This may be obviously wrong but hear me out.
You may say a3 is just wasting a move. And you would be completely correct. Let's say that black plays something straightforward like e5 in reply. Would you just then play c4 in reply. You would just be playing the Sicilian Defence with the white pieces.
After playing a3, couldn't you just pretend you are black. It is like your playing black, but you have a3 already out. This helps save a tempo (kinda) if you end up playing a sort of reverse najdorf. I also find it helpful when playing the (reverse) slav defence as it lets me set up a large queenside pawn chain.
Maybe I just have no idea what I am talking about but could somebody good at chess reply and tell me if I am right or wrong? For me, it works reasonably well, but I am playing against 1400 rated players.
It's "bad" because you are effectively giving up your advantage as White. You are correct that it virtually allows you to play as Black on a mirror-imaged board, but giving away the advantage as White is not something to take too lightly.
However, it is a fantastic move to play psychological games with your opponent - especially if you are more familiar with playing on a mirror-imaged board.
This may be obviously wrong but hear me out.
You may say a3 is just wasting a move. And you would be completely correct. Let's say that black plays something straightforward like e5 in reply. Would you just then play c4 in reply. You would just be playing the Sicilian Defence with the white pieces.
After playing a3, couldn't you just pretend you are black. It is like your playing black, but you have a3 already out. This helps save a tempo (kinda) if you end up playing a sort of reverse najdorf. I also find it helpful when playing the (reverse) slav defence as it lets me set up a large queenside pawn chain.
Maybe I just have no idea what I am talking about but could somebody good at chess reply and tell me if I am right or wrong? For me, it works reasonably well, but I am playing against 1400 rated players.