lichess.org
Donate

Why does everyone hate Nf3 e3 in atomic

Yes, I agree that to become 2200 you have to know many openings except Nf3 e3. I'm depthly learning Nf3 e3 to use vs strong players. But d5 is a good defence.
When I first started playing atomic I was kind of heart broken when I first met Nf3 e3 because looking at the Stockfish analysis it just seemed black had no counter play and I even thought of stopping playing atomic after seeing it. After that I succumbed to being a Nf3 e3 spammer myself until I reached about 1800. The reason I stopped using it was because it just became boring to use, my favourite games in atomic are the ones where white tries a weird opening and it leads to a complicated position with chances for both sides. Nf3 e3 just sort of kills that. I also felt bad using Nf3 e3 against newer players as I didn't want to put them off playing atomic like I had been put off by it.

To be honest my rating stopped rising after I stopped using it but I still have plenty to learn about Atomic. The resources of the Atomic Chess Theoreticians team page look like a good place to start.
the counterplay depends on the defense. we must first thank the monker thinker who popularized the d5 defense that basically if white plays nc3 or ng5 straight they will be under much stronger pressure than most of the times the conquered material. playing nf3 e3 basically helps in the initial development as very few 1000-1600 will know how to defend it. but once you get to the more advanced level it gets more complicated. however there are elite players who after learning how tactics and strategies go back to playing nf3 e3 only in a more positional way like arka
@chrisrapid said in #9:
> this is completely normal many games playing white and they are good at it but in fact i believe the strength of many 2300-2400 is due to their black skill
I agree with this completely, vlad shows this against many forms of openings, for example against the lines in nf3 nc3 with d4

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.