Anderssen's opening: best lines

I wanna discuss here best lines for Anderssen's opening 1.a3 all evaluated around the strict zero.

2nd ply:

1...d5, 1...e5, 1...g6, 1...Nf6, 1...c5

1.a3 d5

3rd ply:

2.Nf6 Zukertort / Indian; 2.d4 QP

1.a3 e5

2.e3 reversed French

1.a3 g6

2.d4 modern defense

1.a3 Nf6

2.d4 Indian

1.a3 c5

2.Nf3; 2.e4 Sicilian; 2.e3

after 1.a3 e5 also e4 looks interesting. The covered b4 square is helpful in a reversed open game, B shouldn't get too excited. No reversed spanish for example,and after 1.a3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Nf3(reversed 2KD)the usual Ng5?! looks very dubious too. It's nice to see how that little pawn changes matter. As a response 1.a3 d5 looks annoying, after 2.d4 c4?! might be suboptimal (can W try to defend tha extra pawn? ) but apart for that i don't think a3 is very helpful. 

I have seen several interesting games coming out of a3.

Jacques, U are welcome!

Yeah, in 1.a3 e5 2.e4, 1.a3 can be considered as anti- reversed Ruy Lopez. It seems that after 1.a3 d5 2.e6  the QG 2...c4 is still good. Otherwise, 1.a3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nf3 e6 4.c4 is good too.

I am a big fan of 1.a3.

Against 1...e4 I like to play a reversed Scandinavian 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3

Against 1...d4 I go a bit crazy and start off with a reversed Englund gambit 2.e4 and if black plays 2...dxe4 I go for a reversed Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit with 3.d3. Hopefully that should get the opponent well out of his memorised book.

Against 1...c5 I would gambit with 2.b4

Surprisingly, most of my opponents have answered 1.a3 with 1...g6 I assume their thinking is: If I am playing cagey by not showing my hand in the centre then so will they. Against 1...g6 I play 2.h5!? Just because the opening looks so outrageous. After 1.e4 g6 I would also consider 2.h4 and against 1.g3 I would also play 1...h5 as black. The dread of any player of a fianchetto opening must be to see the rook's pawn hurtling towards them, so why not put the fear of God into them right from the start?

It's true that many of my games don't fully utilise 1.a3 by steering the game into a reversed opening where the pawn on a3 is beneficial, but as long as I get the opponent out of his book and get into variation I'm familiar with, that's good enough for me.

Here's a sample from some old games I've played against 1...g6

MalReid, thanx a lot for your interesting message. I'll answer later today, a bit busy right now.

A while ago I was thinking of using the Anderssen's Opening to achieve a favorable black defense, where the pawn on a3 is irritating.

After 1.a3 e5 probably a good option for White would be to go for a reversed Sicilian with 2.c4 as a3 can be useful in many open Sicilian variations.

Yigor, You may not like my idea of playing 2.h4 against 1...g6 and I wouldn't blame you for that. It's a 'fault' of mine that I cannot resist playing freak looking openings, and there is nothing wrong with your idea of 1.a3 g6 2.d4 but I'd like to offer the following as a possible alternative plan for White. I don't see any immediate way for Black to refute it - see what you think.

1.a3 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6

3...c5 4.b4 d6 5.bxc5 dxc5 6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.Rb1 This looks about equal to me.

3...e5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bc4 Nge7 6.0–0 0–0 7.d3 White has nothing to fear here.

4.Bc4 

Now that Black has played ...d3, White can bring out his bishop, as to shut it out with ...c6 and ...d5 results in a loss of tempo (the d-pawn moves twice). Also, the move 1.a3 has allocated a bolt hole for whites bishop if it's attacked by pawns or knights. If Black tries to block out the bishop with pawns on c6, d5 and e6, this is hardly a normal Pirc formation, and therefore the territory becomes unfamiliar to the ordinary ...g6 player.

4...Nf6 5.d3 

Both White bishops have good diagonals, and White has at his disposal a number of plans: his f-pawn is not blocked by a knight, so he may choose to play pawn to f4 and f5 at some stage. He may also castle on either side.

White should not go for: 5.d4?! Nxe4 6.Nxe4 d5

5...0–0 6.Bg5 c6 7.Nge2 

7...d5

7...b5 8.Ba2 Nbd7 9.Qd2 Qc7 10.0–0 a5 11.d4 looks like equal chances to me.

8.exd5 cxd5 9.Bxf6 Bxf6

9...dxc4 10.Bxg7 Kxg7 11.dxc4 Nc6 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Nd5 b5 (13...e6 14.Ne3 e5 15.f4±) 14.cxb5 Rxd5 15.bxc6 Rd6 (15...Rc5 16.0–0–0 Rxc6 17.Rd8 e5±) 16.c7 Rd7 17.Nc3±

White can now simply win a pawn.

