are unorthodox openings valid?


Is it unorthodox openings valid ?

policarpo wrote: Is it unorthodox openings valid ?

A00: Anderssen Opening and A00: Sodium Attack are fairly suspect.


depends on your defintion.... 

A big book of busts - Watson & schiller talks about a ton of them and gives you an assessment.... 


... and a related question: "Who validates openings"? Please give a name and a surname.


Nimzo-larsen attack . I think this is a good unorthodox opening for white


It depends on what specific opening is labeled as "unorthodox" not to mention what YOUR definition of "unorthodox" is.

In general, there are several valid reasons in each case why some openings are less, or way less popular than "mainstream" openings or variations.


At the super GM level, up above 2700, there are only a handful of openings that can reasonably be said to be "valid."  The very, very slight positional innacuracies that can arise agaist best play by the opponent tend to be decisive when the level of play is almost Rybka-ishly good.

At the master level, the list opens up quite a bit.  That's where you start seeing the Nimzo-Larsen, and the Bird, and what have you.

Below that, everything that doesn't lose by force is valid.


Using unorthodox openings is sufficient grounds to have your phone tapped, your e-mail intercepted, and be put on the no fly list. 


I've seen world-class GMs play "unorthodox" openings (such as the WIlkes-Barre variation and Danish Gambit), albeit very rarely, so let's not get too snobbish here about them.




There are less-commonly played openings and defenses that are considered valid, in that perfect play from the opening could probably lead to a draw. And then there are less-commonly played openings and defenses which are considered suspect.

There are more than enough "uncommon but valid in theory" openings to choose from to personalize your style.


Unorthodox openings are not the best, as they do not seize the initiative that white has in order for White as Black has greater to equalize or to even seize the initiative. Honestly, I prefer orthodox opening, but I do understand the concepts of a few. 


Orthodox just means what is accepted. Some openings (or variations) have been moved from one category to another such as the berlin defense,  Sveshnikov, Evans Gambit, Scotch, Albin Counter gambit (ala Moro) all once considered questionable have been shown to be valid at a high level. At the more normal level some openings that are considered questionable are valid such as the Benko Gambit, Scandinavian, Kings gambit etc.... To be considered unorthodox means that against best play (as mentioned in an earlier post) the opening will not yield acceptable positions (ie that the chances of losing or drawing (as white) are higher than playing another opening)

You can learn a lot by studying how to 'refute" a particular bad opening.

Even these questionable openings have been used as surprise weapons by players today that are trying to be moving targets against an opponents preparation. It is interesting to me how what used to be deep preperation by players is now just trying to avoid deep prep and play something "old" as a surprise. Look at Magnus recently playing the King's gambit and benko against 2700+ opposition when he needed to create chances. 

at your level i would pick a simple opening and just follow it for a few months. You will lose to odd ball stuff but thats just an opportunity to learn and grow. 


I think of orthodox as typical due to popular acceptance. Un-orthodox things are accepted as, well, unorthodox...or unusual due to not being popular, thus less familiar...




True some people won't accept certain things...

I wonder if they are even able to accept that it exists...


Did you want to quote yourself?


I'm enjoying the comments. Some unorthodox openings are consecrated as orthodox, but there are many others that if you use them will have wasted the advantage of being with white. Do not see the games of GMs. Anyone ever played: Napoleon Attack, Medusa Gambit Pterodactyl or Giraffe Attack?


Are the King's Gambit and Evan's Gambit considered 'orthodox'? I thought I heard something about black being able to equalize in most lines, but I'm not sure. Anyway, would it be a bad idea to stick with the King's Gambit as my sole response to 1. ...e5 for the rest of my chess career, or (assuming I improve) will I eventually need to play the Ruy Lopez?


there are two types of unorthodox. there are openings that are not popular because they are just not the current trend with top players. 

Then there are openings that are unorthodox because they are flawed and lead to bad positions when compared to others. 

A lot can be had by studying 'bad' openings and the refutation and techniques needed to convert them