Sokolsky Opening. Has anyone had success persisting with the lines

I'm a fan of second tier openings. I play the Tarrasch Defense and 3...Qa5 Scandinavian when  black. Really like the Tarrasch Defense because black's king is constantly quite safe. Haven't  found such a defense against 1 e4.

I'm interested in buying Hansen's book, but I have it my head from looking at 1 b4 in the past that white's king is in significant danger in a main line or two, though it's been a while and I don't clearly recall. What do you think about white's king's safety in 1 b4? How often has your white king been in danger in 1 b4?

Very rarely.  Usually if my king is in trouble, it is from waiting too long to castle.  Though there are times to wait (and occasionally not castle or castle queenside.)

Why is the main line the best option for black against the Sokolsky. Does white lose tempo by avoiding it?

ThrillerFan, 

Thanks. I ordered Hansen's book. I recall you posting that you were going to play 1 b4 in The Master's tournament that recently occurred. 

King safety is usually only a problem in the Exchange Variation (1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6) and only if you play it in the traditional style (i.e. playing Nf3, e3, Be2, c4, etc...) and even there you're fine if you do things in the right move order. Hansen recommends an alternative approach in the form of 4. c3 where the idea is for White to create a large pawn centre and trade the dark-squared bishop for Black's knight. From what I remember, king safety is not a significant problem for White in this line.

yes its like kingknight said , the 4.c3 lines are substantially different in flavor. King safety is not nearly as much a concern as the 4.c4 line where white is fine but if black plays in a specific aggressive way must walk a narrow path till you castle. the c3 line has an almost london-esque flavor to them although you sometimes play g3 as well.

tygxc

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1325151

Reti is my favourite chess player . Tartakower beat him with b4 and a pawn sacrifice.

where did Reti go wrong. He usually is very methodical

Looks like he made some blunders??

I think Hansen's idea of playing the c3 move and kicking Black dark Bishop is indeed a nice idea. In another game I played insted pawn-a3, but that did not go well later on for reasons of playing inacurate (after returning to chess since 30 years).

Currently I have 2 ICCF games running with the Exchange variation, playing the c3 move. I can show both if you like. Indeed a great wall of pawns is constructed. Please comment on the moves, but no advise on how to continue, as it is a running game!

The other game almost runs parallel, including an early Black attack on the queenside. I like how my light coloured Bishop moves across the board as a true Orangutan ;-)

Again, please only comments on the opening, but NO further indications on further moves or consequences, as this is a running game!

if black retreats to e7, white's best formation will be c3, e3, g3, d4. knights almost always going to d2 and e2. your main source of counterplay will be trying to isolate the d pawn and going nf4 (also dont be afraid to play h4 as white!). also, you you shoudnt wait too long to swap on f6. your bishop runs the risk of getting trapped (or black landing nbd7 and taking on f6 back with knight, you dont want this.

take a look at these games
https://lichess.org/Nb3eWx6OCiO3
https://lichess.org/4kg3b3d0RFJB
https://lichess.org/H2pYoCD4xzgU

none are perfect but give you an idea what good play looks like from whites perspective

I played both games with an idea of moving the pawn to d4, of which Hansen comments on page 55, that this might not be a promising continuation and leads to equal play. However, you can only learn by playing yourself, and see what the results might be.

Thanks for the heads up @darkunorthodox88 in the cases you show. That is indeed something to pursue in future games.

As I played Knight to f3, I know also see your comment to have it placed rather on e2 instead.

I am also again playing another game, in which my opponent chose for a King's Indian set-up. As you see he moved pawn to e4 during the game. A good move as Hansen gives on page 82 in his book on the Orangutan. This should lead to equal play, after exchanging and White somewhere either playing Qd4+ or Nbd2 on move 10. And most likely a draw, as with some games displayed in the book.

After comparing the position in my database however, I found an alternate move for White in turn 10: Qc1. That comes from an ICCF game USA-South Africa - Vlasov vs. Van Zyl 2020 with a win for White, who came to this similar position through his Réti opening. It looks more promising for White to continue for a win. I am currently proceeding that line, and again... as this is a running correspondence game please no comments that lead to help for future moves!

Taking the White queen to c1, gives full control on the c3-square and eliminates any moves from Black to this square and disrupting White further development. And what I want to show you here, is how nice it can be to play the Orangutan!

agaisnt a KID, white has three options. 

