Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

are unorthodox openings valid?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #61

    tacticisacting123

    i thought that chigorin and tango were played but some people say they are unorthodox... 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #62

    waffllemaster

    Everything else being equal, they can hurt you.

    If your opponent is unfamiliar with the opening, then it can help you.

    If it's trappy enough, then it can really help you!

    ... but it's a gamble :)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #63

    Dark_Falcon

    As Tony says:

    "Yet for those purposes it does represent a fun and entertaining opening that will offer White some chances without being completely sound, mainly because the level of opposition will hardly have sufficient time on the clock or understanding on the board to be able to punish White for his indiscretion."

    Thats why i play the BDG..its funny and entertaining and most of the opposition dont know how to handle it correctly. Iam searching for the opening, that gives me on my level the practical chances, although it is not the best choice from the theoretical point of view.

    You see, Tony, in the end, after all the (interesting) discussion we come nearly to the same conclusion...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #64

    Dark_Falcon

    waffllemaster wrote:

    Everything else being equal, they can hurt you.

    If your opponent is unfamiliar with the opening, then it can help you.

    If it's trappy enough, then it can really help you!

    ... but it's a gamble :)

    Thats the point!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #65

    Jack_Steel

    Yes if you know what your doing. I mean as long as you fulfil the three objectives to openings: protect the king, dominate the center squares, and develop pieces, then you should be doing fine.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #66

    TonyH

    I like how you miss Grandmaster Hasten's comment that it is unsound. but having fun is the constant excuse for fanatics. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #67

    AnthonyCG

    TonyH wrote:

    I like how you miss Grandmaster Hasten's comment that it is unsound. but having fun is the constant excuse for fanatics. 

    +1

    If you're not having fun you'll lose anyway. Wink

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #68

    Dark_Falcon

    TonyH wrote:

    I like how you miss Grandmaster Hasten's comment that it is unsound. but having fun is the constant excuse for fanatics. 

    I like you miss the point, that i dont care if its sound or not...but you cant tolerate it...am i right? 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #69

    CorfitzUlfeldt

    Dark_Falcon wrote:
    I think White gets open lanes & diagonals, a slightly better development, familiar  positions and most time a scared opponent..i think thats many compensationfor a poor single pawn...

    If you play OTB chess in a club, and meet the same players on a regular basis, you can take "scared opponent" out of the equation because they will be prepared.

    Dark_Falcon wrote:

    And you have to consider that we are playing on an amateur level, that means that both sides are doing many inacurracies, mistakes and even blunders.

    As a premium member, i often use the chess.com-computer-analysis after a match.

    Its horrible, how high the average rate of false moves in a match is and i talk about games on a level of 1800 to 1900 in correspondence chess!!!

    So it is not surprising that in a match between amateurs, you will seldom lose a match because you lost or sacrificed a PAWN in the opening, but most of the time you will lose your matches, because of the mistakes and blunders in the middle- or endgame!

     Computers play better than humans in the kind of positions you can get in the BDG. I don't think it is surprising that you will find a lot of computer improvements in your games. But I don't think it is fair to expect humans to find those computerlines in a real game.

    If you sacrifice a pawn, burn all your bridges behind you, end up in a complicated position in which you have to walk a tightrope of incredible computermoves to stay in the game, I would blame the loss to the sacrifice of the pawn, not to the human not being able to play like the computer.

    If I go into an otherwise equal endgame, but a healthy pawn down, I will not win against equal opposition. I will draw at best.

    Conversely, if I'm a healthy pawn up against equal opposition, I will not lose. I will draw at worst. (I might still lose against a computer, but that is not equal opposition)

    Dark_Falcon wrote:
    I also dont agree, that Blacks defensive moves in the BDG are easier to find then the attacking moves for White, both sides have to play very accurate...BUT, if the Attacker moves inaccurate, he will often lose a tempo, if the Defender moves wrong he often loses the match.

    White is also playing with his back against the wall. If the attacker lose the tempo he sacrificed a pawn to get, and the defender manage to exchange pieces, white has to fight to obtain a draw.

    Dark_Falcon wrote:
    "If you enjoy playing the same attack over and over, then of course you should stay with the Colle or the BDG"

    And in the QGD you will have thousands of new ideas every week or what?

    I think, every opening has its standard ideas and position, filled up with sidelines and other stuff...

