All things Grob

https://www.chess.com/game/139687570894

Grob #3.

The Grob appears to be very violent at lower rankings, like myself.

One pattern that I have noticed in all three games is my opponents allowing king side attacks down the open g file.

Just looked at the game review. It was horrible!

All 3 games are horrible.

g3, then Bg2 and soon after f3 isn't the way a chess game is played.

chessterd5, ignore the prima donna negativity of titled players; they are all cat fighting to shore up their pathetically fragile egos. Go forth and conquer with the Grob, or prove your critics right, losing in a hilariously "I-sux" fashion, it's up to you.

How does one play chess?

Quite simply, by controlling the center, developing his pieces at safe and active squares, putting the king to safety, and then forming a good attacking/offensive plan. And none of these games is doing something even remotely relevant to these basic principles.

Far be it from me to question an IM, but can't one 'play chess' while bending those prescriptions considerably? I used to be in this club here where all we played was the Hippopotamus (in team vote chess, so plenty of time for opponents to refute any subpar play) and we did quite well.

General principles are useful, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

You can also start the game with 1.Nh3 and 2.Ng1 and still think you are playing chess- no question about that.

Just my opinion, but I actually know about the Grobs opening theory and argue that it's not the worst opening. The worst opening is the one you don't know how to play.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/139706599684

Grob #4. Not a great game but that's OK.

My opponent may have resigned too early but I think that I can pick up the knight on c6.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/139734523286?move=0

Grob #5. It was a loss. I'm pretty sure it was a combination of my opponent playing better quality moves and me not making good moves.

@chessterd5 Although I really don't see what you're aiming for with the whole Bg2 and then f3 thing in some of your other games (it doesn't look/feel right to me at all), you do seem to have a feel for the sort of mayhem the Grob engenders and the way you've played seems to work out right for you.

Did you consider 6. Kf1 instead of 6. Bf1 at all in that game [link in #55]? 6. Kf1 is another very "Grobby" sort of move - it's ludicrously counter-intuitive but it keeps the Bg2 on an active square.

Edit addition: and in the #56 game the culprit was 3. Nh3. One weirdness too many - this is the Grob, not the Paris Gambit! 3. c4 was the ticket imho. One slip and Black got a too-solid centre...and a Pawn. When the Grob crashes, it crashes spectacularly.

Two chess players at the board, white makes the first move...1.g4. A look of utter disgust crosses black's face, you know the look, the four-week-old leftovers look, white, horrified thinks, "WTH did I just play???". Radiohead is playing somewhere---

But I'm a creep
I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here

White sinks back into his chair, defeated,he will never be a chess Chad, only a wierdo.

Did a WCC game ever start 1. Nh3 and 2. Ng1?

Well, there were two in the Hippo. Here's one:

Tigran Petrosian vs. Boris Spassky, World Championship 1966, game 16
g6 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be2 e6 Nd7 Ne7 7.Nbd2 b6 a6 9.Re1 Bb7 10.Bd3 0-0 11.Nc4 Qe8 12.Bd2 f6 13.Qe2 Kh8 14.Kh1 Qf7 15.Ng1 e5 fxe5 Nc5 18.Ne3 Qe8 19.Bc2 a5 20.Nh3 Bc8 21.Nf2 Be6 22.Qd1 Qf7 23.Ra3 Bd7 24.Nd3 Nxd3 25.Bxd3 Bh6 26.Bc4 Qg7 27.Re2 Ng8 28.Bxg8 Rxg8 29.Nd5 Bxd2 30.Rxd2 Be6 Qf7 32.Qe2 Ra7 33.Ra1 Rf8 Raa8 35.Qe3 Rab8 36.Rf1 Qg7 37.Qd3 Rf7 38.Kg1 Rbf8 39.Ne3 g5 40.Rdf2 h5 Qg6 42.Nd5 Rg8 43.Qe3 Kh7 44.Qd2 Rgg7 45.Qe3 Kg8 46.Rd2 Kh7 47.Rdf2 Rf8 48.Qd2 Rgf7 49.Qe3 ½–½

No, I didn't really consider 6.Kf1,...

To be honest, I have not really "considered " anything in these Grob games. I have just been reacting and trying to concentrate on tactics.

And the black knight is on c5 not c6. Sorry for the bad notation. I still really don't like Kf1. That move does two things that are interrelated.

A) you commit a king to a square over simply guarding a bishop.

B) you have forfeited the potential for escaping your king to anywhere else with out being Petrosian and having the skills to walk a king, 6 moves across the board by hand.

On the other note: I agree with you on 3.Nh3. I feel ( I don't know) that the Nh3 move doesn't work with out f3. And in the right move order.

I will look at 3.c4 and see if I can learn from it.

Oh! It crashes AND BURNS 🔥. there shall be the transportation of marshmallows from miles around 😋.

Thank you.

Badger, I love your sense of humor!

But I thought those lyrics were sung by Kurt Cobain with Nirvana? Was it a cover of a Radiohead song?

Also, this idea that one plays the opening and then on move 15 comes up with a middlegame plan is completely artificial. In actuality one starts to think about middlegame plans right from the opening. Your opponent plays the QGA and you know right away you'll likely be headed for an IQP position and start to plan accordingly.

I think that Petrosian's philosophy or plan in this game was to get Spassky to commit to a defense or pawn structure early while his own peices would still remain "fluid " or adjustable. Essentially, a move order trick. I have heard a GM say once that you never really " gain or lose " a move with a knight. I assume that is because the knight can always return to the original square. But I can think of some instances where that may not always be true as well.

Was actually Spassky who played the Hippo.

I think the idea is similar to that of the Hedgehog -- black (or white) is solid and flexible and ready to "catch" any advance. The Hippo player is waiting for the opponent to overextend, create a vulnerability, make a mistake...

The thing with a knight not being able to lose a move is different. Any time a knight moves it is going to control a completely different set of squares than before. It can't move while maintaining control over the same critical square(s). This is mostly relevant in the endgame and with regard to zugzwang.

Just to clarify where I really stand on the Hippo, I'm not saying it's the best opening/defense one can play, but my experience with it changed my mind about chess principles somewhat. It appears one can play basically opposite of standard principles and that is valid (ignore the center, play for restraint and prophylaxis there, and focus on the flanks)