No. Just develop natuarally and actively and you will have an equal game. That's all you can ask for as Black
Defense against 1. e3 (Maarten van 't Kruijs)
well you can play the dutch now without having to face the staunton gambit. yeah you are right they are really tricky, i fall into the same trap playing e5 instead of c5 against c3

Um, you can play 1...f5 and won't face the Staunton Gambit, but instead you might have to deal with the From :)

I just started a game on another site where I played 1...f5 against it and was faced with a strange g4!? I decided to take and then after d4 I concluded that all 1. e3 players are crazy. ( Being that this is the interenet I have to add: I jest, that was a joke and I'm sure there is a variation where you don't take the pawn and just go to screw up their center. Can't wait to hear about it!)

I also went to the dutch against e3 and had quite good games. Actually I play d6 first then g6, Bg7, then Nd7 or f5 and castle short and that's it. I have the choice to play Na6 regarding the threats on c5 and d5 that further development of white can generate. I took inspiration on the DVD of Nigel Davis on d6 to accomplish quite a simple but solid shema.
Sure it is somehow tricky to find the right balance between active play and security :)
Thx for the comments !
I play the Keoni-Hiva Gambit with 1.e3. The moves are 1.e3 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 (or Nc6)
3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 and proceed to sac the e & d pawns for an kingside attack. If Black
takes all 3 pawns then White will have a fantastic attack on the Black kingside.See diagram.
See my article at Chessville in my column called "The Search for Dragons & Mythical
Chess Openings". The article on the Keoni-Hiva Gambit.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
Just about anything you can think of will work against 1. e3. Just plain lame is the proper description, although I wouldn't necessarily underestimate it. It really makes no particular demands of the 2nd player, and whatever your favorite setup is vs. other closed openings will get you through . Most people using that are probably intending to put their B on c4, Q on h5 or f3 and checkmate you on f7. Not worth much thought.
Hello,
is there a correct defense against 1. e3 ? I.E. is there a way to constraint white development into a reduce number of schemas ?
=> I know that the question could sound ridiculous, however, after 1. e3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 it is a good way to go on a Gruenfeld with g6 and Bg7 if possible. But 2. c4 is also possible or 2. g3 (?!) ..., or 2. f4
So the question: is there a good plan to force somehow white development (to a maximum of 2 or 3 opening schema (e.g. Gruenfeld, QG))
Thanks for answers!