Sodium Attack (1.Na3)

1.Na3 seems to be a bad opening, but when I played it a several times, it isn't a bad opening after all! Most of the games that I played with this opening is a win. The knight on a3 becomes a good knight after some moves (Mostly about move 15.)

Here is a game with 1.♞a3:

You won because he blundered a piece twice not because of the opening.

True, but the opening isn't bad, right?

Well no opening loses right away, but I certainly think there are better openings. I'm not good enough to judge just how good/bad it is.

Thanks for the advice Scottrf 

Yeah but it's an odd opening because white isn't controlling the center from their first move; the development of the knight is a bit awkward. Besides, we all know 'Knights at the rim are dim.' I don't think white had any kind of early advantage in the game and I would attribute white's win to blundering his rook, not the opening. White isn't using his advantage of going first to control the center before black does.

I suspect if instead of having the black pieces I was allowed white with 1Na3, overall I would do better....but wouldn't choose it as a first move :-)

I don't believe the Nc2 at move 5 is actually good. It has no good square to go to, and defending pawns that don't need to be defended does not make it a good knight.

Na3 happens a lot in the Reti so if you can stear the game into that kind of position you can make it work

This is a four-year-old post?

Although the knight can get to the sqare f4 then nthat is a good knight unless there is a pawn on e5 if you playu out the other knight.

I like it a bit because it throws the opponent off. 

Personally I think you are an irksome little troll who passes comment on things you have absolutely no experience with but here you are right, 1.Na3 is an illogical move.

Then again rather than state it is illogical, have you ever bothered to ask what is it point? I think 1.Na3 suffers against 1...e5 because if you not willing to accept the posiblity of Bxa3 then Nc4 is your only really recourse. Yes you can play 1.Na3 e5 2.b3 but any development of Bishop b1 will cost you a tempo to Bxa3 anyway.

I have not been able to over come 1.Na3 e5 2.Nc4 e4! with any success. I have expermented with 1.Na3 e5 2.Nf3 with the simular idea to Reti's 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3.

So it is interesting to chat with I.M Welling has corresponded with Robert Durkin who stated that Durkin prefered 1.Na3 e5 2.e3.

I like the idea of  1.Nf3 d5 2.Na3 c5 3.c4 d4 4.Ne5! A reverse vulture....So yes, it maybe illogical but there is so much to explore...

Well seen someone bumped this thread.

Consider: What is a 'chess opening'? Whether a series of moves by White or a series of (defensive) moves by Black, an opening follows a predetermined plan? Even poor (to bad) openings have a plan.

Take the 1.g4 instant. What is it's plan? To intended to gambit the g pawn for an attack along the g2-b7 diagonal to possibly win the exchange. If the gambit is not accepted, the plan then is to expand on the king's side King's Indian style (if Grob's own games are anything to go by). So 1.g4 as a plan behind it. Whether it is a good plan is a debate for another thread. The point is it has a plan.

What is the plan behind 1.Na3? The really isn't one. If you check out Durkin's booklet on 1.Na3, you will see for instance that he favored a number of replies after 1.Na3 e5, these include 2.e3 , 2.b3, 2.d4 and rarely 2.Nc4. It would seem that Durkin himself used a broad base of plans to 1.....e5

The question then becomes how is 1. Na3 called an opening? Isn't it an attack, given the number of plans available to White to the numerous 1st moves by Black??

Hadron - 

Well seen someone bumped this thread.

Consider: What is a 'chess opening'? Whether a series of moves by White or a series of (defensive) moves by Black, an opening follows a predetermined plan? Even poor (to bad) openings have a plan.

Take the 1.g4 instant. What is it's plan? To intended to gambit the g pawn for an attack along the g2-b7 diagonal to possibly win the exchange. If the gambit is not accepted, the plan then is to expand on the king's side King's Indian style (if Grob's own games are anything to go by). So 1.g4 as a plan behind it. Whether it is a good plan is a debate for another thread. The point is it has a plan.

What is the plan behind 1.Na3? The really isn't one. If you check out Durkin's booklet on 1.Na3, you will see for instance that he favored a number of replies after 1.Na3 e5, these include 2.e3 , 2.b3, 2.d4 and rarely 2.Nc4. It would seem that Durkin himself used a broad base of plans to 1.....e5

The question then becomes how is 1. Na3 called an opening? Isn't it an attack, given the number of plans available to White to the numerous 1st moves by Black??

is not right

sodium is interesting

If discussions on something left of center offends you so much, just why did you take the time out of your mundane existence to bother to comment?

You haven't found a parade to rain over lately so you thought "Hey, that will do"?

So, I guess my first question would be, "You keep a count of the "I play nonsense" threads?....

No, of course you don't, not even you are that banal so a better first question would be who mentions anything about blitz and bullet on this thread?....oh wait....that would be you. 

I believe our american friends have a turn of phrase for such: Fake news.

Robert J Durkin was no slug at the chess board and rose to master strength on the back of playing 1.Na3 largely against all comers. One notable victim was Weaver Adams whom Durkin beat 3 times with 1.Na3. Another notable American user of 1.Na3 was Theodore A Dunst. 

But you being you, I think I can guess what you thinking here....."He hasn't mentioned any modern names of note".....and you would be right but if I must, Gerard Welling (2395) has used it and so has Simon Williams (2513) and neither of these games where bullet, blitz or even rapid either.

Your last question "Does that mean  it's good " because a G.M beats a lower G.M with a nonsense opening (as you put it) ? All I can say is, what a Black and White perspective on things you have.

1.h4 & 2.h5 are only opening moves (much as 1.Na3) and I don't think you can say anything is good or bad at that stage. Unless you can read minds how on earth do you know what Black is going to play? Simply put, no matter how many chess engines you back yourself up with or no matter how awesome you think you are, you can't.  No more, no less.

Finally, I have been of the opinion for a long time now that most of the bulls*t that appears on chess related forums largely (but not all) stems from the use of terms (like ' isn't a bad opening after all') and how people read something into them what is not there. An opening that is said to be not a bad opening is NOT automatically a good opening. Chess is not a game of black and white concepts (except maybe for the pieces themselves).

Oh right, that reminds me... I remember hearing a lot of that from you.