Sokolsky Opening. Has anyone had success persisting with the lines

Trust me, they do not wind up symmetrical.  If Black tries to specifically do that, then after b5, with pawns being a7-b6-c5 vs a4-b5-c4, White will play a5 and after axb6 and ...axb6, Black will have a hard time defending b6 given his huge space disadvantage on the queenside.

All you care about on the Kingside is that you don't get mated or lose tons of material preventing it.  The queenside pawns are your Trump card.

And I should add that trying to go purely symmetrical by Black is actually losing.

1.b4 b5? (One of the few cases where mimicking White truly is a mistake) 2.a4! And already White is better!

Interesting, by chance do you have any model games? It's a rare line at higher levels but I find it quite annoying.

I agree

I like b5 very much.

Advancing pawns on queen side if need be

If rook exchanges after pawn exchanges white bishop still holds the line.

But the idea of the bishop taking the knight at the right time and then placing pawns on black squares in other openings appeals a lot.

It just seems sound logic win lose or draw😇😇

I know a young player who recently got NM who kept 1.b4 as part of his main repertoire 

@the

this is practically one of the more annoying lines to play for a win in. The so called early rook swap line (.1.nf6 2.e6 and after b5 3...a6 intending axb5, rxb5).

I just remembered that I once won a very nice game against a national master at my local club using the Sokolsky. I hope that you all enjoy:

Very nice game

I had the following game last night.  It should be noted that Black's rating is provisional based on 5 games at a tournament where he went 5 and 0.

That was an awesome game using the Sokolsky opening.Particularly the queen side castle and the shift of the king up the queen side.

I played it once in my life in a serious otb tournament - standard fide 90+30 with sudden death +30 after 40 moves.

Here is a thought by many on the polish opening…..

“”A move like 1.b4 is not liked by many chess players, but many who handle the Black pieces don't like it either. Eccentric, provocative and even insulting - such factors cannot be overlooked. And while 1.b4 remains experimental in reputation it's practical value is quite good””

Alekhine, 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.

Yet, Richard Réti ( My favourite chess player of all)  used it against Abraham Speijer in Scheveningen 1923 and Boris Spassky against Vasily Smyslov in the 1960 Moscow–Leningrad match. Then of course fischer against Donald Ina in 1964.

It has been anecdotally ranked 9th in openings and has been labelled an “ irregular opening”.

I wonder if one day it will be  less maligned than it appears today and get more mainstream appeal to be an opening of choice.

Taught to young chess players playing white as a weapon of choice against much stronger players if they are looking for a potential draw due to its uncommon use. Against seasoned chess players who know the traditional openings back to front  playing them over and over and studying their text book responses ad nauseam .

London...1 b4 d5 2 bb2 Bf5 3 Nf3 e6 4 e3 Nf6. Have to play b3 not to go insane.

"I wonder if one day it will be  less maligned than it appears today and get more mainstream appeal to be an opening of choice."

There is something insidious about the London by black. Either white plays b5 or a3...another wasted move.

Annoying and drawable games with white seems to be many members view .

Here is another chess players thoughts

“”I would definitely buy a full repertoire course on the Polish Opening. It has an offbeat positional feel as it throws many players off with its closed nature and regular queenside play - I like the structures a lot. I especially like the idea of having a White repertoire that gives me practical chances and avoids mountains of theory, or as a backup surprise weapon.

I own the two major books on this opening (1) Lapshun’s Play 1. b4 and (2) Konikowski’s 1. b4 Theory and Practice and having gone through them, I certainly think there’s a lot of new and interesting positions to explore here.””

I would recommend taking a look at the game Katalymov - Litvinov 1971 where White plays 5. c4 (note that 5. ... Bxb4 is met with 6. cxd5 Qxd5 7. Qa4+ Nc6 8. Bb5 and things will get nice and messy) followed by 6. c5. This blunting of the Black's dark-squared bishop is nice and annoying.

Carsten Hansen has a far more recent book from 2021.

Yes. C4 looks interesting and we have a game on our hands not playing  textbook over and over😇😇

Katalymov - Litvinov 1971
What a nice game using the polish opening. There at the end is the white bishop on the black squares holding a line.

Lapshun is quite good for its collection of games (in fact, it's where I first saw this game), but some of his ideas are a bit suspect, namely playing the Tartakower Gambit (1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 f6 3. e4) which engines really do not like for White (I prefer the more positional 3. b5) and I remember in some of the lines with Black playing Bg4 he recommends playing an early Qc1 to break the pin on the f3 knight (I feel that this burns a tempo unnecessarily).

Hansen is a good reference for lines to look for in games, but you will never become great with an opening by just memorizing theory. It's important to practice it yourself and study past games.

I have not read Konikowski.