04 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by clandarkfireI have played 1. g3 for some 20 years now OTB, and this made me laugh! We all have our chess opinions, but in the Fritz Powerbook 2007 (an opening book based on the highest level GM games), 1. g3 scores better than 1. e4. (55% vs 54%, while d4 and c4 each score 56% ).
People that play 1.g3 or 1.b4 give up any hope of keeping their first-move advantage. Why bother?
Yes, I realize you can play it in hopes of getting out of book, but in CC there isn't any point and OTB your opponent can just build up a strong center and be relatively safe as long as he doesn't do anything too stupid.
Realistically, I suspect that the variance is more than 1%, and that they are all statistically in a dead heat.
Basically, a 1. g3 player can play an English, a Closed Sicilian, the Catalan, the main line Queen's Indian or Bogo-Indian, the main line of the Dutch, the fianchetto line against the King's Indian, the Gruenfeld, or the Pirc/Modern, or even the g3 lines in the Open Sicilian. My preference is for the King's Indian Attack or Reti, although people lately have allowed us to transpose into the Pirc/Modern reversed.
I think the bottom line is that these are all single moves, and we still have to play the game!
Paul
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by Paul LeggettYou discount the fact that sometimes really good players play sub optimal openings.
I have played 1. g3 for some 20 years now OTB, and this made me laugh! We all have our chess opinions, but in the Fritz Powerbook 2007 (an opening book based on the highest level GM games), 1. g3 scores better than 1. e4. (55% vs 54%, while d4 and c4 each score 56% ).
Fritz powerbook 2010 rates 1.d4 and 1.e4 higher than 1. g3.
Also there are almost 80 times more games played beginning with e4 and d4 and over 10 times more games played with c4 and Nf3, so I don't think that the high percentage of wins with 1.g3 is really indicative of it's objective strength.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by ThabtosI think that argument cuts both ways - in fact, I would argue that it is more likely that weaker players play sub optimal openings, which is partly why they are weaker players.
You discount the fact that sometimes really good players play sub optimal openings.
Fritz powerbook 2010 rates 1.d4 and 1.e4 higher than 1. g3.
Also there are almost 80 times more games played beginning with e4 and d4 and over 10 times more games played with c4 and Nf3, so I don't think that the high percentage of wins with 1.g3 is really indicative of it's objective strength.
The differences probably have more to do with style and overall knowledge, since you need to know more theory and possible transpositions to play 1. g3.
Since 1. g3 will practically always transpose into a c4, d4, or e4 opening, they can hardly be distinguished. A slight variance in percentage (which is a combination of wins, draws, and losses- the wins vs draws difference would be interesting to know) means very little.
Of course, 1. g3 does avoid the Petroff, which alone makes it less drawish! 😲
I think it is questionable to suggest that really good players playing "sub optimal" openings as an explanation for 1. g3- it could just as easily suggest that they have figured out something that lower-rated players haven't caught on to yet.
One could even make the case that they get "sub optimal" when they play 1. e4- the Sicilian probably gives black better winning chances than any other defense, and Petroff's Defense has always been an efficient equalizing weapon.
I simply think it is inaccurate to claim that 1. g3 is sub optimal, and to claim that the statistics misrepresent the efficacy of 1. g3 is a claim in spite of the evidence, not because of it.
Paul
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by Paul LeggettYou would think that playing g3 was more popular than g6, but its not.
I have played 1. g3 for some 20 years now OTB, and this made me laugh! We all have our chess opinions, but in the Fritz Powerbook 2007 (an opening book based on the highest level GM games), 1. g3 scores better than 1. e4. (55% vs 54%, while d4 and c4 each score 56% ).
Realistically, I suspect that the variance is more than 1%, and that they are all ...[text shortened]... e bottom line is that these are all single moves, and we still have to play the game!
Paul
Strange.
Your playing a respectable black opening with an EXTRA MOVE after all. Pawns are given away all the time for that EXTRA MOVE. Chess makes my head hurt. Make the bad man stop!
06 Jun 10
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI guess when I think of people that play 1.g3, I think of the people I face that play it, and virtually all of them pretty much just play a reversed pirc without making any attempt at gaining any initiative. Obviously, this doesn't speak for everyone who plays 1.g3. I guess I'm a member of school of thought that believes in white playing aggressively and occupying the center.
I have played 1. g3 for some 20 years now OTB, and this made me laugh! We all have our chess opinions, but in the Fritz Powerbook 2007 (an opening book based on the highest level GM games), 1. g3 scores better than 1. e4. (55% vs 54%, while d4 and c4 each score 56% ).
