Sokolsky Opening. Has anyone had success persisting with the lines

This major work of the famous Russian chess openings theorist Alexei Sokolsky is distinguished by its original approach to the subject.

Especially valuable is Sokolsky’s concentration on the influence and use of not only the central squares of the board but also those important squares that are contiguous to the center.

Do many chess players not find this opening sound enough to add to their opening repertoire .

It is currently my main weapon of choice as White over the board, as was the case in 2008, 2009, and 2014.

I think the older lines are dubious (1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 and now 4.Nf3 or 4.c4), but Carlsen's idea, which Carsten Hansen goes into detail with in his book on 1.b4, is fully sound and what I currently play, which is 4.c3.  White, at the right time (Hansen explains when that time is), trades off the Bishop for the Knight on f6 and plants his pawns on the dark squares.

The other lines are a non-issue for White provided you know them.

I will be playing 1.b4 at the US Masters in 2 weeks.

With black to follow with e5.

Is this one of the better lines for black

This “ German defence” I see as an opening option appears weird for black because it seems non standard developing a queen in an unorthodox way. But it also looks a little solid.

where does white go from here in combinations.

Does b5 now appear an option?  

Are there any famous games along these lines?

1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Qd6 3.a3 e5 4.e3 Be6 5.Nf3 Nd7 and now White has options.  My preference is 6.d4, when after 6...e4 7.Nfd2 c6 8.c4 Ngf6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.b5 a6 11.bxc6 bxc6 12.a4 dxc4 13.Ba3 c5 14.Bxc4 Qc6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Ne2 with advantage to White.

Perhaps its most famous use came in the game Tartakower versus Maróczy, in the New York 1924 chess tournament on March 21, 1924. The name "Orangutan Opening" originates from that game: the players visited the Bronx Zoo the previous day, where Tartakower consulted an orangutan named Susan, and she somehow indicated, Tartakower insisted, that he should open with b4. Also, Tartakower noted that the climbing movement of the pawn to b5 reminded him of the orangutan. In that particular game, Tartakower came out of the opening with a decent position, but the game was drawn. Alekhine, who played in the tournament and wrote a book on it, said that 1.b4 was an old move, and that the problem is that it reveals White's intentions, before White knows what Black's intentions are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokolsky_Opening

The Sokolsky is also my choice now, since I started playing chess again. In the current ICCF correspondence group that I am playing, I lost one (perhaps due to experimenting), and in the other two do well. In both last cases I created powerful pawns on both e4 and f4 for further counterplay, while actions remain on the queen's side to have double pressure.

i dont think 4.c4 is dubious although if black begins playing like an engine for 15 moves, whites corridors are more narrow.

it always been one of my main openings . unlike 1.b3  where if black plays sufficiently boring, there is not much white can do, white virtually always gets an asymmetrical fight. Its also a potennt psychological weapon agaisnt certain types of players compelled to refute your move. They will charge like a bull to a red cape and get into trouble with premature attacks.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250823

Boris Katalymov vs Georgy Ilivitsky
Candidate to Masters (1959) · 1-0
A beautiful game using the Sokolsky opening and a trap for black coined the “ katalymov trap”

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/chess-immaturity

The above link is a post that has a winning game from Saturday with 1.b4 in the final round.

The following was also a win for White in the 3rd round:

I'm big on king safety. I think I rejected 1 b4 quite a while back because I saw a main line(s) in which white's king was under attack. But I don't clearly recall now if that is so and know I never really looked into 1 b4 much.

I like openings and defenses that are less than top tier because then I'm not having to out study everyone and their uncles theories and also because I enjoy psychology in chess.

I'm playing the repertoire Keep It Simple 1 e4 but in ways it is a bit more mainstream than I prefer but one can't have everything and it is good repertoire that tries to be practical. 

1 b4 is certainly interesting.

Yes. I like the exchange of black square white bishop for black knight at the “ right moment”. Then populating the black squares with pawns.

It’s a nice Sokolsky opening strategy.

With white having the opening move advantage in chess does the Sokolsky opening retain this momentum advantage compared to the traditional openings. Why  is it deemed that this opening is not used often at higher levels. 
In many ways it seems that chess is played again from move one rather than mechanically almost to the middle game with well rehearsed openings. When watching bullet games for example with the traditional openings there is a flurry of known moves and then the “ pause” when chess “ seems” to start. But the Sokolsky opening appears different

The reasons you do not see it much at the GM Level:

1) With absolute best play, 20 moves of perfection by Black, it is equal, 0.00, and not miniscule advantage for White, like 0.20.

2) Some feel it lacks flexibility - White, from move 1, pretty much tells Black he will be attacked on the Queenside.

I can tell you from Correspondence events on ICCF, where I have played 1.b4 about 2 dozen times, I think I have 1 win and 1 loss, the rest draws (Keep in mind, ICCF allows computers - Najdorfs wind up draws mostly too).  What I can also tell you is 9 out of every 10, I get the Exchange Variation, which is. Lack's best response.  Over the board, I get the exchange maybe a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the time.

It is a little simpler to draw at the GM level than say, the Najdorf.  But it is not unsound like many gambits are, such as the Muzio Gambit.

Indeed. Just as  in the Tartakower versus Maróczy game despite the many draw options it seems a nice way to play. Maybe against a much stronger player it’s a way to a drawn position for intermediate players like me with white who get constantly  burned always by stronger players.

To study endlessly the Sokolsky variances for a surprise opening.

I used to play it casually. The biggest problem that I ran into is that Black can choose to play in a very boring way where things get very symmetric and it's hard for White to play for a win (ex:

). I think it can be a good surprise weapon against higher-rated opponents as they will often not be happy with a draw and will play the more interesting lines against you like 1. b4 e5

White can claim a space advantage with b5 instead of bxc5.

You can certainly try that if you want. Black will still just play c5 and then later d5 at some point. Things will still often be fairly symmetric and boring. I don't enjoy these positions.