I have engineered a new opening-any comments welcome

Why would black intentionally give away a pawn, particularly a center pawn, to play a variation of the Dutch with no compensation for it? And now black does not have his/her queen's pawn to help solidify his pawn position? If you can show me the compensation for black voluntarily giving up a pawn, I'm willing to listen.

The opening above assumes your opponent will sacrifice both of his central pawns for no clear reason. Why would he do that? But keep experimenting, that's a good thing!

Now what? Of course noone will stop you engineering a new opening. However, this requires to make three steps: 1. Learning how the pieces are moving, 2. learning the relative piece values and 3. understanding the absolute opening fundamentals. You are still halfway to step number one.

Now what? Of course noone will stop you engineering a new opening. However, this requires to make three steps: 1. Learning how the pieces are moving, 2. learning the relative piece values and 3. understanding the absolute opening fundamentals. You are still halfway to step number one.

Okay my friend, I understood what you mean to say, so now I shall explain something more clearly than what was encoded/hidden in the intro to this opening.

 Since I am introducing a new opening, it must have hundreds of variations I have not tried. And I am not even doing that. If you can help me, find the most safe sequence to the final position. I did make the position, but forgot the sequence before writing here. Just follow these steps and still if you think anything is wrong, kindly tell. I shall later make an excellent opening in conference, though I may tell nothing of that, except that in my business I will also make something for games, though currently I'm not that old, but will be the richest man, and that's all I can tell about that.

1. Look at just the white position, no black pieces.

2. Now do that with just white position, but the entire board instead of 1st 4 ranks, because it can affect long range as well. If you did same in 1st step, good. Just see the power of its pieces, their hidden powers and position.

3. Finally, look at the final position formed by the counter spider and spider. Now you can notice the lost power of white, and thats what counter formations are for. Then try it with best black formations, you will see that it can kick soul out of them. After analysing(with Shredder, since it is most user friendly) against Benko Gambit accepted/forced (while wasting d pawn instead of c, or rather using that to take back on c4 and taking advanced a-pawn later, or any possible way), the final score was Q+R+K+P(7th rank) vs. K(mated). It was good, else.

Now I hope that you got the good. For what your 3 instructions were, I would say: Firstly, I am not focussing on attacking, but introducing a new opening and its counter, while moves can be in any sequence which reaches there. Let's even forget what black did, and that even knights wasted moves, just think from white's perspective, and that black won't even know this opening. Let him play random opening X--, and then see. I am focussing more on formation than opening because of those reasons only:-

1.It can be achieved by different sequence

2.It is a formation of soldiers, and maybe I could have listed only the final position, but I also gave a sample sequence.

So, what I gave was formation of white, with a counter position based on discovered flaws. I can not create a formation and a counter formation both at once, while trying the possible moves.

Finally, don't do injustice to this opening by seeing tactics and mistakes in between, that's equal to pointing to the sequence which is just sample and a random one to reach to the position.

Okay my friend, I understood what you mean to say, so now I shall explain something more clearly than what was encoded/hidden in the intro to this opening.

(a) Since I am introducing a new opening, it must have hundreds of variations I have not tried. And I am not even doing that. If you can help me, find the most safe sequence to the final position[...]

1. (b) Look at just the white position, no black pieces.

2. Now do that with just white position, but the entire board instead of 1st 4 ranks, because it can affect long range as well. If you did same in 1st step, good. Just see the power of its pieces, their hidden powers and position.

3. [...] (c) After analysing(with Shredder, since it is most user friendly) against Benko Gambit accepted/forced [...]

Now I hope that you got the good. For what your 3 instructions were, I would say: Firstly, I am not focussing on attacking, but introducing a new opening and its counter, while moves can be in any sequence which reaches there. (d) Let's even forget what black did, and that even knights wasted moves, just think from white's perspective, and that black won't even know this opening. Let him play random opening X--, and then see. I am focussing more on formation than opening because of those reasons only:-

1.It can be achieved by different sequence

2. (e) It is a formation of soldiers, and maybe I could have listed only the final position, but I also gave a sample sequence.

So, what I gave was formation of white, with a counter position based on discovered flaws. I can not create a formation and a counter formation both at once, while trying the possible moves.

(f) Finally, don't do injustice to this opening by seeing tactics and mistakes in between, that's equal to pointing to the sequence which is just sample and a random one to reach to the position.

