12851 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Is it unorthodox openings valid ?
A00: Anderssen Opening and A00: Sodium Attack are fairly suspect.
depends on your defintion....
A big book of busts - Watson & schiller talks about a ton of them and gives you an assessment....
Unorthodox and orthodox openings are both just a sequences of chess moves. Over time, the sequences that seem to make the most sense, or work the best get analyzed and frequently played, becoming "orthodox." Sequences that don't seem to make as much sense, or work as well become "unorthodox." But those are just labels. Many unorthodox openings for White aren't played much because they seem to make it easier for Black to equalize that the more mainstream openings. That doesn't make them bad; after all, an equal game is just a starting point for trying to outplay your opponent. Unorthodox openings for Black tend to make it somewhat harder for Black to equalize against best play, but how often do you run into "best play?" Certainly not when you're playing me!
I am reminded of one of the shortest and most useful book reviews of all time. GM Tony Miles' entire review of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller reads: "Utter crap."
... and a related question: "Who validates openings"? Please give a name and a surname.
Nimzo-larsen attack . I think this is a good unorthodox opening for white
It depends on what specific opening is labeled as "unorthodox" not to mention what YOUR definition of "unorthodox" is.
In general, there are several valid reasons in each case why some openings are less, or way less popular than "mainstream" openings or variations.
At the super GM level, up above 2700, there are only a handful of openings that can reasonably be said to be "valid." The very, very slight positional innacuracies that can arise agaist best play by the opponent tend to be decisive when the level of play is almost Rybka-ishly good.
At the master level, the list opens up quite a bit. That's where you start seeing the Nimzo-Larsen, and the Bird, and what have you.
Below that, everything that doesn't lose by force is valid.
Using unorthodox openings is sufficient grounds to have your phone tapped, your e-mail intercepted, and be put on the no fly list.
I've seen world-class GMs play "unorthodox" openings (such as the WIlkes-Barre variation and Danish Gambit), albeit very rarely, so let's not get too snobbish here about them.
UNORTODOX OPENINGS IS WHAT CHESS IS ALL ABOUT THE MOST CLEVER OPENING ARE SOMETIMES UNORTHDOX
There are less-commonly played openings and defenses that are considered valid, in that perfect play from the opening could probably lead to a draw. And then there are less-commonly played openings and defenses which are considered suspect.
There are more than enough "uncommon but valid in theory" openings to choose from to personalize your style.
Unorthodox openings are not the best, as they do not seize the initiative that white has in order for White as Black has greater to equalize or to even seize the initiative. Honestly, I prefer orthodox opening, but I do understand the concepts of a few.
Orthodox just means what is accepted. Some openings (or variations) have been moved from one category to another such as the berlin defense, Sveshnikov, Evans Gambit, Scotch, Albin Counter gambit (ala Moro) all once considered questionable have been shown to be valid at a high level. At the more normal level some openings that are considered questionable are valid such as the Benko Gambit, Scandinavian, Kings gambit etc.... To be considered unorthodox means that against best play (as mentioned in an earlier post) the opening will not yield acceptable positions (ie that the chances of losing or drawing (as white) are higher than playing another opening)
You can learn a lot by studying how to 'refute" a particular bad opening.
Even these questionable openings have been used as surprise weapons by players today that are trying to be moving targets against an opponents preparation. It is interesting to me how what used to be deep preperation by players is now just trying to avoid deep prep and play something "old" as a surprise. Look at Magnus recently playing the King's gambit and benko against 2700+ opposition when he needed to create chances.
at your level i would pick a simple opening and just follow it for a few months. You will lose to odd ball stuff but thats just an opportunity to learn and grow.
I think of orthodox as typical due to popular acceptance. Un-orthodox things are accepted as, well, unorthodox...or unusual due to not being popular, thus less familiar...
True some people won't accept certain things...
I wonder if they are even able to accept that it exists...
Did you want to quote yourself?
I'm enjoying the comments. Some unorthodox openings are consecrated as orthodox, but there are many others that if you use them will have wasted the advantage of being with white. Do not see the games of GMs. Anyone ever played: Napoleon Attack, Medusa Gambit Pterodactyl or Giraffe Attack?
5/19/2013 - Mate in 2
by pcfilho a few minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by finns a few minutes ago
by Elizabeth_Teri_Baker a few minutes ago
Where can I buy a chess set similar to the one used in Lyons 1990?
by 5xadrezmemoria7 7 minutes ago
What engine is Computer4-IMPOSSIBLE ?
by temp_ddg 8 minutes ago
Purpose and actual use of the rematch function
by floba 8 minutes ago
QGD or Slav?
by baddogno 8 minutes ago
Sushi & Wasabi Opening
by discoweasel 10 minutes ago
Would appreciate some feedback on 2 games (USCF 1600)
by campbellh 12 minutes ago
by CLINTEASTW00D 31 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com