chess game online

Chess Game Online

Participate and you will find!
Funny name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
da_chess_dawg 15 ( +1 | -1 )
How about this 4 an opener When i first started playing chess i always started with e4, lately however i have been using e3. Which one is better?
divine_sun_cat 1 ( +1 | -1 )
better g4 is best
halfpast_yellow 4 ( +1 | -1 )
. Why are you using e3, and what made you change?
da_chess_dawg 7 ( +1 | -1 )
i use e3 so i dont have to go thru the ritual of avoiding the 3 step checkmate
brobishkin 18 ( +1 | -1 )
Interesting... The "3 step mate" opening usually leads to a weak position for the opening phase of the game... I would love for a player to open with that opening in any tournament...

Bro...
brobishkin 8 ( +1 | -1 )
Addition to last reply... The weak position for the opponent playing the "3 step mate" opening that is...
mormel12 6 ( +1 | -1 )
or is it that you like to play with black?
greetings
ccmcacollister 72 ( +1 | -1 )
Dawg just has a very PRACTICAL APPROACH to the game (& think I see where you're coming from on this). Just by switching to 1.e3 he no longer has to watch over the f2 square. Leaving more time to focus on the other 63 squares ! If move 2 safeguards another then there's but 62 left to deal with. SO to that end I'd like to suggest 2.Be2 thus securing f3 by the maxim of "overprotection" times FOUR.
By gaining a square upon everymove, WT is ASSURED of Checkmating within 64 moves ! Thus it becomes only a matter of proper implementation. Sounds good to me..........................{:D ......DCD, you made my day, with your Daring to do it yourway. Thanks! Regards, CAC

PS>
[ I've played 1.e3 in blitz. They don't know if its going to be a Colle, A Bird's, or a French Reversed. They're all playable, aren't they? ]
chessnovice 55 ( +1 | -1 )
... The Van't Kruijs isn't a necessarily bad opening, since it is transpositional. When I started looking for unique openings, this is where I started as well (It usually played out to 1. e3 e5 2. d4 exd4). However, I have had many players play 1. e3 against me, and if black plays properly, white can get crushed pretty hard for detrimenting his bishop so immediately.

After my experience with 1. e3, I would advise sticking with e4 over it. If you want to avoid the threat of missing the three step checkmate, maybe queen's pawn openings are more up your alley.
mate_you_in_fifty 26 ( +1 | -1 )
the 'ritual' of avoiding the 3-step checkmate leaves you with a stronger position(assuming you defended the correct way) while your opponent has to regroup his pieces and loses a lot of tempo doing so.
it's a GOOD thing for you if your opponent tries to pull a fast one over you.
ckytep 20 ( +1 | -1 )
openings the author of the book "Unorthodox openings" says that 1.g4 is absolutely the worst opening available. and after playing many games with that opening, I would agree.. and 1.e3? is just bad.
sly_lonewolf 40 ( +1 | -1 )
da_chess_dawg..... IMHO, 1.e4 is still way better compared with 1.e3...
Especially if you're playing White, you've gotta use the half-move advantage White has over Black. That means taking the game to your opponent, not sitting back & let your opponent dictate the play! :)
The "3 step mate" can always be refuted, so fear not...well, at least one way is to cancel the game before the 3rd move! Hehehehe :D
Rgds,
Sly
soikins 28 ( +1 | -1 )
e3 is mouse slip move. I have played it in blitz games couple of times, when my mouse flips and I fail to move my pawn two squares... :)
there is nothing bad in e3, thought. As it was mentioned -- it is a transpositional move. White can play different sound openings after 1. e3.
spurtus 100 ( +1 | -1 )
1. e3 ...e5
2. b3 ...d4
3. Bb2

Nothing wrong with e3 from a hyper-modern persepective... i.e. attack the centre from remotely from the flanks... e3 is good in these sort of games because you dont commit the pawn to the tussle in the centre, yet open up bishop and queen diagonals. By not giving the opponent targets to hit at, you can develop a different kind of positional struggle.

Also e3 throws a LOT of players from my experience from their opening repertoirs.

I NEVER play e4 so I wouldn't know which is better... but would imagine at the highers levels of chess standards e4 is viewed as better, but this shouldnt put you off playing and experimenting with e3. From my experience people say e3 is too passive, this is true at a high level but irrelevent if you can play positionally better than your opponent, further this can bait your opponent into premature attacks and over extension with lower level players.

