Possible justification of playing 1. e3 as white

Here is a possible justification of playing 1. e3 as white. In a specific scenario, if your opponent never plays 1. e4 as white and you have at least a pretty good understanding of 1. e4 1.e5 positions (and fine with a few transpositions to the QG or English as white), you could play this to throw your opponent off. Since your opponent wouldn't play e4 as white and if you have solid experience in e4 e5 positions I assume you could take advantage of this considering your theoretical opponent never plays e4 as white. If your opponent plays 1. d5 then you just achieve a normal position. It's also helpful if you are experienced in the Queens Gambit as white and want to have a possible opportunity to throw your opponent off their game with a reverse e4 e5 position. (There are also positions that can transpose into b3 positions with this opening and many top games have started with e3.) Thoughts?

All of this looks relatively sound for White, the problem is E5 as a response. It basically almost equalizes for Black. Instead of E4 after E5, I was immediately thinking about playing D4, the engine thinks it's the best move as well. E4 gives Black the chance to equalize and tiny edge, but apparently if you let the engine think for a while the position is completely fine for White after D4. I'll also be playing E3 now lol

if you play 1. e3 you might transpose to the Colle or a French if you want but that sounds like total nonsense to me

What if you really wanted to play black and so after 1. e3 e5 you play 2. e4 

That would be interesting to see

i once beat the life master who trained me with 1.c3 d5  2.c4 before i knew openings.

Nimzovich regularly opened 1 e3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066890 

Total garbage and hogwash!  You do not play an opening with the expectation of tricking the opponent.  Wrong way to learn chess.  People are smarter than you think!

1.e3 d5 2.d4, Black can play 2...c5 instead of 2...Nf6 to take advantage of White's slow play.  Also, after your 2...Nf6 3.c4, thank you for not developing your Bishop.  No pressure on the dark squares and no threat to trade off my good Bishop.

Also possible is 1...Nf6, which you do not account for, staying Flexible!

And then for anyone that plays 1.e4, They can play 1...e5! And after you 2.e4, THANK YOU for letting me go first with Black!  Now I have the slight advantage that you SHOULD have for having the White pieces!

The only positive thing I can say about 1.e3 is that it has not been refuted!  Other than that, 1.e3 is hot garbage!

did you even read the OP?

sometimes it's better to read what others think rather than posting an uneducated guess

In more seriousness than my above post, I definitely wouldn't call 1. e3 "hot garbage." It's just an equal chess opening, like the Nimzo-Larsen or the Orangutan or the KIA or whatever and you won't lose because of it (altho if you're a master you might struggle getting any advantage as white consistently).

Say like 1. e3 d5 2. c4 first of all, that seems reasonable esp for someone like me who has sometimes played 1. Nf3 2. c4 or 1. Nf3 d5 2. e3 and 3. c4. I'd play this, but you could also play 2. d4 and transpose into a Colle, or of course 2. Nf3 would transpose into a position I've played before pretty often.  

1. e3 e5 and you have a choice. You can play 2. d4 and now black should probably take it (since 2...e4 3. c4 is nice), after which we transpose into an Exchange French which is equal but some players like to play this opening. Or you can play 2. c4 and that's a type of English, or 2. b3 and that's a type of Larsen.  

1...Nf6 is flexible but so was 1. e3, so white can play any of 2. b3, 2. Nf3, 2. d4 or 2. c4 with an equal position and then play positional chess.

I know not much of the book was about 1. e3 per se, but there's a reason "e3 Poison" was a thing. It's not a bad idea. No it's not ambitious but "the position is not equal if the players are not equal." And if you want to take your opp out of prep and just play a chess game based on understanding I actually think you could do a lot worse than 1. e3. 

Also food for thought: the game of chess clearly ends in a draw with best play after 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. Nf3, 1. c4 etc and 1. e3 is the same. So that being the case, I've often considered that maybe the entire concept of "advantage" is subjective (because someday in the far-off future there could exist 32 piece tablebases and such) and maybe it's just all a question of putting practical pressure on the opponent and making them find good moves consistently until, after enough errors, it becomes winning. Which is what chess should be all about anyway: outplaying the opponent from a chess position.  

Yes, white could just play 1.e3 2.d4, then simply continue to develop, with natural moves. It can go into e3 Queen's Gambit structures. Or the Colle. Or perhaps a Reversed French.

It's the old-school Carlsen approach. Play a rather benign opening ... just to develop your pieces. Then relentlessly improve your position, move by move, until your opponent is, inevitably, lost.

(Of course, "Play like Carlsen!" is much easier said than done. )

Speaking of bad openings, remember when everyone feared the grob’s attack for like no reason back in 2010? Good time

People at class level play sharp positions because it gives them chances to play for a win, since there's a lot of crazy stuff going on, their opps don't know the theory, and maybe they will get a tactical shot or something that opp misses

But at GM level there's an argument (demonstrated by Magnus as you said) for playing quiet lines for a win, even if they're equal. Because a lot of times sharp lines get worked out to draws and these guys actually do know all the theory, or the other guy never miscalculates because he's also super strong. So you instead try to use *understanding* as your primary weapon to play for a win. 

maybe e3 e5 and d4?

After studying Nimzowitsch's My System I played 1.e3 for a little while, my idea was 1...e5 2.c4 and 1...d5 2.Nf3 with 3.b3. But I gave it up when 2000-2100 players consistently answered with the King's Indian. 1.e3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b3 Bg7 4.Bb2 d6 and I could never get anything from this setup as white. This sort of cat-and-mouse opening makes more sense if black grabs the center with 1...d5 or 1...e5, but any hypermodern black defense makes it pointless.

1.b3 is a tiny bit better against the KID because white doesn't have to play e2-e3. Instead g2-g3 is the way Larsen used to do it. It's also not much but at least you are still white.

i agree... the only value i see in 1.e3 is transposing to a nimzo-larsen, reverse french or hippo but then why give black options?

better to play 1.Nf3 for a flexible opening.    🙂

I actually like the dynamic of a white queenside fianchetto, against black's kingside fianchetto. Both bishops are fated to clash, one way or another. The fight for the long diagonal. It's good fun - opens possibilities for a lot of interesting tactics.

Nothing wrong with white's position here.

Here's a possible continuation:

With a lot of play and ideas for both sides.

when i play e3, it's a mouse slip.

if you are a 700-900 rated player and you see e3 on move one, you know that the wayward queen attack is coming