his play could even manifest itself in his choice of openings. Grandmaster Samuel Reshevsky wrote that Larsen "is a firm believer in the value of surprise", and that led him to resort to "dubious variations in various openings." He also wrote that while Larsen "has a great deal of confidence in his game and fears no one", his style was "extremely effective against relatively weak opponents but has not been too successful against top-notchers." He was one of the very few modern grandmasters to have employed Bird's Opening (1.f4) with any regularity, and had a long-term association with the move 1.b3, a system commonly known as Larsen's Opening or the Nimzo–Larsen Attack in his (and Aron Nimzowitsch's) honor. He played the Dutch Defence with success at a time when the opening was rarely seen at the top level. He revived the almost dormant Bishop's Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4) with success in 1964 and explored new ways for Black to seek activity in the Philidor Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6). Indeed, he wrote a short monograph on the Philidor, Why Not The Philidor Defense?, in 1971. He was also the first top player to successfully use the Grand Prix Attack against the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5 2.f4), spurring a sudden and sustained gain in its popularity. In the mid-1960s, he showed surprising faith in Alekhine's Defence (1.e4 Nf6) and even employed it on important occasions. He played the rare Scandinavian Defence 1.e4 d5 to defeat World Champion Anatoly Karpov in 1979, sparking renewed interest in that variation. A favourite line in the Caro–Kann Defence (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6) is co-named for him and David Bronstein; the idea is to accept a weakness to the Black pawn structure in exchange for an unbalancing of the position and retaining the bishop pair. Larsen's 1969 book Larsen's Selected Games of Chess, 1948–69 contained annotations that delved into chess psychology and the effective use of rare openings. A chapter of the book gives some of Larsen's thoughts on his own style, and he upholds the views of Polugaevsky and Gligorić that he indulged in flank attacks and favored the advance of rooks' pawns more than other contemporary masters. He was also content to be described as an aggressive player, stemming from his dislike of draws. He disputed the notion that he would willingly accept dubious positions in order to