I have nothing against wanting to be creative and to experiment. I think that early deviations in standard openings and perhaps transposing to openings or variations that are comfortable to you and not your opponent is the way to go. I seems that although you express yourself well and truly believe in your ideas, it seems that you have a lot to learn. If you play in rated OTB events with time controls of G/100 or longer or in correspondence events with "normal" time controls such as 10 moves in 30 days as they do in USCF events, I can almost guarantee that if given the opportunity to play your system, you will go down in flames. pfren spent the time to look at your "invention" as a form of "tough love" in order to educate you as to how foolish your ideas are. I teach kids individually and in groups and I`ve seen many strange ideas that are really bad. After the kids "get schooled" as to why their inventions really suck, they "grow up" rather quickly and stop the nonsense. I do not know how old you are, grasshopper, but I think that you are a bright child who just learned the basic rules of Chess. Read some books (beginner level), play "normal" openings, listen to us much more experienced guys especially in person and you should grow as a player. I sincerely hope that I was not too abrasive. I even defended you to some of my fellow Chess club players. They all said that you were either an educated idiot or a certified moron. I said that you, at worst, were misguided. They mocked me, albeit good naturedly, and said my mind was deteriorating since turning 66 this past October. One final note: your ideas may work against very weak players in very fast time controls but that does not mean you are truly a good player. One of my friends at the club said if he was president of our group and you came by to play this crap, he would call the police and have you escorted out. A joke, of course. I reminded him of free speech, etc. You play what you want but don`t come crying to me when your Chess career looks like a pile of putrid parrot droppings.

I have been watching this thread and decided to step in to address something within my abilities to address. You have a problem understanding what an "opening" is.

An (sound) opening is a series of moves for both sides that leads to a playable game for both sides with best play. It has nothing to do with piece "formations". Making a pretty picture with your pieces is not what a chess player does. Playing sensible moves is.

Notice also the italics above on "both". An opening, of course, is for both sides. Both sides should not be completely hard-headed or blind to the other sides' moves. 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3!? e6 3. d4 Bb4 is NOT called a Nimzo-Indian, despite black's first three moves being the same as the Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4. More ridiculously, I wouldn't call 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 g6?? 3. exf6 Bg7?? 4. fxg7 a King's Indian, despite the "correct" moves being played.

In chess, there is no such thing as a "formation" opening. No opening blindly tries to reach a particular rigid piece setup. Even system openings like the Colle, London, KIA and Hippo tend to rely heavily upon move-order sequences to even reach playable positions half the time, and usually the best options are to abandon the attempted setup and deviate first.

I have bolded and labelled parts of your post in the quote to address specifically some errors in your perceptions. This is of course by no means an exhaustive addressal of your post.

(a) One does not invent openings by trying to reach a pretty position, and variations come out by examining which moves are most advantageous and are "best play" by both sides. As pfren's analysis (if the term can be applied to the analysed moves) shows, the play is so bad it scarcely warrants "variations".

(b) Again, just looking at the pretty picture your pieces make is meaningless. A chess position is meaningless if you do not consider both sides' pieces and pawns, ideas and threats. And of course in reaching a chess position, both sides' moves influence each other: I don't think even a die-hard King's Indian player would ignore the free gift of 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Bh6??.

(c) This part highlights your error in perception. The starting point of the Benko (or Volga) Gambit arises from the series of moves 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5!?. Both white and black moves are relevant. For example, 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. e3 b5? is NOT the Volga. Neither is 1. d4 e6 2. c4 Be7?! 3. d5 b5?. Thus "analysing your opening against the Benko Gambit" is a nonsensical statement.

(d) "Let's even forget what black did"?! Once again, I point out an opening (and a game of chess for that matter) is dependent on moves made by both players.

(e) Again, "a formation of soldiers" might be something applicable in the Battle for Wesnoth (a great game) or Starcraft III (on second thoughts, probably not even there) but it is certainly meaningless in chess. Playing while taking your opponent's responses into account is what good players do, not singlemindedly trying to reach the same "formation" every game regardless of what the opponent does.

(f) The entire last paragraph: The opening is supposed to be a sequence of moves to get both players to a playable middlegame/endgame. Not just any random sequence, a sequence of best (subject to newer analysis) moves. If the sequence is faulty, you don't have an opening at all (or more kindly, you have a terrible "opening" in the loosest sense of the word.)

I like the way the white knights capture and jump back like ballet dancers

This has to be the greatest creative trolling effort of the year. Based on other recent threads from India, I can only think that along with wanting to recapture the World Chess Championship, Indians have built an industrial size spam factory, and now wish to become World Spam Champions.