Finally e3 I think could be good for blitz because its an untouchable pawn.

chessnovice 33 ( +1 | -1 )
ckytep I wonder how the author of "Unorthodox Openings" (Eric Schiller, by the way) would have fared in a match against Claude Bloodgood. Bloodgood used the Grob very well. He has also written several books on the opening, which I would probably give more weight to than anything written by Schiller.
da_chess_dawg 5 ( +1 | -1 )
so what your saying is if i play white its e4 but if im playing black then its e3
error 30 ( +1 | -1 )
da_chess_dawg it's impossible to have one openning as black, because you have no idea what they are going to do. Experament. Whatever openning you have best results with, use. It doesnt matter what openning you use, as long as your familiar with it, which can only come from practice.
ccmcacollister 205 ( +1 | -1 )
Chessnovice, Schiller is a strong Master player as well as an established Chess author. You might not want to dismiss his remarks without being Sure. For instance, to his credit he has (then)new analysis he published vs an established line of the French Defence involving Qd7 and b6, that virtuallly refutes the variation. And you could probably remove the "virtually" there without getting too much dissent. And his books usually have a tremendous amount of lines & analysis. To reach toward comprehensiveness. Personally, I feel he makes a very good effort. Tho some readers might wish for a greater amount of narration at times.
.....And Your point is well made that he is not a Grob specialist. Not that I'm aware of anyway, espec. per his remarks on it. As with the books he writes, his play covers a good variety of openings. And he has always chosen to open with e4 in
our Corr.Chess games, and proceed into very theoretical lines of interest.
... In his Dragon book I did find a specific line of analysis given that I could only call "wrong", which is a very strong Chess term. But it was not Schiller's analysis but part of that given him for inclusion by GM Shamkovich (who was actively playing the BL Dragon in tmt's, by the way.) [Somehow it seems forgivable to me if the analysis was included but incorrect in that one instance. If I made a living writing Chess, believe I'd be cautious about gainsaying analysis from a GM contributing to my book too.!? Or maybe it was overlooked. Maybe I'm just "wrong"]
In any case, if it were me & this were going to be a mainstay opening of mine, I would want to be sure to at least look at why Schiller has suggested the Grob to be so bad. When he makes such opinions, it is usually driven by concrete analysis. Not just an "I don't like the look or feel or it" or "its just illogical" type assessment.
I'm not at all familiar with Bloodgood (or much with the Grob either). In my humble "guess" he'd need to be Master level or higher to win such a Grob match. Considering even if he caught E.S. once with secret analysis unknown to him, well, that's just for One game.
ccmcacollister 198 ( +1 | -1 )
DCDawg...about your approach to the game with e3. Somebody thought I was makin fun of it, so I want to clear them up, cuz I'm not. Saying I agree with you to a point, if that is the style you are comfortable with. Certainly fits with hypermodern ideas. But even more I think of it as a prophylactic approach. The great player & former WC Petrosian proved that. My example before, only the last part is in jest, to say: as long as its not taken too far.
I know Petrosian could be a fearsome attacker when riled. But the thing most attributed to him....It has been said that he would eliminate the threats before his opponent even thought of them!
....
And if that is to be your style you might also like to learn from games and play of Capablanca and Salo Flohr, who where both great positional players. As if you are liking the 1.e3 opening, maybe you would also be comfortable with 1.d4 like Chessnovice suggests. Especially if you find yourself transposing into those later, rather than being completely hypermodern with it, maybe you would find those ideas useful to know as well. Even if you stay with your 1.e3 move. When GM's play, the opening is all about knowing where your going with it, often, rather than specific moves. They try to reach a position favorable, by transposition, or stop opp from such. Till they reach a point where they have a position that is at least "almost known to them", where they have a great understanding already, so only need to look for the differences & complicating factors vs the "known position". Similarly, top corr play too most often involves search for improvements and transpositional ploys. Likewise, even for us, the more we know about the positions will be going thru or trying to reach, the better for us. And if you can figure out where 1.e3 is going to take you to, better than your opponents can, than I'd say its working for you and you'll do well. Regards.
da_chess_dawg 5 ( +1 | -1 )
thanks these comments have really helped me