i dont know what you have been reading but the polish is NOT a tactical opening. its nearly always a positional opening, where either central pawn majority or queenside space is white's asset. the idea that unorthodox openings, are all merely tactical fireworks is dubious and debunked. an attitude that usually arises from people that hand-wave all offbeat lines as "cheap tricks"
Exotic first moves to avoid any opening preparation
Sort:
Jun 10, 2018
0
#23
BobbyTalparov wrote:
One was a GM, the other was a 2000. And reading comprehension appear to be a key weakness of yours. The point (which has been the same this whole thread, but you are apparently too dense to understand it) is that these off-beat openings can usually be met simply by following general opening principles, and leave white in an inferior position (and in some cases, even a losing one) very quickly. So, if your goal is to get your opponent out of any preparation they had, you are now in one of 3 situations: 1) Against a weaker opponent, you will likely win due to tactics in the middle game (which would have happened anyway). 2) Against an even opponent, you will be struggling in a worse position for most of the game. 3) Against a stronger opponent, you will likely lose, usually before move 40, due to having to find obscure moves to keep it only slightly worse. All 6 of your published games (all losses) fall into #2 and #3. So, you can continue you inferiority complex and talk down to players unless they do things you have not done, or you can evaluate statements on their merits. I realize you are young, so I will let you in on a little secret: only one of those approaches leads to logical discussion; the other just demonstrates you are a fool.
no you fool, what happens is that databases like those in chesstempo ONLY use FIDE rating even when the rating is misleadingly lower than the USCF rating (in the u.s FIDE rated tournaments are fairly rare due to stricter conditions like having a FIDE approved director, and other rules). that opponent was NOT 2000 strength because his uscf rating was CONSIDERABLY higher.
I am the player that plays these things and what you are saying is straight up nonsense. NO you wont get worse positions agaisnt an even rated opponent with an opening that with best play leads to equality or some debatable -0.1. my six games published i have had the unfortunate fact have been loses, (5 where from the league where most of my opposition was in fact considerably higher rated and more experienced). i have had positions at over 1+ eval by an engine agaisnt ruifang lee when he was 2500 and a draw/near win that blundered agaisnt a GM (both with 1.b4 in otb format) and plenty of wins vs master level opposition (and this is not including my online games with includes many IM and some GM scalps). against other masters stronger than me, i virtually ALWAYS come out of the opening just fine, and lose because my opponent is simply stronger and wins the middlegame or endgame.
you are a crappy older player that thinks he knows what he is talking about. you dont. get back to me when there is a 2 in front of your rating. There is no merit to what you say. you are a weak class player who doesnt have experience nor are you even citing anyone for almost of what you say.
im not gonna continue spamming this post. you are a scrub making claims not based on research or relevant experience. your rudimentary commentary on my games vs high rated players is meaningless and superficial.
Jun 10, 2018
0
#24
i have had weak players disagree with me here on chess.com forums. But The one area of expertise where this master is nearly unrivaled in knowledge and experience ( i have actually contributed original lines on these openings on livebook that engines really struggle to find on their own, and played these lines all my life), and i have patzers with their head up their behind thinking they have some illuminating knowledge a priori on the subject matter. " you cant do this and improve" "you will get worse positions agaisnt strong players" etc etc. I AM the one that analyzes all my openings with engines and AM the one that has played equal and stronger players with this stuff literally all the time.
But patzer with youtube channel thinks otherwise because he has some illuminating insight unbeknownst to the world.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#25
@Darkunorthodox88, your arguments lose their force when you resort to personal attacks.
You have actually proven the point by showing how much work you have done on these games to build your own repertoire.
The one major point I disagree with @BobbyTalparov is his discussion of players who are stronger and weaker. Unless you are Magnus Carlsen, there will always be players who are stronger, and there will almost always be player who are weaker. The difference could be in the opening, but not necessarily.
I definitely agree that there are Class players who follow opening theory for 18 moves, and as soon as they are out of theory they blunder. My own strategy is generally to avoid the deepest lines of theory and get out of the main lines around move 10 or so.
If you go to an OTB tournament and wander around the hall after an hour, quite often the lower boards have rushed through the opening and are deep into the middle game while the top boards are still thinking over their opening set ups. The top boards do know their theory, but they're trying to set traps for their opponents that the lower boards generally have no conception exist.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#26
SmyslovFan wrote:
@Darkunorthodox88, your arguments lose their force when you resort to personal attacks.
You have actually proven the point by showing how much work you have done on these games to build your own repertoire.
