Jul-25-05
 | | Benzol: 1.e3 is known as Van't Kruijs Opening. |
 |
| Dec-19-05 | | Bobak Zahmat: <Benzol: 1.e3 is known as Van't Kruijs Opening.> Really? 1.e3?? is a bad move! There are so many reasons why one should not start the game with 1.e3?? |
|
Dec-19-05
 | | notsodeepthought: On the plus side, starting the game with e3 did get Van't Kruijs to have this opening named after him. How else could a so-and-so chess player get some small measure of fame?
(on a related note, I am working on the "<notsodeepthought> flank attack" opening - 1 h4 and 2 a4). |
|
| Feb-14-06 | | Bobak Zahmat: That's true. Presently it would be hard to get a opening called after your name :). It's a shame that no one plays this opnening any more :) |
|
Feb-14-06
 | | Landman: 1.e3 isn't an agressive move, but it is flexible. You can aim for a Colle/Stonewall formation (d4-e3-f4), and if 1...e5 then 2.c4 with an English, or 2.d4, or even 2.Nc3!? trying for a reverse French. I've experimented with 1.a3, 2.e3, 3.c4, usually ending with a reversed Sicilian. I faced 1.e3 myself a few years back:
John Bell vs C Land, 2003 |
|
| Feb-15-06 | | Bobak Zahmat: 1.e3 is a bit slow move. It is also a waiting move. White can choose from many continuations. |
|
| Jan-11-09 | | Morphischer: Games 3 and 7 are the same game except game 7 is played out three moves more. I think game 3 here should be removed and Maarten Van't Kruijs should have 1 win only. |
|
Mar-15-11
 | | wwall: He seems to be the first person to play Larsen's Opening, 1.b3 (Van't Kruijs - De Heer, Amsterdam 1851). The opening went 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.e3 (Van't Kruijs (or Kruys) opening by transposition). |
|
| Feb-18-12 | | Penguincw: Happy Birthday! |
|