10.Bxd5 Bxc3+ 11.Nxc3

recapturing and guarding the bishop.

This is only a first, quick draft, so I'd be interested if yourself or others can identify any major faults. There could be plenty of scope for improvement and experimentation.

After 1.a2 d5 2.d4 if Black normally plays the Queens Gambit as white, they may be tempted to play 2...c5

In the Queens Gambit Accepted Black doesn't normally try to keep the pawn, as he often just loses time and weakens his q-side. The analysis goes something like this:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 b5? 4.a4 c6 5.e3 Bb7 (5...Qb6 6.axb5 cxb5 7.b3 Nf6 (7...cxb3 8.Qxb3 Bd7 9.Ne5 e6 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Bxb5) 8.bxc4 bxc4 9.Bxc4) 6.axb5 cxb5 7.b3 with a better game for white.

However, in the reversed situation, with the extra move 1.a3, could white take the pawn and then play b4 threatening to hang on to it?

Here are a few computer generated variations:

1.a3 d5 2.d4 c5 3.dxc5 Nf6 4.b4

4...a5 5.Bb2 b6 6.e4

6.cxb6 Qxb6 7.Nd2 Nc6 8.Ngf3 axb4 9.axb4 Rxa1 10.Qxa1 Nxb4 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qa8+ Qd8 13.Qxd8+ Kxd8 14.Ne5 Be8 15.c3 Nc6 16.f4 =

6.b5 bxc5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.e3 c4 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nfd2 Qc7 11.Nxc4 e5 12.Nc3 =

6...axb4

6...dxe4 7.Qxd8+ (7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.Qxd7+ Kxd7 +/=) 7...Kxd8 8.cxb6 axb4 9.axb4 Rxa1 10.Bxa1 e6 11.b5 Nbd7 +/=

6...bxc5 7.e5 Ng8 8.bxc5 e6 9.c4 Bxc5 10.cxd5 Ne7 11.Qc2 +/=

7.e5

7.exd5 Qxd5 8.cxb6 Nbd7 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bb5 e6 11.Nf3 N5xb6 12.0–0 =

7...Ne4 8.axb4 Rxa1 9.Bxa1 bxc5

9...e6 10.g3 Qc7 11.Bb2 bxc5 12.f3 Qb6 (12...c4 13.fxe4 Bxb4+ 14.c3 Bc5 15.Ba3 =) 13.b5 c4 14.fxe4 Bc5 15.Nh3 Qxb5 16.Qc1 0–0 17.exd5 exd5 18.Nf4 Re8 19.Bg2 Nc6 20.Nc3 =

10.f3 Ng5 11.Nc3 d4

11...cxb4 12.Nxd5 e6 13.Nf4 +/=

12.Nb5 Nc6 13.f4 Ne4 14.Bd3 Bf5 =

I don't claim to understand what's going on in all these variations. All uncharted territory.

Probably most players have never had 1.a3 played against them, So, A valid question could be: What if Black hasn't a clue what to do, and just returns the buck by playing 1...a6. 

Obviously 2.e4 and 2.d4 are good replies, but another option could be to play 2.h3. This would keep your opponent guessing, and confused. Perhaps followed by 3.c4.

The moves a3 and h3 represent a 'universal opening' which can be played against virtually anything, and is more sound than you'd think. Do a database search for games by Michael Basman. He was a British International Master who played these moves, and often played irregular variations to save himself the trouble of memorizing heaps of theory for the standard openings.

The fact that he managed to become an Internation Master by playing many unorthodox variations proves that unorthodox opening can win games at a high level - If you know what you're doing ??

If you don't have a database, a good online place to download games is ChessLab.

Of course. Chess is not a simple game, and a creative idea more poisonous than a dogmatic banality. 

On the other side, the fact that 99% of titled players play conventional stuff in 99% of their games (well after all this is why conventional stuff is called conventional ;)) also means something.

It's quite hard to think that 1.a3 is worse than equal. After all B has good equalizing prospects in the initial position and an extra move is unlikely to hurt. Instead, it might open unexplored orizons.

After 1.a3 d5 2.d4 c5(soon or later, if he wants to go for an advantage, B has to play this) dxc5 is interesting(thanks for the analysis) as well as 3.c3!? trasposing to an a6 slav a tempo up. B has probably to avoid surrending material with cxd4.

1.a3 e5 2.e4 and black is without the reversed Ruy, probably a reversed scotch is the best idea. Again hardly W is worse. He also has 2.c4, a sicilian with a very useful extra a3 inserted.