The one major point I disagree with @BobbyTalparov is his discussion of players who are stronger and weaker. Unless you are Magnus Carlsen, there will always be players who are stronger, and there will almost always be player who are weaker. The difference could be in the opening, but not necessarily.
I definitely agree that there are Class players who follow opening theory for 18 moves, and as soon as they are out of theory they blunder. My own strategy is generally to avoid the deepest lines of theory and get out of the main lines around move 10 or so.
If you go to an OTB tournament and wander around the hall after an hour, quite often the lower boards have rushed through the opening and are deep into the middle game while the top boards are still thinking over their opening set ups. The top boards do know their theory, but they're trying to set traps for their opponents that the lower boards generally have no conception exist.
a weak player is an objective state of affairs, call it what you like. fish, patzer,scrub etc etc. i personally always liked scrub. reminds of some newbie scrubbing floors because he is new and completely new to a craft.
sometimes, experience is not relevant in certain topics, here it surely is, and im calling him out on the pomposity of his claims from someone that hasnt even made it to expert yet. posting my games without my permission in some cheeky attempt to make me look bad is closer to a personal attack than anything i have said.
i rest easy knowing that my defeats are greater than even his greatest victories.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#27
smyslovfan, one thing i have learned after playing many high talented junior players ( i mean 9-12 year olds) rated 2000 and above is that they tend to excel very much in pure calculation and remembering all the prepped opening line their coaches teach but their positional understanding after the opening phase is quite lacking. its almost like their rating has outgrown their learning stage and the positional aspect hasnt quite catched up. Often to win agaisnt them, my openings already leave them on their own resources, and I make the game as anti-tactical as possible. eventually after collecting on every small inaccuracy they make, their position ends up lost.
what im trying to get at, is that junior players are especially prone to knowing a lot of opening theory but even with strong ratings, "dont fully get it".sometimes, they even can quote you back what their ineffective expensive coaches who recycle their material tells them but their intuition simply doesnt match their quotes.
they eventually do outgrow this phase because they tend to train obsessively and their experience eventually catches up.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#28
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ivanchuk pointed out that in order to play offbeat lines well, you have to create your own theory. You have to vet the moves yourself, and you have to come up with middle game plans.
It's certainly one way to play chess, but don't do it to reduce the amount of work in the openings you must do. It's quite a bit more work!
EXACTLY!
Therefore, I will pass on the OP's garbage lines and DECREASE my study time by continuing to play highly theoretical openings like the French, King's Indian, and 1.Nf3!
Bird's is well studied and a prepared opponent will be very tough to face. The Sokolsky is a pet line of mine that leads to some odd positions, but there is a little bit of theory out there. I don't know much about the Dunst nor have I played it much outside of a few blitz games. Of the three mentioned in the OP, I'd go with the Sokolsky. Another fun one is the Nimzo-Larsen.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
smyslovfan, one thing i have learned after playing many high talented junior players ( i mean 9-12 year olds) rated 2000 and above is that they tend to excel very much in pure calculation and remembering all the prepped opening line their coaches teach but their positional understanding after the opening phase is quite lacking. its almost like their rating has outgrown their learning stage and the positional aspect hasnt quite catched up. Often to win agaisnt them, my openings already leave them on their own resources, and I make the game as anti-tactical as possible. eventually after collecting on every small inaccuracy they make, their position ends up lost.
what im trying to get at, is that junior players are especially prone to knowing a lot of opening theory but even with strong ratings, "dont fully get it".sometimes, they even can quote you back what their ineffective expensive coaches who recycle their material tells them but their intuition simply doesnt match their quotes.
they eventually do outgrow this phase because they tend to train obsessively and their experience eventually catches up.
Maybe indeed, good positional play requires a lot of experience.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#31
@BobbyTalparov, it doesn't make sense to try to shame someone because they have a losing record against players who are higher rated than them. Just about everyone has a losing record against people who are higher rated. @darkunorthodox88 has only been +2200 for a short while. Of course he's going to have a poor record against stronger opposition. But, he does have experience! He's played more than 40 classical games against +2200 opposition.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#32
Take a look at your own USCF stats to see if that matches your experience.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#33
I've a friend who's been playing bizarre openings all his life. He's been rated 2200-2300+ for about 30 years. His standard record against players rated +2200 since 1991 is 81 wins, 56 draws, and 164 losses. He has scored 45% against players rated 2200-2299. It's normal, really.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
I AM the one that analyzes all my openings with engines and AM the one that has played equal and stronger players with this stuff literally all the time.
But patzer with youtube channel thinks otherwise because he has some illuminating insight unbeknownst to the world.
