens with 1.d4. 1.e4 is even worse - there comes another boring game with nothing serious happening. Bah.
If I may offer some psychoanalysis...
1.e4= You like to get into the action. You are not necessarily an over aggressive person, but you like fast paced games.
1,d4= You don't like the hustle and bustle of e4. You are willing to play tactical games, but prefer to have a bit slower paced, but still interested games. Maneuvering can be fun, and the rewa ...[text shortened]... the most accurate system, but when you meet 1.c4 over the board, don't say I didn't warn you.
1.c4 is for the true creative genius, on the other hand, if you have no imagination whatsoever then you will end up with a boring game. 1.d4 and 1.e4 both don't allow you to play freely and let your true ability and your beautiful game flow free, instead it all comes down to 20 theory moves and an endgame.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
Dammit! My intended post dissappeared ... Have to get back to inportant stuff.
Seems like I am bored today, (I am back in the forum I once promised never to step my foot in because of bad time management). It i Reti's fault! (And Pauls, no offence).
So Paul:
I intended to ask you if there are any more of you 1.g3 players here at RHP. Because I want to know thats all. And also because I have played over 120 games here with black and I have yet to face it. (People don't like playing positional in correspondence?).
"if there are any more of you 1.g3 players here at RHP.
Because I want to know thats all. "
They could start a 1.g3 thematic tournament.
Then when we have all you 1.g3 players in the same tournament
Russ can pick up your IP's and drop the lot of you into some
old lady's knitting club.