This is nice and interesting, but doesn't attracts me to 1.a3 (Not as a main weapon. I sometimes play it in casual games)

B has countless ways to make the game very dull (just as W is the starting position), countless possible answers, the best practical chances. If B avoids the variations which make a3 most useful is W the one needing precision to equalize.

And playing the less forcing move on the board is really a good way to minimize the time spent in studying theory?

Here is a brief look at how play could go after 1.a3 e5.

1.a3 e5 2.e4

White can transpose into a variation of the Polish (also known as the Sokolsky or Orangutan) Opening with 2.b4. The Polish almost fits into the unorthodox class of openings, but is sometimes played by strong players. Thought this variation is probably not the best. after 1.b4 e5 more common is 2.b5 or 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 rather than 2.a3.

2...Nf6

Black can play 2...f5 with a reversed King's Gambit where the pawn on a3 probably will have no significant.

3.Nc3 We have now transposed into the Mengarini Opening.

I don't think the pawn on a3 would have any benefit with a reversed Latvian 3.f4.

3.d4!? a reversed Elephant Gambit.

3...Nc6

3...d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 (An aggressive line for Black could be a reversed Goring Gambit. 4...c6!?) 5.Qh5! White is playing the Steinitz line against the Scotch, with the promising pawn sacrifice ...Nb4 ruled out by the a3 pawn. 5...Nc6 6.Bb5 equal - Rybka4.

3...Bc5 is possibly not best as White can hit the bishop at any time with b4. 4.Nf3 d6 5.h3 0-0 6.Bc4 equal according to Rybka4.

4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb5 d4 6.Ne2 Qd6 7.0–0

7.d3 is also playable.

Myers says 7.Ng3?! is 'premature because it takes the pressure off d4'.

7...Bg4

if 7...Be7 Myers suggests 8.d3 followed by c3 or 8.Nexd4 exd4 9.e5.

7...Nxe4?! 8.Re1 threatening Nxe5 and nexd4.

8.Ng3 g6 9.d3 Bg7 =

Interesting, i haven't thought about that. a3 turns out to be useful against the scotch as well.

After 1.a3 d5 the move 2.d4 is obviously okay, but I thought I'd have a look at 2.Nc3. Play can go in many directions such as:

2...e5 (reversed Nimzovitch Defence)

2...c5 3.Nf3 3.d5 Ne4 (reversed Two Knights Tango)

2...Nf6

But a move liked by chess engines, and one which would also be tempting to a human, is kicking the knight with 2...d4  

The first reply which sprang to mind was 3.Na2?! (utilising the 1.a3 move). 

This position looks outrageous (If Fischer was alive today, he'd turn in his grave.), but I was wondering (hoping), It would be nice if such an hidious position was playable for white, but, not surprisingly, initial tests suggest otherwise. Here is a game where Rybka4 got slaughtered as white in a long game (40 moves in 2 hours). 

The alternative 3.Ne4 seems perfectly okay white. This has been played with colours reversed by Mikenas (1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5) and Van Geet (1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 Nf6). I give here a (first draft) few lines generated with the help of Rybka4, which I eventually plan to fine tune and integrate into my repertoire.

Here's a crazy idea for white: after 1.a3 g6 play 2.g4 a delayed Grob.

Here's some variations I've dreamt up (n a nightmare). Feel free to insult them if you wish.

2...Nf6?! 

a) 2...Bg7 3.g5 d6 4.d4 c6 (4...a6 Anderssen's delayed Grob against Yigor's Supermodern Fortress. The match of the century.) 5.Bg2 Qb6 6.Nf3 Bf5 (6...Bg4 7.Nbd2 Nd7 8.Nc4) 7.h4 Nd7 8.Nc3 d5 9.h5 gxh5 (9...h6 10.hxg6 Bxg6) 10.Rxh5 e5

b) 2...d6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.c4 Nc6 5.g5 e5 Does black really want to damage his own k-side with moves like 5...h6 or 5...f6. how does he continue his development? His Knight on g8 can't move. (5...Bf5 6.h4 e5) 6.h4

3.g5 Nh5

Play can now continue along more 'normal' opening lines. It's true that white's k-side has some damage, but the black knight is on the rim and black will have suffered serious psychological damage, having been confronted by white's first three 'insulting' moves and being so early lost in unexplored territory. 4.d4 Bg7 

All looks like crazy play by white, but can black easily refute it? Show me some variations.

Some of you may be wondering if I'm really a 'serious' chess player.

LoL I like the following line:

Or maybe supermodern Grob against supermodern fortress!!

We're breaking new grounds here. Pushing back (or pulling forward) the boundaries of modern chess opening theory. I bet Kasparov wishes he has access to this when he played Deep Blue.