Yeah we got that. You and your pals avoid mainstream openings by memorizing hundreds of engine moves to avoid being crushed as white....because you would be crushed worse in mainstream.
I think I'll stay in the majority that expects to try to win as white....and not hand over the initiative to black and celebrate draws.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#35
nighteyes1234 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
I AM the one that analyzes all my openings with engines and AM the one that has played equal and stronger players with this stuff literally all the time.
But patzer with youtube channel thinks otherwise because he has some illuminating insight unbeknownst to the world.
Yeah we got that. You and your pals avoid mainstream openings by memorizing hundreds of engine moves to avoid being crushed as white....because you would be crushed worse in mainstream.
I think I'll stay in the majority that expects to try to win as white....and not hand over the initiative to black and celebrate draws.
you must have some ridiculous idea what experts and even masters play like. most masters do not have any DEEP preparation against any of this moves, they at best know a 5 move reply that gives them a playable game. even if they did prepare, its a matter of being more prepared then your opponent. in some of the most critical lines, i know my opening 18+ moves deep. can they out-prepare me? very rare, very difficult, especially since a lot of my knowledge isnt in books or databases.
idk what crazy idea you guys have, like playing these things is somehow immensely difficult and some uphill battle. its not. especially with white. the positions you get in these openings tend to be quite complex and the win goes to the better player. there is no "Struggle" to it, other than knowing your lines.
the amount of players i have faced that have taken i kid you not, not 10 minutes after 1.b4 or sometimes even 1.b3 AT THE MASTER LEVEL will astound you. the antidotes many strong players have to these things are quick solutions to basically skip any trick against weaker class players and experts to get a sound game, or some hasty "Refutation" they learned last minute. when they face a fellow master playing these things, they know the man is booked in his territory to the teeth.
hundreds of move? you gotta be kidding. no, most of the time, you only need to know the openings about ten moves deep, because these openings either have clear straightforward plans (like 1.b4 and 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d4), or allow immense room for creative replies (1.b3). more important than memorizing countless lines, is knowing subtle differences. (For example, when to play b4-b5 vs a3, and where the queenknight goes or whether to play d3 or d4 in 1.b4, knowing when to play c3 or not, when to play bc4 or bb5, or if nf3 goes before ng3 in 1.nc3 or which of the many sidelines you follow in 1.b3). you dont know what you are talking about. when you DO prepare extensively, is in the critical lines, to not end up worse, if your opponent plays precisely, its expected you will play just as precise, and only sometimes do masters play that precise.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#36
Btw, my USCF and FIDE ratings start with a 2 and I won a state championship. Oh, and I've been a coach for more than 25 years.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#37
BobbyTalparov wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Take a look at your own USCF stats to see if that matches your experience.
My rating is much more volatile (it has been increasing at a much faster rate, largely due to the fact that I am lower rated than he is, and playing much more often than he has been over the last few years) than his, so I would expect more variance; however:
Against Opponents of my current rating: Expected 50%, Actual 42%
Against Opponents +100 of my current rating: Expected 36%, Actual 30%
Against Opponents +200 of my current rating: Expected 24%, Actual 23%
Against Opponents +300 of my current rating: Expected 15%, Actual 15%
The biggest deviation is actually at +500, where I'm expected to score ~4%, and I have a 25% (again, low sample size there).
Those are lifetime scores. The numbers change somewhat when you look at recent scores.
i find it cute that instead of actually mentioning your rating, you go through all the trouble to spell out your starts without giving us a clue. rating shame much ? 
why dont you tell us your "strength?" your points as supposed to stand on their "own merits " after all. we wont judge...much.
you shoudnt be proud of playing that much more often if you are that much weaker. reaching a high rating based on fewer tournament appearances is a sign of talent, not weakness.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#38
BobbyTalparov wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
you must have some ridiculous idea what experts and even masters play like. most masters do not have any DEEP preparation against any of this moves, they at best know a 5 move reply that gives them a playable game. even if they did prepare, its a matter of being more prepared then your opponent. in some of the most critical lines, i know my opening 18+ moves deep. can they out-prepare me? very rare, very difficult, especially since a lot of my knowledge isnt in books or databases.
idk what crazy idea you guys have, like playing these things is somehow immensely difficult and some uphill battle. its not. especially with white. the positions you get in these openings tend to be quite complex and the win goes to the better player. there is no "Struggle" to it, other than knowing your lines.
the amount of players i have faced that have taken i kid you not, not 10 minutes after 1.b4 or sometimes even 1.b3 AT THE MASTER LEVEL will astound you. the antidotes many strong players have to these things are quick solutions to basically skip any trick against weaker class players and experts to get a sound game, or some hasty "Refutation" they learned last minute. when they face a fellow master playing these things, they know the man is booked in his territory to the teeth.