    You will get similar positions and attacks in most of your white games if you play the Colle or the BDG. They are almost universal systems for white. When I played it, I also got players of many indian defences lured into the BDG by playing 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4

    As I understood your comments about the Englund, you also sack the f-pawn with black, trying to get similar positions and attacking patterns in your black games.

    I get a wider variety of positions that I need to master, and that is not exclusively a bad thing.

    Dark_Falcon wrote:

    Most players play the BDG for the full point and they score it against unprepared opposition very often and most opponents are unprepared, because who will prepare hours and hours for an opening he will face once in a lifetime?!?

    Even when both sides are well prepared the situation is unclear or even!

     You have an opening with a lot of tricks, and you'll gamble your opening advantage on the possibility that your next opponent is unprepared and fall for one of them. Otherwise you will have a lot of hard work to secure the draw. If you start to meet opponents who are prepared for you, this will quickly turn very annoying.

     I ended with a nice plusscore with the white pieces, but a lot of the wins were almost identical wins against weak opposition, and against the stronger opponents the result was most likely a draw.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #70

    _IronButterfly_

    policarpo wrote:

    Is it unorthodox openings valid ?

    All I can say to that is, if that is so, my 8 years of playing chess is all invalid!  haha :)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #71

    TonyH

    Dark_Falcon wrote:
    TonyH wrote:

    I like how you miss Grandmaster Hasten's comment that it is unsound. but having fun is the constant excuse for fanatics. 

    I like you miss the point, that i dont care if its sound or not...but you cant tolerate it...am i right? 

    I do tolerate players all the time. The point is your putting a lot of effort into something that does have educational value,... to a point. Once you have experimented with that move on to a new opening. The ideas will cross over (look at the rubinstein variations in the Queen's gambit exchanged for instance) where you sacrifice nothing but end up with similar attacking ideas.. you seem to think this is about a specific opening and I am talking about a mental approach,... having fun can be used as an excuse to not admit to the facts.

    Take a few months and study some of Ivanchuck, morozevich, shabalov, shirov games in the QG. There is a lot of bais that certain openings are boring because we see top tier gms play them against other top gms and the games are very controlled and many ideas are totally avoided. Look at games from Large open events and see how GMs and IMs play your so called boring systems and things get wild and crazy. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #72

    TonyH

    Are these boring?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #73

    Stampnl

    CorfitzUlfeldt wrote:
    Conversely, if I'm a healthy pawn up against equal opposition, I will not lose. 

    What though if you are an unhealthy pawn up? 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #74

    Dark_Falcon

    TonyH wrote:
    Dark_Falcon wrote:
    TonyH wrote:

    I like how you miss Grandmaster Hasten's comment that it is unsound. but having fun is the constant excuse for fanatics. 

    I like you miss the point, that i dont care if its sound or not...but you cant tolerate it...am i right? 

    I do tolerate players all the time. The point is your putting a lot of effort into something that does have educational value,... to a point. Once you have experimented with that move on to a new opening. The ideas will cross over (look at the rubinstein variations in the Queen's gambit exchanged for instance) where you sacrifice nothing but end up with similar attacking ideas.. you seem to think this is about a specific opening and I am talking about a mental approach,... having fun can be used as an excuse to not admit to the facts.

    Take a few months and study some of Ivanchuck, morozevich, shabalov, shirov games in the QG. There is a lot of bais that certain openings are boring because we see top tier gms play them against other top gms and the games are very controlled and many ideas are totally avoided. Look at games from Large open events and see how GMs and IMs play your so called boring systems and things get wild and crazy. 

    OK, thanks for the advice, if i have time, i will look into these openings a little bit deeper. Maybe i come to the same conclusion. Before i started playing the BDG, i played the London System as White and i was very successful (on the other side i was very bad with the black pieces in this period). Although most people think, you cant attack with the London System, i won most of my games in attacking style. Do why not attack with the Catalan or the QGD. The problem is, i have a lack of time to begin the study of a complete new system, but thanks alot for your hints.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #75

    ThrillerFan

    Unorthodox openings are sound enough to use as a surprise weapon, but I wouldn't recommend making this your main line.  I played the Sokolsky (1.b4) for 2 1/2 years, and it really stunted my chess growth.

    Play mainstream openings, but if you have a player that you've played frequently (i.e. a local opponent) and you need a surprise weapon, don't be afraid to throw it at him.

