I like playing the Nimzo Larsen as white because you can get into some nice tactical lines if all goes well. However, all doesn't go well as often as I would like it.

I have a 33% win ratio when playing 1.b3 but a 55% win ratio when playing 1.e4 or 1.d4.  It seems obvious that I should not play 1. b3 but I think I am a little addicted to it as it creeps back every now and then ..any constructive suggestions are most welcome.

Qwit crold terkey.

and the remaining 25% are the unconvicted child molesters?

Hi trotters64--how about some combination of c4, Nf3, and g3?  There's a whole realm of KIA/English setups with a solid reputation and if you throw in d4 like you mentioned, you're back in the Catalan, Queen's Gambit, or any number of Indian defenses.  Think of combining g3 with c4 as the same as combining b3 with f4, except the former will probably offer you higher winning chances.

I saw a  b3 Larsen game in a  book and it was a really nice game and I figured that I was gonna try it.

About a month ago, I finally admitted to myself that I couldn't play Alekhine's defense in a slow time control and call myself a serious person.....it was hard for the first week, but not playing this defense made me realize that these extreme hypermodernist ideas usually just concede tempo and the center, allow a million viable responses, and get very little in exchange. I was running myself ragged trying to keep all of white's possibilities in mind and claw my way to equality from a less than optimal starting position. You're making yourself work a lot harder than you should just because some of the positions you get are dynamic and cool - you really WILL thank yourself if you dump the nimzo larsen and play d4 like a big kid. 

You and I can start a hypermodernists anonymous for chess players who had to quit crappy openings :)

b4 players still aren't allowed in the club though.....screw those guys!

by all means keep 1. b3 as a surprise weapon; just don't use it in situations where you know it won't be effective.

It's always good to have an opening to take an opponent immediately out of book; 1. b3 is a classic for that.

That's certainly a poor reason for it.

If that ratio is representing fairly the fact that you are uncomfortable with the positions that arise from 1.b3 then by all means change it. But the ratio itself is pretty much meaningless.

AlisonHart wrote:

About a month ago, I finally admitted to myself that I couldn't play Alekhine's defense in a slow time control and call myself a serious person.....it was hard for the first week, but not playing this defense made me realize that these extreme hypermodernist ideas usually just concede tempo and the center, allow a million viable responses, and get very little in exchange. I was running myself ragged trying to keep all of white's possibilities in mind and claw my way to equality from a less than optimal starting position. You're making yourself work a lot harder than you should just because some of the positions you get are dynamic and cool - you really WILL thank yourself if you dump the nimzo larsen and play d4 like a big kid. 

 

You and I can start a hypermodernists anonymous for chess players who had to quit crappy openings :)

D4 is an option  for me but e4 offers more attacking chances and is my preferred option if i really must give up 1.b3.

try rehab.

I can do without your opinion thx very much... why dont you concentrate on getting some grandmaster norms instead of cracking wise all the time.

pfren can checkmate a noob with one post.

When did Chuck Norris ever do that ?

Weaning myself off 1. b3

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

 Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,

 Disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage,

 Then lend the eye a terrible aspect,

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250940 - You can sidestep theory !

ASS LICKER.

+1

You are another two bit ass licker who is in deperate need of a personality...grow some balls man and stop licking that failed chess master pfren's ahole.

I wouldn't ever call an International Master a failure at chess.....I have zero IM norms, so I'm going to go ahead and boldly say that pfren did something right.