Do you even read the nonsense you write?
Lets recap:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Problem with that theory is some of us are prepared to face 1.f4. I actually have 2 lines that I play against it, depending on mood and situation.
1...e5, the From's Gambit, against which I play 4...Nf6 or if White plays the King's Gambit, then 2...exd4 and 3...d5.
1...Nf6 which is fine for Black in reversed Classical Dutch lines, and if White tries to go reverse Leningrad, it ends up being a direct transposition to the Closed Sicilian, Spassky's Variation (the lines with 6.f4).
So looking for unprepared openings? Look again!
ThrillerFan wrote:
EXACTLY!
Therefore, I will pass on the OP's garbage lines and DECREASE my study time by continuing to play highly theoretical openings like the French, King's Indian, and 1.Nf3!
And wait for it ....
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
@ThrillerFan is NOT a scrub and despite often being a little [opinionated] is a good player and is mostly correct in his assessment.
So you agree with him that they are garbage openings. QED.
But, we can go a little further:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
I AM the one that analyzes all my openings with engines and AM the one that has played equal and stronger players with this stuff literally all the time.
And here we go ...
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i rather play my repertoire than deal with kids weaker than me that know 25 moves of theory and artificially play better than their strength because of it.
Oh really?
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i know my opening 18+ moves deep. can they out-prepare me? very rare, very difficult, especially since a lot of my knowledge [isn't] in books or databases.
So, using your own logic, you are simply "booked up" (or should it be called "engined-up"?) on off-beat lines so you can play artificially better than your true strength and are advocating that others follow your admittedly unorthodox (i.e. not normal) approach. More power to them. Perhaps you can start coaching them and start a whole army of Grob, Orangutan, and Nimzo-Larsen players. I look forward to playing them at future US Opens, National Opens, and World Opens.
there is a name to what you are doing. you nickpick on every single little thing i say to cloud whats going on.
thrillerfan is no stranger to offbeat lines, in fact he has played 1.b4 many many times. stop cherrypicking. i woudnt even be surprised if that line was sarcastic. (not that it matters, this is such a nonsense thing to focus on, my point was unlike you scrubs, thrillerfan can at least speak through some experience even if he is wrong, unlike you.)
read right. those 18 move lines are only agaisnt very specific lines. like i said before, most of the time, you need not even learn from memory 10 moves deep.stop cherrypicking nonsense.
last time i played in world open in expert section, i didnt lose ONE of the 9 games. i dont know what is so exclusive to you about top events. many GM's specialize in offbeat lines,and im not gonna list them all here so its not a rating thing.
once, again im wasting my time here. you are a weak players i am not. i am an authority on unorthodox openings, you are not. i have entertained you to be informative long enough.
Jun 11, 2018
0
#39
BobbyTalparov wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i find it cute that instead of actually mentioning your rating, you go through all the trouble to spell out your starts without giving us a clue. rating shame much ? why [don't] you tell us your "strength?" your points as supposed to stand on their "own merits " after all. we wont judge...much.
you [shouldn't] be proud of playing that much more often if you are that much weaker. reaching a high rating based on fewer tournament appearances is a sign of talent, not weakness.
I'm beginning to think you still live in your mother's basement, so perhaps those students would be good for you.
If you read the discussion, it was regarding statistics on performance. There is no sense in comparing my (currently) lower rating to your higher rating. You will simply make the logical fallacy of "oh, you are X lower than me ... call me back when you reach Y!"
And I'd hardly call 111+ events to reach your rating "fewer" events than my 47. But then again, you don't strike me as very good at math.
experience is only a logical fallacy when said experience is irrelevant. here it most certaintly isnt. i would be surprised if you have even played one of these moves in an otb game. an argument on authority is only a fallacy when the authority is unreliable or his method questionable. unless you think im lying through my teeth, then YES my experience in the matter pretty much refutes you.
i was a logic tutor for my department for some time and a ph.d student a johns hopkins in philosophy, no need to lecture me on reasoning and logical fallacies.
but i will draw the line right here for real. this is a waste of time for me. like the special olympics, even if i win, i still lose.its diminishing returns of persuasiveness at this point.
i will not respond here anymore.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
experience is only a logical fallacy when said experience is irrelevant. here it most certaintly isnt. i would be surprised if you have even played one of these moves in an otb game. an argument on authority is only a fallacy when the authority is unreliable or his method questionable. unless you think im lying through my teeth, then YES my experience in the matter pretty much refutes you.
i was a logic tutor for my department for some time and a ph.d student a johns hopkins in philosophy, no need to lecture me on reasoning and logical fallacies.
but i will draw the line right here for real. this is a waste of time for me. like the special olympics, even if i win, i still lose.its diminishing returns of persuasiveness at this point.
i will not respond here anymore.