    I did exactly that a couple of Saturdays ago.  My opponent in the 3rd and final round of a 1-day tournament was someone that has faced me at least 5 times in the last half year.  He crushed my Ruy Lopez a couple of months ago.  While my overall record with the Ruy is still very high, I felt the need to get him with some home prep.  The night before, just in case I faced this guy, I prepared the Belgrade Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd5).  However, I would never make the Belgrade Gambit something of a habit.  I might throw it at somebody again in a couple of years, but the Ruy Lopez is truly the sound way to go, and the best way to get better at planning, strategy, and tactics.

    Out of every 100 to 200 games I play as White, I'd say I play 1 game with some sort of unorthodox opening.  I wouldn't go beyond this ratio of playing unorthodox openings.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #76

    TonyH

    London has been the death of many chess players. It was very common with a group of local scholastic players and the would whip out the first 10 moves or so then look to see what was going on. once players learned to deal with it they ran into a wall and had no flexibility of thought to direct their pieces  or plans in another way. just d4, Bc4, e3, c3, Nf3, h3, Nbd2 , 0-0. they would get sick of chess around 1200 then quit or beat their head on awall trying to obtain a small edge. Some finally broke out of it but it makes a lot of sense to pick something the diametric opposite of the london to break that mental habit and explains why you feel queens gambits are boring. if you want wild stuff play Bg5 lines and castle long, look at shablov g4 stuff and aronians recent h4 ideas. 

    remember your knowledge base is there if you played london and BDG. you get the basics and patching in a few more ideas to your current base will probably jump you up about 100 rating points.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #77

    zborg

    Any "reversed opening," played from the white side, is as legitimate as starting 1) e4 or 1) d4.  And your time saved on opening study is immense.

    Kamsky plays the London (a reversed Slav) with some regularity.  But you certainly don't need "celebrity power" to chose your opening repetoire.

    Under USCF 2000, arguably the best opening is the one you know and your opponent doesn't.  But your first order of business should be getting good with the black pieces. Can't win games or tournaments without good defensive skills.

    And if you want to play into big theoretical openings from the white side, and garner all the (alleged) benefits from playing into a blizzard of complications, you can always buy Tony Kosten's book, The Dynamic English, and play the Botvinnik Formation in the English, against everthing that black can throw at you.  Same is true for the Nimzo-Larsen Attack.

    You'll get all the tactical and strategic practice you might need from just one opening. But that's true of any opening on which you spend time, and learn to play it well.

    No one ever said that "learning an opening well" meant memorizing the first 10 moves, and "then you look to see what was going on," as in the post above.

    The post above sets up a straw man. He is easy to knock down.  No surprises there.

    But @TonyH has it right when he argues that Romantic 19th Century Gambits (from the white side) won't do much for your playing strength overall.  You waste entirely too much time learning all the sharp combinations therein, and Black can very easily bypass all your opening prep, by simply playing an "unorthodox" defense.  

    Therefore it's a bad use of your study time.  Better to study generic middlegame strategy, or generic endgame strategy, or even hire a coach (if you're that serious about the Royal Game).

    And if you want wild and sharp tactics, study the games of a strong West Coast Master, Emory Tate.  But don't be surprised if you go blind, from the complications.  

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #78

    Greenmtnboy

    IMO some of the best opening books have been speculative like Hardin's "Counter-gambits" and "Unorthodox Openings" by an English player.  Very provocative and tactical.  The "Tactical Grob" by Bloodgood is quite challenging. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #79

    AlCzervik

    There is something to be said when playing an opponent that you have had games against previously, as the OP had. Playing in an unorthodox way OTB against a frequent opponent could cause a case of the sweats and confusion, especially if you are prepared, and move quickly.

    Obviously this has more effect the lower you go in the rating scale (why I'm commenting), but, it may still work in some instances among those that know the game.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #80

    Dark_Falcon

    Greenmtnboy wrote:

    IMO some of the best opening books have been speculative like Hardin's "Counter-gambits" and "Unorthodox Openings" by an English player.  Very provocative and tactical.  The "Tactical Grob" by Bloodgood is quite challenging. 

    "The tactical Grob" is a great book, written by one of the most controversial guy in the chess scene. 1.g4 is a surprise weapon, with many tactical variations. A good choice when you are in a must win situation at the end of the tournament, but it should not be your standard opening.

    I also enjoyed his book about the "Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit"

    R.I.P Claude F.Bloodgood


Back to Top

Post your reply: