The system 1.e3 2.Nf3 and 3. b3 is OK too against most black first 3 moves. 1.e3 is legitimate and perfectly OK (a center pawn is moved freeing a bishop), its just not very ambitious. By the same logic 1.d3 is OK too.
Could 1.e3 be a legitamate opening?
Sort:
TheMouse wrote:
White aims for an advantage out of the opening.
Black aims for equality out of the opening.
With 1 e3 White throws away most of his chances to gain an advantage.
Usually, but not always. I recall Miles playing stuff like 1. c4, followed by 2.Qc2. He just wanted to get an out of book position and he figured he could outplay his opponent in the middlegame and/or endgame. Chess is a very psychological game. Lasker once said a slightly inferior position forces you to fight hard, while a slightly superior position can make you complacent. Therefore its better to have an inferior position!?
It is the Van Kruijs opening, and if followed by a few distinct pawn moves can be effective.
It is if you're playing Black.
WestofHollywood wrote:
TheMouse wrote:
White aims for an advantage out of the opening.
Black aims for equality out of the opening.
With 1 e3 White throws away most of his chances to gain an advantage.
Usually, but not always. I recall Miles playing stuff like 1. c4, followed by 2.Qc2. He just wanted to get an out of book position and he figured he could outplay his opponent in the middlegame and/or endgame. Chess is a very psychological game. Lasker once said a slightly inferior position forces you to fight hard, while a slightly superior position can make you complacent. Therefore its better to have an inferior position!?
I know what you mean, but I think a better idea would be to just always be alert and trying hard; that way your hard work will perhaps lead to more than just you equalizing out of a difficult position 
Kasparov played this in a couple of games against Deep Blue, but I don't think he did great.
Edit: Or maybe I am wrong, I can't find the games.
Any opening is a legitimate opening (if you're talking about just the first move). Hypermodern players came along and showed that the common rules of the day didn't need to be adhered to (not control center with pawns, but with attacks by pieces). Don't be afraid of unorthodox openings and/or hypermodern play; it could end up being the new chess revolution. Just make sure to play with the opening a lot first with decent players before playing it in a tournament. If after 50 unrated games online, you still lose, just go back to your original opening.
1. e3 isn't an opening so much as an evasion: an effort to "pass" in chess, allowing Black to make an aggressive move and then respond to it.
And the ida of playing a reverse Fromm's Gambit might work, unless Black then plays 2. e5, going into a reverse King's gambit...
Lasker pointed out the following unique position after 1.e3 e5 2.e4 should be playable for White.
As some earlier posters mentioned, I'm pretty sure Kasparov tried it against Deep Blue once to avoid its opening book.
Fezzik wrote:
What did Van't Kruij do to deserve having a first move named after him? Did he write a deep explanation? Did he win some major tournaments? I have no clue who this person is, yet he gets a first move named after him? It doesn't make sense to me.
...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=93243
http://www.endgame.nl/Kruijs.htm
Nimzowitch had a several e3 games:
i consider 1.e3 a mistake by white,
This is because plans involving e3 usually involve a d4 or f4, so why not just play d4 or f4 first?
1. e3 is perfectly playable. It is something to try when you know you cannot go head to head with someone in a highly tactical opening. Sometimes White wants to play defense from the start and try to lure his opponent into a stumble. I have had success against masters with 1. c3, which is even more "antitheory" than 1. e3. The idea is to try to create an oddball blockaded position where the "better" player may go wrong. See the book "Baroque Chess."
Tony Miles was an interesting character, but not a good role model for up-and-coming chess players. You pretty much have to be a GM to play his oddball anti-opening repertoire and get away with it for long.
One thing I always do when met by some crackpotty nonsense is to play a basic Sicilian Dragon setup and wait to see where White slips up. 1. e3 c5 threatens cxd4 if White plays 2. d4--giving a c/e-pawn exchange and the semi-open c-file to Black. If something else on move 2, then Nf6, g6/Bg7...etc. Two can play this waiting game.