Withdrew for a different calling and yet you cannot see how experience matters for nothing when talking about expected results in pairings based on ELO ratings.
And yes, I have played against the Grob, and Nimzo-Larsen, several times in OTB games. One of the local chess club members literally wrote a book on the Grob 8 years before you were born. The first time I played against him (my rating at the time was 900, his was almost 2000!), I had a completely winning position and missed a mate in 2 (as I said, I was 900 at the time). When you have someone who is basically a beginner able to handle a gimmicky opening against a strong class A player who has literally spent the last 30 years "perfecting" it, perhaps there is something wrong with it. Michael Basman has made a living on these off-beat openings, yet he has far more crushing defeats in them than he has stellar wins.
And again, you resort to logical fallacies to dispute the fact that you have been making logical fallacies. Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink ...
Do you still have the scoresheet to this long ago game? I'd like to see where a 900 almost beat a 2000 because he overlooked a Mate-in-2.
Ivanchuk pointed out that in order to play offbeat lines well, you have to create your own theory. You have to vet the moves yourself, and you have to come up with middle game plans.
It's certainly one way to play chess, but don't do it to reduce the amount of work in the openings you must do. It's quite a bit more work!
i woudnt say its more work. i rather play my repertoire than deal with kids weaker than me that know 25 moves of theory and artificially play better than their strength because of it. you also dont have to keep up with every new development or fad in opening theory.
one benefit of offbeat repertoires with less booklines or database games is that you always have to think for yourself, and the same goes for your opponent. if your opponent tries to do some shortcut it is quite plausible he is gonna end up worse for not respecting the uniqueness of the positions. likewise, you need to not get lazy, if your opponent plays precisely , you will also need to play precisely or risk being worse.
let me show you an example of how even a harmless looking offbeat line can be venomous.
the amount of games i have won just like this agaisnt patzers is countless and i have gotten even expert level players fall for those a handful of times. black played sensibly but by not appreciating the uniqueness of the position ended up much worse
That is precisely Ivanchuk's point! Since there is no theory (or limited theory), you have to do your own homework. So, instead of looking up where you went wrong when analyzing a loss, you must analyze it yourself (and likely with a computer) and find moves that are often rather obscure.
And for every person you've caught in an obscure opening trap, I'm sure there are just as many games like this one:
Where white played with almost engine-like precision for ~25 moves, and then collapsed in a position that was difficult to hold.
Or this one:
Where white played 15 engine-like moves before running into the need for difficult to find (and very obscure) moves like 16. e3 or 19. Nc2.
If you want to play off-beat openings, feel free. Michael Basman did well with it (playing both the Grob and Orangutan openings quite often). However, it also likely prevented him from ever becoming a GM. What you sacrifice in many of these off-beat openings is your endgame insurance policy. If your opponent falls into one of your tactical traps, you have a good game. If they don't, you end up in an endgame with a horrible structure. At the sub-master level, this will not matter much as you will likely still run into players who are not accustomed to your tricky openings (or they will be horrendous at endgames). However, if it is known that you play off-beat openings (especially if you play the same ones consistently), their opening preparation becomes much easier.
Additionally, if you are worried about class players knowing "25 moves of theory" (not very likely, but if they are class players with this knowledge, they probably collapse on move 26!) in any given line and thus playing "much stronger than they actually are", there are much better ways to take them out of their comfort zone than to play gimmicky openings that leave you in worse positions. Simply varying the move order in some opening lines can be enough to avoid lines they are comfortable playing.
hehehe i see what you did there!
sure , show my games agaisnt a GM and (if i recall) a 2400 to prove some weird point. one game was me experimenting with g3 in the polish, the other is one of games in the pro league played after i came in late to our meeting spot with unreliable wifi. and no , that game did not have perfect precision even the first 13 moves.
when you get a chess title, or play in a pro league, or place top 3 in your state championship or heck, even win a junior national, then i will hear what you have to say. until the, its the peanut gallery category. i would try to find your games in a database but im afraid i wont find anything
scrub players who probably arent allowed to play in the open section of their tournaments get REAL cocky in the internet. but i will let the reader decide on the issue. national master who has played ONLY unorthodox openings his whole life ever since he was 1200, or random chess.com dude with a youtube channel.