Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Waite-Harrison Attack


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #41

    The_Gavinator

    This is the issue with most people on here. You just reject things because you've never seen them before. Take your "precious" little Ruy Lopez for example. The opening was first published in the 16th century. Most people overlooked it, and it wasn't seriously considered for over 300 years. How do you think those people would feel now? They overlooked what is now one of the most popular openings at the grandmaster level. They were probably people like you who thought that that opening was "silly". So please, rather than rejecting something because you've never seen it before, take openings seriously.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #42

    jetfighter13

    no, he pointed out the flaws most of us have shown the Waite-Harrison Attack has, though he never mentioned them, he just ambiguously pointed them out. any way, to the question about the stakes game, I never play odds games. and plus I would probably forget the purpose, and simply play 1. ... f5

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #43

    Michael-G

    Yes Gavinator you are right.The only reason I rejected it is because I have never seen it before. 

           And yes the story is repeated ,just like Ruy Lopez in 16th century and Tarrasch in 20th , you are also a misunderstood genious.Your opening will be the world champions choice after 5 centuries but bad people like me don't like the idea that you discovered an opening  while others lost their time studying , let's say , Capablanca(who on earth is that guy with that weird name?).

         Keep looking for the perfect opening kid(obviously you are a kid , if you are not , you need a shrink).Don't pay attention to fools like me.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #44

    AnthonyCG

    The_Gavinator wrote:

    This is the issue with most people on here. You just reject things because you've never seen them before. Take your "precious" little Ruy Lopez for example. The opening was first published in the 16th century. Most people overlooked it, and it wasn't seriously considered for over 300 years. How do you think those people would feel now? They overlooked what is now one of the most popular openings at the grandmaster level. They were probably people like you who thought that that opening was "silly". So please, rather than rejecting something because you've never seen it before, take openings seriously.

    The difference is that they at least had analysis to back their claims - something that everyone that has disagreed with your idea has provided. You have done no such thing in the defence of your ideas and all you have really provided is hearsay.

    If you can't stand behind what you belive in then why would anyone else?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #45

    The_Gavinator

    I'm not calling this a perfect opening. My point on is that people on here will reject any opening just because they have not seen it before. You haven't given any reason it is bad, (exactly which I asked you not to do in the OP), but just reject this because you haven't seen it before. I bet most people talked to Ruy López de Segura the exact same way you talk to me now. If he was alive today, he would probably laugh at all of the people who criticized him.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #46

    bresando

    In all seriousness, we have proved an advantage for black in all the lines you gave (particularly in the first one, where white is dead lost in the position labeled as "clearly dominating"), and then michael decided to offer you a precious advice. Unfortunately you seem unable to seriously accept polite and constructive criticism. There is a precise positional reason which makes this attempt to play a "reverse italian" harmless at best. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #47

    AnthonyCG

    The_Gavinator wrote:

    I'm not calling this a perfect opening. My point on is that people on here will reject any opening just because they have not seen it before. You haven't given any reason it is bad, (exactly which I asked you not to do in the OP), but just reject this because you haven't seen it before. I bet most people talked to Ruy López de Segura the exact same way you talk to me now. If he was alive today, he would probably laugh at all of the people who criticized him.

    Pages 1 and 2 are full of analysis refting this idea completely. It seems to me that you simply don't understand why Black is doing so well in those positons in which case you may as well not even bother with this thing.

    Again those that opposed the Ruy Lopez showed ANALYSIS that showed how "bad" it was. And years later people came up with ideas to refute that analysis and so the Ruy was back in business.

    You need to attempt the same thing right here.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #48

    AnthonyCG

    And if you think this is bad, check this out:

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/sharp-english-slav

    I forgot to look at it again but it's a very thorough refutation of an idea I had.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #49

    CHCL

    Many times people don't see these openings for a reason,it is because they are not concidered strong or are just bad.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #50

    ChessisGood

    In the first line, 4...cxb5 dominates with Na6 to come.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #51

    CHCL

    @The_Gavinator why are you so into making your own opening?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #52

    jetfighter13

    cxb4 is good, not great, in your line white was the one who played like a lunatic, I mean forgetting e.p?!?!? but yeah, black is still winning

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #53

    AnthonyCG

    CHCL wrote:

    @The_Gavinator why are you so into making your own opening?

    It's fun LOL

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #54

    CHCL

    Play unfashionable lines in  unusual openings. Then find an unusual idea. Then play it. Then you have your own opening.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #55

    The_Gavinator

    Wow Joey, thank's for being a troll. Anyways, why would white play a4, why not play e3 like I recommended, but you're trolling so I guess you wouldn't even look. Btw, I have already stated that b4 might not be a very good move, and e3 might be better on move 4, but you all don't listen to that either.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #56

    CHCL

    Quit calling people names. In my opinion that is stupid.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #57

    AnthonyCG

    Then stop replying. All he wants to do is give what ifs with nothing to back up his claims. Until he can come up with some kind of analysis, this thread is just a waste of time.

    There's a reason why he continues to sidestep this point...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #58

    The_Gavinator

    joeydvivre wrote:

    Honestly, you suck at chess.

    Oh yeah, you're definetly not a troll. Anyways, 4. b4 was an aggressive shot, I didn't sit there for hours analyzing it. Obviously you have proven it isn't a good try, and I recommend 4. e3. You have ignored that, because you are just trolling...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #59

    jetfighter13

    actualy white and black had oprotunites to improve in his lines

    anyway

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #60

    The_Gavinator

    jetfighter 5. Nf3 is plainly hanging a pawn


Back to Top

Post your reply: