I have engineered a new opening-any comments welcome

The final positon looks funny but the opening is really bad...

@pfren -- Sometimes your tongue lashings in the past went too far imo, but I so much preferred your righteous scorn to this -- seeing you take this crap seriously enough to annotate it. I honestly find it depressing that you would waste your time, and validate with your attention, this empty nonsense. IMHO the only reasonable response to this dreary mildly mentally defective crap is to mock it. Actually, far better, ignore it. I should take my own advice.  I need to stop wishing there were more real chess content on these forums -- I've been here long enough to know how things stand. 

You have "engineered" a new opening?

I think the reason these sorts of threads draw so much scorn is that, if you were really interested in developing a new opening, you could simply try it in your own games and see how it works. After tinkering with it for a while, then maybe post a topic asking for input on some issues that come up.

What these threads usually are, is "I copied moves from random opening that I like to make one up, I have never tried it but please tell me how awesome it is." This sort of thing quickly becomes grating, and people lose patience.

At any rate spending time creating new openings may certainly be an enjoyable private hobby but it's pretty much a waste of time if we are talking about a real desire to improve at chess.

You want that, then listen:

After analysing with most aggressive black openings, I found my Spider to be a rockstar against them. Pinning opponent's central pawns to ruin his pawn structure and plan is best plan for black. And as this is a rare case that our opponent, as black, will do that sacrifice, and assuming that you didn't read carefully my intro to this opening, I made this formation as white. With black, it is the counter-spider that I discovered, the best way to fight against this spider.

I'll be looking for this opening in the next MCO.

(This thread has given me the biggest laugh I've had in a long time. Sorry, there was no kind way of saying this. )

Thanks, but as I have already written that in the intro to this, we just leave the idea that opponent will find it good to gambit both pawns for that attack, he may not even know that we may play the spider, that's what makes this opening. That is just my discovered counterplay, and just don't look at black for a while. Look at white position,, then at entire board without black pieces, then the entire board with all pieces. Suddenly the position of white is in intense pressure. Then look at white position with any other black opening, what I meant so far. It will show that how white can rock the position. Already with most aggressive black positions, like the famous Benko Gambit, I have tried it and those Kside and Qside initiatives were just rocked by fortifications.

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.

Anand should be asked to test this opening against Carlsen.

IM pfren, I have been following you on chess.com for a while, and I must say I really like you!

I seldom read such useless, illogical drivel anywhere. I can't even tell if there's any thought put into this at all. This has to be a well designed troll thread, right?

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.)

My friend, you are right. Actually as formations are a part of opening, I placed it in opening forum only, second reason that there is no "formation forum"(it would be waste of webspace).

After thinking, yes, it is not at all a good opening, but like some formations usable against most types of openings and gambits, eg. Botvinnik formation, it is a good choice.

I can not agree the fact that there is no better opening than the ones in existence, and I can say that even you oranyone can guarantee it.

I may look at best moves, but as there are over a billion variations in 5-6 moves, and 2^155 possible chess positions with 10^120 possible sequences, it is impossible to find best moves by a human, and after calculating with speed of fastest supercomputer, we need 5*10^96(approx.) seconds which would be no less than 10^91(approx.) years just for the 1st move, and even without analysing opportunities and pressure on each move, it will take more time than birth and death of at least a billion universes. And if we try this by much slower human brain, figures run out of calculation. After all that, I forgot that even the best machine may be improved, means that it may make some mistakes. So best one can do is to make something like a universal formation.

It is said "Don't move out queens to early", but even best machines do that so game gets complicated and normal players may run into problems. What about then analysing with AI and psychology, and then I hope that formations are better than openings, though if there is opportunity you may just destruct them and play with advantages. If even they are a few moves late, I just consider the position. Though it may not be proper, but it is good enough, and I hope you agree because that's all I can say in defence of formations against lines of openings. Just one thing else: If there is no opportunity, one can always play with formations, and like this you can prevent opponent from using his opening book like they do in systems.

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.

+1

So many painful keystokes are wasted in (and on) this thread.

What planet does the OP hail from ??

seems legend :D

Reminds me when ai was a kid and brought my rooks out

right away. I thought I was on to something. Think we called the Von shleiffen attack, wno was known for going

around obsticles.