tonydal wrote:I think calling the Grob "unsound" is a bit of an overstatement.  It's pretty hard for any 1st move to really be unsound.  (1 g4 e5 2 f3...now that's unsound.)

---

Huh? If no first moves in chess are unsound, then that means all first moves are, in fact, sound. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

The grob opening is much more effective at the amateur level (because nobodo knows how to counter it).  I was beaten three consecutive times with the grob opening by a player ranked just a little higher than me.

fischer wrote: tonydal wrote:I think calling the Grob "unsound" is a bit of an overstatement.  It's pretty hard for any 1st move to really be unsound.  (1 g4 e5 2 f3...now that's unsound.)

---

Huh? If no first moves in chess are unsound, then that means all first moves are, in fact, sound. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

---

 Then don't.  If Anderssen could play 1 a3 (and a player the strength of Basman could play 1 e4 g5) and Miles could beat Karpov with 1... a6 and 2... b5--then maybe there's a bit more to the game than just the first couple of moves.

The fact that some first moves (1 e4, 1 d4) are played more often than others (1 g4, 1 h4) at the highest levels of chess quite clearly demonstrates that some moves are more sound than others.

Still, less sound is not unsound...but enough of this quibbling.  We're beginning to sound like the typical chatter at a chess club (one reason I gave up going to those things long ago).

"1 g4 e5 2 f3...now that's unsound."

 

No, that's 'losing'.

If Kasparov can draw deep blue with the van't kruijs opening, no first move can be that unsound.

grensley wrote:If Kasparov can draw deep blue with the van't kruijs opening, no first move can be that unsound.

---

Please read the earlier posts.

tonydal wrote: I think calling the Grob "unsound" is a bit of an overstatement.  It's pretty hard for any 1st move to really be unsound.  (1 g4 e5 2 f3...now that's unsound.)

---

You're right.  Maybe unwise is more apropos? :-)

it's easy to say Grob is unsound.  to prove it over the board is not that easy.

one can play a "sound" opening then 6 or 7 moves later makes an unsound move, will it make the "sound" opening unsound?  unwise, i may agree but for gambiteers let's call it unorthodox.

yanyx wrote:

one can play a "sound" opening then 6 or 7 moves later makes an unsound move, will it make the "sound" opening unsound?

---

If the unsound move is part of the mainline, then yes, I'd call that opening unsound.  If a player makes a bad move after deviating from an accepted line, I'd call that a poorly executed opening.  The latter scenario doesn't reflect on the opening in any way. 

Can we at least agree that the Grob is a dubious opening not easily refuted?

Jeremy Silman wrote a nice article that I use when I prepare for an opponent that is known to play g4 (or b4). I like to play against these openings, because it gives you automatic direction or ideas during the game. Ie, how to exploit the weak fields on the kingside, how can I take advantage of the funny pawn structure etc. Not easy to beat a well prepared Grobocop over the board though.

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/041001_h_t_,mt_plsh_grb3.html

Honestly, how can you call 1. h4 sound?

g2-g4, e2-e3 and you have a solid formation because originally that pawn is out for take by the other player.

since 1.g4 doesn't seem to do any more than g3 except create weaknesses, this opening is obviously meant to be played as a trap since the g pawn is undefended.