anyone know of any rook side pawn openings?

Yeah, that's actually what came to my mind too. It's actually a pretty decent try. Passive, but decent.

I didn't know Greg Norman played chess.  ;)

Moving the Rook pawns are generally bad, unless you have a reason for it (such as gaining space, or challenging a pawn storm, or dislodging an enemy piece, etc).

That said, it doesn't sound like anything anyone says will discourage you from it. Every game you lose with it you can chalk up to your ability, while every game you win with it you can chalk up to the opening. If you want it to be good, you'll think it is good.

But it isn't.

I think he just wants to gain attention by playing unusual openings. Which is actually quite okay (think: Benko, Bent Larsen, Tony Miles), as long as you choose unusual openings which are good!

• Nimzo-Larsen Attack: 1. b3
• Sokolsky/Polish Attack: 1. b4
• Benko Opening: 1. g3

What do all these three have in common? They develop bishops that point towards the center, which means that although a side-pawn is moved, the center is still respected.

Rule of thumb: Any opening which doesn't do something towards the center is a suspect opening. Even some openings that do something towards the center are suspect:

• Grob Attack: 1. g4 (weakens king safety)
  

1 h3 first, as played by Basman, has some advantages over 1 g4 straightaway. (i have named this one the "Witchetty Grob".) About the only way a reversed opening then is bad, would be 2 e4 e5 and even then i wouldn't shirk a Vienna.

there was a master who liked 1 h4 e5 2 d4 kind of games. on 2...ed he would answer Q retakes.

i have seen the idea of 1 a4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 e4 because that's a useful idea in the Fajarowicz (against the opponent's a3, b4). can't be that bad with a move in hand. (I owe this idea to Myers Opening Bulletin, which has covered this whole topic in depth.)

1 e4 g6 2 h4 i think was suggested by Harding. or 1 Nc3 g6 2 h4. this is chess, poker-style.

but my main beef with those rook pawn moves, is they get in the way of my Na3 and Nh3.

m.

LOL at 1. e4 g6 2. h4.

lets play some grob then but truly if you even have the slightest idea of the grob unless you screw up real bad your king is generally safe and i will challenge almost anyone to that

I have developed my own theory for the Grob and I would challenge anyone to a game with it, or the Bongcloud.

@lolipop and @conquistador: With due respect, your games will not prove anything about the soundness or reliability of your opening. Unless you're beating super-GMs with it.

A good opening is when:

• You are confident about its chances against any class of player, no matter how strong, or how prepared.
• The moves are made based on principles rather than your fantastic imagination.
• Your opponent does not crush you just because he escaped your "traps"

Please tell me how the Grob qualifies for these conditions. IM John Watson: "As far as I can tell, 1 g4 is competitive with 1 h4 for the honour of being White's worst first move. Against an informed or skilled opponent, it is simply masochistic."

On that note, who the hell invented the Dutch Defense?

Mr. Dutch?

Quite a strong player at my home town chess club in the 80s used to vary between the Grob and the Sokolsky (quite a maverick). I recall one day playing some casual blitz games against him, he opened with 1. g4 and I replied to him with 1. ... h5 saying with a straight face "It's the book move" (perhaps slightly misleading actually I can't find any examples in my database before 1995). I won the game nicely, but surely that had no influence on the fact that he decided only to play the Sokolsky after that.

The Irish?

It was probably the French people.

1.h4 threatens to sac the Exchange after 1...d5 with 2.Rh3!?

Wow i'm terrified.

It commits to a kingside weakness on move 1, or it doesn't contest the most important area on the board, the center.  Take your pick.