Realistically, I suspect that the variance is more than 1%, and that they are all ...[text shortened]... e bottom line is that these are all single moves, and we still have to play the game!
Paul
06 Jun 10
Originally posted by clandarkfireI know exactly where you are coming from on that. When I play 1. g3, I pray for people to occupy the center like a King's Indian or Modern reversed, and I cringe when people play conservatively with e5, d5, Nc6 and Nf6.
I guess when I think of people that play 1.g3, I think of the people I face that play it, and virtually all of them pretty much just play a reversed pirc without making any attempt at gaining any initiative. Obviously, this doesn't speak for everyone who plays 1.g3. I guess I'm a member of school of thought that believes in white playing aggressively and occupying the center.
I've had reasonable success with c4 against it, offering to transpose into an Sicilian Dragon-reversed style English, or into a reversed Schmid Benoni if black pushes ...d4 in response, but fortunately I don't see it very often.
(I should interpolate here that a reversed Schmid Benoni is effectively a Reti, before somebody else rightfully burns me in a post!)
There are ways for White to play aggressively against it, but it's still a tough nut to crack. It's sort of like facing the Petroff as white or the French Exchange as black.
As a side note, your post really makes me think that our opinions of openings really is greatly influenced by what we see in our own games and in our local areas. I live in Florida in the US, and below USCF Elo 2000, there are lots of 1. e4 players, and lots of 1. ... c5 players, but all the e4 guys play the Closed Sicilian! It's as though the closed is the main line Sicilian, and all the open variants are little more than interesting sidelines that seldom see the light of day in tournaments!
06 Jun 10
1.e4 c5 2. any plan that does not involve a d4 is now global.
It makes perfect sense to cross a booked up Open Sicilian player
and steer the game into an English reversed 1.c4 e5 a cold tempo up.
1.g3 is a handy ways of cutting down on your opening prep
and avoiding Black's favoured defence v 1.e4 and 1.d4.
But somehow I cannot help feeling it's a waste of the White pieces
and Black has equalised without playing a move.
I've often played 1...g6 and enjoyed the fun, but 1.g3...?
I did tamper for a while with 1. g3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 going for a
kind of tricky-dicky Scandinavian a hot tempo up (as opposed to a cold
tempo mentioned earlier). But it needs Black to hold the d-pawn with c5
for the real fun to begin and also 1...e5.
I've always felt sorry the 1.g3 players King Bishop.
It has never sacced on f7 or h7 and to me it always appears gloomy
sitting there on g2.
It does not have the same reputation as the Black King's Bishop,
the mighty Dragon Bishop. It's the shy one of the KB's twins.
06 Jun 10
I don't think 'looking cool' is the main criteria for playing a chess move.
I may be mistaken, but I have yet to see a Karpov annotation;
"I played this because it looked cool."
However, I'll grant you that there is something of an elegant nature
in a fianchetoed Bishop but perhaps 'looking cool' is not the correct term.
Morphy, the coolest of all the dudes, thought weakening your pawn
structure and taking two moves to develop a Bishop was 'uncool'.
06 Jun 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34The same can be said of 1.f4
1.g3 is a handy ways of cutting down on your opening prep
and avoiding Black's favoured defence v 1.e4 and 1.d4.
It can be played when White (The Birds Opening)
It can be played when Black (The Dutch Defence)
The only problem is if you are black and they play 1. e4. So you better have a fall-back opening in that case.
There is the natural 1. e4 c5 Sicillian defence. By 'natural' I mean it shares some idealogical similarity with the Birds opening.
However: I am not an expert at the Sicillian defence or at chess in general. Therefore I am most probably talking out one of my less wholesome orifices
06 Jun 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34I can't understand how you seriously think this:
I've always felt sorry the 1.g3 players King Bishop.
It has never sacced on f7 or h7 and to me it always appears gloomy
sitting there on g2.
It does not have the same reputation as the Black King's Bishop,
the mighty Dragon Bishop. It's the shy one of the KB's twins.
is better than this:
What is the difference? Both players have a bishop controlling 2 centre squares
and 2 border squares, they are on the longest diagonals, and both attack the
queenside. Only white is generally a move up, so if there is a significant difference,
then it certainly favours the white bishop.
06 Jun 10
Originally posted by orion25Black's bishop has a target: the White king.
I can't understand how you seriously think this:
[fen]6k1/5pbp/6p1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1[/fen]
is better than this:
[fen]8/8/8/8/8/6P1/5PBP/6K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]
What is the difference? Both players have a bishop controlling 2 centre squares
and 2 border squares, they are on the longest diagonals, and both attack the
queenside. Only white is gene ...[text shortened]... move up, so if there is a significant difference,
then it certainly favours the white bishop.