-You can play it like you did with  an early d3

-You can play it with an early d4, the idea being, this is an improvement over the 1.b3 nf6 2.bb2 g6 lines where white tries to expand queenside as you already paid b3-b4 in one move.

-You can play for g3, and likely going for e3 d3 ne2. This is the safest way if you fear a kingside attack.

 I bought Hansen's book and have been playing 1 b4.  It's a breath of fresh air to me. But I have much to learn about it. Even been reading the history part some and going over those games.

Learning the Hanham Philidor also. I use The Modernized Philidor Defense book. I'd been playing the 3...Qa5 Scandinavian and might wind up running back to it, too soon to know. 

 I use Fight 1 d4 with the Tarrasch Defense but it is so much info I might get the new Everyman Chess book on the Tarrasch Defense coming out in February. 

I like playing a second tier repertoire that not everyone and their uncles are playing. 

At @UnsidesteppableChess. That is exactly why I chose to play the Orangutan as I returned to chess. This opening avoids everything you need to gather in massive libraries and purchases of books, when playing 1. e4, 1. d4., 1. c4 and the likes. Of course opening with 1. b4 might have its draw-bakcs. But usually when I have now re-entered correspondecne chess, your opponents have never played it themselves or were confronted by this opening. So this should give you an edge, as you keep on playing it in numerous games, and get to know the advantages.

I haven't bought an opening book in 40 years.

A lot of players nowadays talk as if the game ended at the opening / middle-game transition, and opening study will win your games for you.

Many of us old-timers feel that the game BEGINS at the opening / middle-game transition, and everything leading up to that point (ie: opening memorization) is just a preliminary.

And yes, I did play it.  I had to withdraw after 7 rounds due to severe flu symptoms.  My results were:

Rd 1 - White - Sokolsky - Loss

Rd 2 - Black - Dutch - Loss

Rd 3 - Black - French - Loss

Rd 4 - White - Sokolsky - Win

Rd 5 - Black - Dutch - Draw

Rd 6 - White - Sokolsky - Draw

Rd 7 - Black - Dutch - Win

(I think that round 7 Win was a case of the "Watch out for the sick golfer".)

To me, it depends on the opening and the book format.

Tree-structure - This works OK for unorthodox openings.  For an odd opening like the Bird, the Sokolsky, the Grob, the Dunst (1.Nc3), the Elshad for White (1.c3/2.Qa4), opening landmines are not well known.  Explanation of ideas in the opening and not covering complete games is fine.  You need to combine these with middlegame and endgame study material.

Complete Games - This works best for a repertoire book.  If you are going to suggest the Winawer, Open Tarrasch, Main Line against the Advance, Symmetrical lines against the Exchange, and the 8...b5, 10...a5, 11...b4, 12...Ba6 line against the KID, you need to explain why, demonstrate ideas in the middle and end games of positions that arise from these lines, etc.

Tree Structure of Main Lines - I have two words to describe these, like John Nunn's 2 books from the 90s on the Najdorf for Batsford - DATABASE DUMPS!  These books are useless.  They explain nothing, and become outdated quickly.

For an opening like the Sokolsky or Bird or Dunst, sure, theory could change to a small extent, and you need to keep up and not get complacent about it, but you are OK if you keep up.  Mainstream openings like the Najdorf or Wimawer or Zaitsev or Panov-Botvinnik Attack require constant updates to theory, and database dumps don't work here.

With the Sokolsky, a book works fine.  A new one maybe gets published every 10 to 15 years.

With the French (my defense to e4), I keep up with latest ideas (articles, like chess publishing or informant surveys or updated books with new ideas, like Moskalenko's latest.  No database dumps.

With the Dutch (my defense to d4), it is somewhere between the 2.  There is not the extensive theory in the Stonewall that is in the French, but it is not as simple as the Sokolsky where a book every 15 years will work for you.

So format really depends on the opening.  The worst thing you can do is use database statistics to study openings.  Oh, After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, the Winawer must be better than the Classical because it scores two tenths of one percent better for Black.  You don't know what garbage has been played here.  This includes trash by White like 4.Bd3, or even worse, 4.f3.  Database statistics are the most dangerous source out there, and databases do not explain ideas, and just trying to memorize will result in DEFINITIVE FAILURE!