Anyone run into people who obviously have no "book" training for openings and typical lines but play strongly. I've been surprised a couple time by what appears at first to be a weak player but actually have great postional sense. For example......they overuse pawns in the open but somehow pull off decent positions. I usually win but it's surprising what some people can so with unorthodox play.

Yes. One guy I played seems to always play d6 and e6 as Black. There's no quick way to build an advantage that I can see. You need logical, solid development that keeps the initiative. He's relying on you making a mistake, but with such unclear targets, I suppose he succeeds once in awhile. It's just a long hard slog to equalize. He drew me with it, and I had to work for it.

X-Menace you rock..........Erik if your reading this thread this guy deserves points for helping people improve their game and being very helpful and friendly.

vagabond, play awardchess.  That should really show you how valuable unorthodox is.

I say a good number of my losses are to people with unorthodox styles.  Sometimes it's just that they've played their one tactic or strategy so many times, they know the strengths and weaknesses and traps much better than you do.

I've ran into people also playing obscure variations of traditional openings.  I played several games against one girl who played 1...c6 2....b5 as black.  Every time.  I'm sure it was a defensive system which she had seen in some game and which is workable. 

I think it's psychological.  An unorthodox opening can throw the best players off their guard.  Karpov once lost to Anthony Miles using St. George's Defense (1. e4 a6).  Generally, however, if you play rematches against an unorthodox opponent and learn his playing style, I find you can beat them easily.

i have played unorthodox for 30 years...it's the only way i ever played. Being on the b side of the issue...i can say i either have great wins or tragic losses. but when i started learning the book openings i actually lost my natural game for a while and started losing a lot more. i never liked learning openings because i didn't want my game to become stagnant. here's an example...the four move checkmate...we have all played it to death when we learned it..then you run into the guy that stuffs it back down your throat...now what? you improvise and plan..learning openings weaken that skill in trade of playing like a cyborg. i see it a lot,. i'll play grob, bird,or my favorite...1Nf3 then 2Ng1,and i repeat as you develope and then start attacking around the 6th move. it never works on the more adept players, but it flummoxes most of the novices and even the intermediate players...i can tell my the sudden changes in the speed of their play...thats real chess. losing is a better teacher than always winning with a pattern you memorise. another thing....you find some pretty neat traps and tactics that pop up in unortodox games...have fun and play them once in a while...you'll get the points back if you lose another time.

by the way...if any of you play unorthodox...feel free to challenge me. any rating is fine.

I think the best thing to do when you see an unorthodox opening is try to calm yourself down and try not to think of an immediate reputation, just play normal chess.

I disagree with this. The point isn't to "play like a cyborg". The point is that a player who has a sound grasp of the fundamentals of chess (tactics, endgames, etc) AND extensive opening knowledge has a definite advantage over a player with a sound grasp of the fundamentals and zero opening knowledge.

Why? Well, "orthodox" openings are orthodox for a reason; normally, the reason is that the very best players in the world have studied them extensively and determined that certain lines are superior to others. Sometimes the advantage is fairly small (e.g., "white leads in development" or "black has a superior pawn structure"), and sometimes there is a significant advantage (like a trap, or a strong attack).

A player who really knows the opening (not just memorizes, but truly understands) will be able to take advantage of inferior (often "out-of-book") lines played by an opponent.

Ultimately though, below a master level it's perfectly possible to get by just fine without any opening knowledge - as long as you're good at tactics. Openings may give you a slight advantage, while tactics win and lose games.

phillyDan>>here's an example...the four move checkmate...we have all played it to death when we learned it..then you run into the guy that stuffs it back down your throat...now what?

The four move checkmate is a terrible opening. No master would play it in a serious game. Yeah, if memorize the first four moves of a terrible opening and play it no matter what your opponent does, you'll lose pretty often. Big surprise.

the four move was an just an example of ant given play...no kidding its a bad one!!! ..not a promotion to do so...i'm just telling you my experience with openings. i think the middle game and end game are far more important, and playing the same openings all of the time is boring. take it easy pal.

I have started to look into unorthodox openings...I recently purchased the famous book by Schiller. In it he gives analysis on openings that are interesting, playable, and which ones he feels are outright garbage. Opening theory isn't over yet, and there are strong players who don't just play caro-kann and queen's gambit. I understand the cyborg comment, and would like to add that in the beginning I ran into the classic problem of trying to memorize moves, only to feel spooked when something meandered out of book. Chess is about fun and learning (especially when you're not a pro player like most people here) and unorthodox chess can force you and your opponent to learn, as well as get into some new, enjoyable territory. Viva la difference!

I agree with this. Sorry if I sounded too confrontational.

Unless you are a master, the truth probably lies in the middle. Play unorthodox, but not crazy. I also like the book by Shiller, but I usually stick to somewhat orthodox openings like the Scandinavian or Fajorowicz

no problem lance...i just didnt want to be taken out of context...the point of these discussions are to throw around ideas....some will be better than others.sometimes its hard to get a point across in a short paragraph and we all have different wavelengths.