As usual you are completely right michael, and of course i smiled after seeing that hylarious comparison with the KID :) I guess that our radically different way to express the same concept might help the OP since he is bound to understand/like one of the two. Yours is probably more effective, but since people tends to be rather, uhm, sensible on the forums ("YOU'RE JUST A TROLL YOUR LINE IS MEANINGLESS MY OPENING ROCKS" is the statistically commoner aswer to constructive criticism :P) i always prefer to start with a "Basic Middlegame SKills, Lesson 1" style, in the vague hope that it will be better received ;)

I still say we should encourage him in this...there's no telling when one of us might have to play him... 

Here's my new opening, AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE ITALIAN GAME.

WHAM!

Chess.com should definitely make a sub-folder of the openings forum called "NEW OPENINGS". Actually, the folder might fit better in the Off-Topic forum.

I once made up an opening, until I realized it was already in the ECO; aka:A00

@The_Gavinator, The Ruy Lopez was overlooked because it didn't attack anything from their point of view (they were interested only in short term tactics, not in long positional pressure to build crushing positions). The people back in the 1800s never said the Ruy was bad,there was just no interest in it. Most people know when a opening was bad.

Also the Ruy Lopez wouldn't be a pet opening if it wern't a good opening.

Well first of all you can't compare them because 16th century people weren't raised on a diet of fundamentals gleaned though hundreds of years of learning like most the people commenting here.

The OP bases his "opening" on the idea that white will play e4 and upon seeing f5 will capture on f5 at which point "white is lost" (or however he put it).  If you want to think he found a 2 move system that kills white you're just displaying your own ignorance.

But just as much of a fundamental error, he's evaluating the strength of black's moves based on what he expects white to do, and not on their own merits.  This is a common (for beginners) fundamental logical error even your 16th century masses would have recognized.

---------------------

So lets look at its actual merits.  The idea of e6, Ne7 with a fianchetto certainly isn't losing, but it's a passive setup that prematurely takes away options before seeing how white will setup.

Thank you for summing that up.

WHAM!

WHAM!

Everyone quit calling each other names and stick to the discussion. Everyone is getting mad over nothing.

I suppose the nachtwulf stuff was in context because you never mentioned him.

What you did say was:  "So please, rather than rejecting something because you've never seen it before, take openings seriously."

And in the spirit of taking things seriously I gave my interpretation of your argument (I thought it was weak) and criticized you and OP for yourselves not taking the opening seriously (judge moves by their own merit) and ended by taking it seriously myself (judged the moves by their own merit to the best of my understanding).

---------

In your defense, your point (although you didn't mention it here) is that it's beneficial to be open to new ideas, because we'd never see any progress (e.g. the Ruy becoming main stream).  So your idea was more specifically this, and not the idea that "everyone here is ignorant of new ideas" which is quite a leap to make.

So before you tell me I didn't read what you said (pot calling kettle black), maybe you should read what you said

Maybe he can get a hippo defence going.

I don't know why Nachtwulf's comments in particular have been jumped upon - it was quite tongue-in-cheek bearing in mind that  there have been a lot of posts about "new opening lines" recently that are bordering on trolling.

Frankly, since the OP presented his idea with such ridiculous comments like "this is an improved version of the king's indian" when the idea actually bears no resemblance, I think he should expect, and get, some kind of ridicule.

My serious thoughts on the opening are: the Ne7 move makes no logical sense, it doesn't control the centre very well, it's highly inflexible as you're practically telling your opponent you're going to fianchetto, it's too passive, I ain't gonna play it.

I'm not going to qualify this with "well, keep trying, it was a good one". It wasn't. Please, please, all 1500 opening theorists - read Michael-G's post #20 again. He is actually trying to help you improve your chess game.

WHAM!

First of all, any person who has played the King's Indian Defense would laugh at the prospect of this being equated as such. If anything, this might lead to French transpositions (I primarily play both of those openings). The reason I didn't bother to take this opening seriously was because the suggested opening taken even one move deep (as per OP's suggestions) already does not look promising. Moreover, post #2 already demonstrated a refutation with a single move. Opening with letting your opponent pin your knight like that is embarrassing--not only does it block the development of two pieces, the knight itself is poorly placed. In post number 3, the author claims that somehow pushing f6 equates to rapid development. FYI, pawn pushing doesn't count as development, and pushing the f-pawn before the king has a remote chance of castling is called creating structural weaknesses, and threatening the safety of your own king.

In short, such ideas are probably what beginner's opening books show as examples of what not to do: ideas of moving pieces multiple times in the opening, developing knights to block the bishop (and also gaining less control of the center), visualizing a flank attack with no plans of blocking the center, etc. Debatably, the Alekhine's defense and perhaps some others show that some principles can be broken, which is fair. What those defenses have over the 'opening' in the OP is that they are backed up by realistic hypermodern ideas: undermining the center while provoking overextension. Instead, the OP suggests that wasting tempi by hopping the knights to the queenside while attempting a kingside pawn storm will somehow lead to good results.

As for my jest on 'new' openings? If you look through all of the supposedly 'new' opening threads on the site, most of those threads die after being trolled to death, or after being refuted. The first time I came to this site, I was interested in learning basic opening theory about logical and common openings. How to play the Italian or Ruy Lopez, for example. I open this 'opening forum' and what do I see? 99% crap at the time, which was quite disappointing. Later on, I learned more chess through books, and wanted to wet my feet with a bit of deeper opening theory. I felt that by studying the moves that all the masters generally agree upon and learning the why behind such moves, i.e. learning opening theory, I could improve some aspects of my chess. Thus, I would go looking for explanations of opening theory, then question every move along the way. I looked for others doing a similar thing in this forum. Unfortuantely, the majority of the threads turned out to be joke openings, debates as to whether 'e4 or d4' was best, and tons of other nonsense. It's pathetic. If someone wants to come up with an opening, and actually suggests lines, then we're talking. Those are tangible, can be debated, and improved. Tossing nonsense ideas in the air and expecting others to treat it with an open mind? It gets real boring, real fast.

The_Gavinator - that's fair enough. But I don't think Nachtwulf really meant that, he was just alluding to the fact that pretty much every "new opening" posted in this forum is in fact pretty poor, with best play, for the side which the OP generally asserts is "winning", and that the fact is that the OP generally doesn't have the experience or strategical, even tactical knowledge, to concoct new ideas in the opening stages and justify them with some analysis that isn't cursory. All because the OP played a game with his new idea and won after a tactical blunder some 20 moves later. It gets boring and people start to approach it less willingly, just thinking like "oh, it'll just be another troll post from some guy who doesn't even know the castling rule" etc.

Also, although the Ruy story is a good one, I don't think you can compare the state of opening theory necessarily with its state now. Pretty much all decent ideas in the first couple of moves have been analysed by someone. Invention in the opening now primarily HAS to build upon deeper, more established lines, not because nothing else can be good, but because someone else almost surely saw it wasn't before. I personally wish that we were still at that early stage of opening theory and were coming up with defences like the Sicilian or the Benko for the first time!