1.e3 pretty much throws away most of white's cutting-edge, go for the throat chances. But it's certain to keep open a number of perfectly playable, game-of-chess type secondary chances that are playable even at the highest levels. Depending on black's reply, 2.b3, 2.c4, 2.d4, or 2.f4 should give white plenty of scope to continue playing without being in a hole.
Now, that's certainly not the best news you could hear as white, but it's not the end of the world, either.
NO!! e3 is passive and for pre-pubescent girls.
Fezzik wrote:
White has a playable position after 1.e3, and so GMs use it occasionally to get a player out of book, or to play Black!
For instance 1.e3 d5 2.d3 e5 3.d4!! is a great opening!
Yeah obviously the White is trying to get a French with reversed colours on the board, but I think against me you would probably see 1. ...Nf6 in response to 1.e3.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
WestofHollywood wrote:
TheMouse wrote:
White aims for an advantage out of the opening.
Black aims for equality out of the opening.
With 1 e3 White throws away most of his chances to gain an advantage.
Usually, but not always. I recall Miles playing stuff like 1. c4, followed by 2.Qc2. He just wanted to get an out of book position and he figured he could outplay his opponent in the middlegame and/or endgame. Chess is a very psychological game. Lasker once said a slightly inferior position forces you to fight hard, while a slightly superior position can make you complacent. Therefore its better to have an inferior position!?
Nah.... this is bs. Everyone tries their best when they go into a match, how can you say you want a slightly inferior position? A better position will help you win more games. On the lower levels, it mightn't make much difference, but you will still statistically win slightly more. Don't second-guess yourself about how you're going to "feel" after this move, but after another move you'll feel this other way and so play this way..... both versions of you are just trying to play good chess and would like to win as much as possible.
Emanuel Lasker also said: "When you see a good move, look for a better one".... which I also don't believe and at least one GM has also criticized this. When you see a good move you should play it, unless you suspect there are better moves.
It won't matter if you say: "oh, I play e3 so I'm not complacent and then go into the rest room for ten minutes so I will force myself to be conscious of time and put off my opponent and then stare at my opponent".....
What about the opposite argument? Black will say: "He plays 1. e3, Oh god, I would love to punish him for playing that. I would hate to lose against such a bad move". Don't try and assume Black will then get carried away with himself like a child either, he will just open normally and perhaps be extra vigilant. So it works both ways, the idea is really just nonsense.
Fischer said: "I don't believe in psychology in chess" and I tend to believe that. It matters little how much you "try" to win as well assuming it's a serious match you are trying your best anyway.
Just reading on wikipedia now... Lasker seems to have often made moves that were considered "inferior" in his day, but were more hypermodern concepts and using complicated analysis.... so while it might have seemed he violated principles in his time, he didn't violate modern day principles that much and played good chess.
Playing e3 is about the same as playing black, maybe slightly better. 1. a3 is the same as playing as black.
My comment about an inferior position being preferable was somewhat tounge-in-cheek. A lot of lasker's ideas and moves were not bad - he was ahead of his time - but on the other hand he had great success defending (and ultimately winning) truely inferior or even losing positions. There are very strong players who don't play for much or any advantage with white. They just want a playable position so they can use their technique, grind their opponent down, etc. Remember Ulf Anderson? You didn't make the comment about Miles not being a good role model, but I want to comment on it. Miles was a great role model! Until his illness kicked in he had unbelievable fighting spirit and determination. He was one of the best endgame players of all time and a great tactician. He played 99.9% of all his games to win.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
1.e3, the "Van't Kruij's Opening" has never been a common opening move from what I have seen.
However, as I analyze the responses to 1.e3, it seems as if white can play an equal game.
1. e3 f5 is said by wikipedia to give black a slight advantage because of the following sequence 2. d4 Nf6, where White is in a Dutch defense wher e3 is an unhelpful move.
But what about 1. e3 f5 2.e4!?, a reversed From's gambit?
1.e3 d5 2. d4 can become a Colle System or reversed QGD.
1.e3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. exd4 is perfectly playable.
I'm just a humble patzer, so please correct me if this analyisis is flawed.