Burris Defence

I created this very interesting opening a few days ago.  What do you think of it?

I'd say that it gives white too much space. It looks like a failed effort to create central tension and counterattack. Sorry, but go back to the Burris Gambit.

After beating you many times with this opening, I think you should repeat that comment.

On the other hand, white's bishop can become stuck at d3, and after black gets his bishop to a6 and his knight to c5, white plays a hard game.

Through recent analysis, I have determined a line that gives White a slight edge, but gives Black counter chances.

Seems like a pretty good opening alright but after 2...e5 ny database says it has been played as early as 1958! IM Mark Quinn (2300+) (Who studies at the university i study) actually played it in 1997 against  GM Danny Gormally (2400+) which was a cool find. Gormally played d6 in the game which when i saw the position first thought that would be a middlegame possibility if black didnt play ...d6. (kind of like white e6 in the pirc). GM Alexander Baburin (2500+) lost against it to GM Anthony Miles (2600+) in 1999. All of the games in my database seems to include only players who are 2000+ playing this opening. In saying that it doesnt appear to make a huge appearance so its probably a surprise line strong players use against strong but less experienced strong players.

But after d6, Black can just play Nc6 and White's advantage has dissipated.

You didnt "create" anything this line is A40 - Queens pawn Lundin ( Kevitz-Mikenas) defense

KillaBeez wrote: But after d6, Black can just play Nc6 and White's advantage has dissipated.

---

 Ha! you cant be so sure. Perhaps you should take a look at some master games on this opening. d6 is a definate posibility at some stage. Played too early of course it could be premature.

Reb wrote: You didnt "create" anything this line is A40 - Queens pawn Lundin ( Kevitz-Mikenas) defense

---

 Thanks for the info. I never heard of it before. Any experience playing it or against it Reb?

Dang it!  I was hoping to have made a new line.  I guess I just made a variation of the Lundin-Kevitz-Mikenas Defense.

I have never faced it in a classical game but maybe a few times in rapid chess.