When an unorthodox player meets an orthodox player would it be fair to say that the unorthodox player has to think further ahead and therefore has a broader and deeper scope of the game generally and overall ??

My usual kindest regards and respect to all.Debbie.

What's the difference between unorthodox and an orthodox player?

well there's unorthodox stuff, which requires that you understand where there are exceptions to general rules. This means you have a deep understanding of those rules. You dont have to play it, but thats one thing.

But what i see most common is players just doing illogical stuff and then calling it unorthodox. In that sense orthodox play just beats them and less creativity is actually needed by the 'orthodox' player beating them.

conventional verses unconventional, style,method,openings,middle end game etc.

Thankyou fiveofswords I was struggling there,No.3.

---

Chigorin vs Tarrasch

Bronstein vs Botvinnik

Bent Larsen I would call fairly unorthodox.

Something like that is what I would call unorthodox vs fairly orthodox, maybe add Ivanchuck and Morozevich as the active unorthodox super-gm's.

But yes, it get's somewhat arbitrary.

well I think a great 'unorthodox' player was kasparov. He didnt always play offbeat stuff but when he did it was because he correctly felt that the line was misevaluated. Other people, like morozevich, play new moves in openings, but I wouldnt necessarily call it unorthodox, since its often based on very well understood ideas in those openings. Other people, like larsen, seemed to jsut like playing statistically uncommon stuff for the sake of it and often got in bad positions because of it...I dont know if thats unorthodox .

I don't know what you mean by orthodox and unorthodox players. If the move is sound, it's sound. If it's unsound, it's unsound. I see players making unsound moves, hoping they don't get caught, and calling themselves unorthodox, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with this experience.

Hello all,

In my opinion, an 'unorthodox player' is merely someone who can think of clever and creative moves, countering book line openings and tactics. Therefore, an 'unorthodox player' does "think further ahead and therefore has a broader and deeper scope of the game generally and overall", but only against an 'orthodox player'.

I which case, what will happen, when an 'unorthodox player' verses another 'unorthodox player'? I think that they will end up canceling each other out; returning to the 'orthodox'. Their game would seem confusing at the start, but I think, eventually, they would need to become more structured to gain an advantage to win i.e. 'orthodox'.

With these in mind, I would conclude, that there is no such thing as an 'orthodox' or 'unorthodox player'. But in-fact, just the human ability to make unpredicted moves, whether brilliant or blunder.

well not necessarilly...I can look at a position and know the typical, natural way to approach it, but also know and understand that some moves might also be okay, and interesting, and perhaps i would call them 'unorthodox', especially if they would seem incorrect but are justified by some tactical sequence or something. So I guess really its just a vague word hard to say exactly what it means.

"Unorthodox" is kind of meaningless when it comes to depth.  Someone could play 1. h4, I wouldn't think they were a deep thinker, I would just think they were an idiot.

Use words like "hypermodern", or referance players like tal or petrosian who both were quite unorthodox. There were a lot of players that played bad moves (bent larsen, lasker) to phychologically manipluate their opponents.  Some players have impressive repetoires (Kasparov, kasparov, kasparov).  And some players are just insane (Suttles, nezhmetdinov).

So what type of unorthodox player do you mean?

hypermodern? usually thats not unorthodox, or interesting :)

No I think it has more to do with what is the typical moves or plan in some common position, but almost always moves and plans that happen to be common are not the only reasonable thing to do, so other things that work I would call unorthodox.

Things that dont work or have no plan are sometimes called unorthodox by the people that play them but the correct terminology is dubious, or maybe just stupid.

---

Look up> Michael Bezold, Emory Tate, Arthur Kogan, and Saviely Tartakower and you shall learn unorthodox play. These are guys that marched to the beat of their own drums. Using IMBALANCED but not inferior or usound openings and used very creative and unique ideas that are very strong and effective in their games. That is what an unorthodox player is.

---

'unorthodox' = 'untraditional'

The game of chess has developed through the ages. The origin of Chess isn't even clear, but we can say, the game has changed over time. In the 1600's, chess would have been played differently from how we play it today.

We have found new ways to play, different strategies, and different skills. People in the 1600's would call us 'unorthodox' (or 'untraditional'). Or quoting 'ChattyChessPlayer': 'hypermorden'.

Though we now know basic opening and endgames, we can't certify that chess will not change. Things will always seem 'unorthodox' because this is how chess has developing.

So returning back to the main arguement: an "unorthodox player has to think further ahead and therefore has a broader and deeper scope of the game generally and overall''

An 'unorthodox player' does not exist because we are all an 'unorthodox player'. We possess a "deeper scope of the game" than people would have centuries ago. we have the 'ability to make unpredicted moves, whether brilliant or blunder.'

The 'unorthodox' today, will be the 'norm' of tomorrow.

Sorry - I used the word hypermodern with players like suttles in mind :).  Bad word.

 

Pretty much any Bronstein game out there, reading his notations to the games (Funny enough, I strongly recomend that you get yourself The Sorcerer's Apprentice, a great book.).