We can call it " Garb-age opening "
I have engineered a new opening-any comments welcome
Sort:
LongIslandMark wrote:
In grade school I was taking piano lessons and wrote my first original composition. It was lousy, but the instructor was encouraging (not too many of her students tried composing) as well as pointing out how it was not interesting.
Who knows? Maybe the OP will someday become a GM and have an opening named after him.
Wait, this anecdote only makes sense because we all know you turned out to be a professional composer -- But I suddenly realized I don't know that. I googled composer Mark Diaz, but there's nothing. There's a Dan Diaz who composes music for video games -- maybe you were thinking of him? If his piano teacher encouraged his bad compositions that would be cool. But if you didn't turn out to be a composer maybe your piano teacher should have discouraged you sooner so you could go out and play like normal boys instead of hiding in your room wearing a giant purple cape and imitating Vincent Price while banging hideous dissonant chords on a Casio Touchtone Organ... ok I'm sort of projecting some of my own childhood there but anyhoo just saying maybe the discouragement was a good thing.
I admire your desire & willingness to fight these are important qualities in a chess player. I was confused on "who" this opening was for, but after closer examination I've realized the true & deeper flaws of what you are suggesting for BOTH sides. You have ENGINEERED an opening based on substandard & inadequete play. Every "krinkle" or mistep by eitherside in an opening is legetimate if proven no matter how it is discovered, be it tactically, positionally, or move sequence. I do not have the time now to go through each inconsistency, but they are there, keep working on it it will become clearer, thank you.
JG27Pyth wrote:
@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.
Well, the OP might have been a seriously bad player and genuinely willing to accept criticism up to #22. #32 and #44 shows he is not, but there was no way to know beforehand. Pfren just gave him the benefit of the doubt.
LongIslandMark wrote:
In grade school I was taking piano lessons and wrote my first original composition. It was lousy, but the instructor was encouraging (not too many of her students tried composing) as well as pointing out how it was not interesting.
That only works if you are not answering the criticism by "lalala can't hear you".
pfren wrote:
Masterjatin wrote:
If you feel like that, though I am not surprised that it would have more flaws than I found, I would even accept the comment, but as it is a formation of which I can find no database, not wishing to point at you, such comments must have at least a little bit of explanation. It is a stylish opening which can work out with most of the openings and Gambits, but even machines are designed to play only their opening book, and there are almost a 100 types of openings, so on a universal basis, if you think any of the move is useless, can you please support your comment?
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.
I think pfren summarised it all quite well. No need to go on pointing out weaknesses in this "opening". If the OP has what it takes to become a good chess player he will understand this comment and focus his attention to these flaws pointed out. Research shows that it takes the same personal qualities to become good at something as it takes to recognise your flaws in this area.
I see no evil pointing at a beginner his mistakes, no matter how obvious or ridiculous they are. After all, this is the fastest way to learn.
After some posts, I'm not sure if the O.P. is a beginner, or not. But he is a troll for sure- especially #32 is epic.
pfren wrote:
I see no evil pointing at a beginner his mistakes, no matter how obvious or ridiculous they are. After all, this is the fastest way to learn.
After some posts, I'm not sure if the O.P. is a beginner, or not. But he is a troll for sure- especially #32 is epic.
Good evening pfren. I was wondering if you could help us with a doubt we have on a position. We are all amateurs and in my case I feel I am misinformed, and i don't want to misinform others with my ignorance.
Would you be so kind as to give your opinion? Here is the link: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/is-nxc3-a-bad-move-i-find-it-as-a-loss-of-time-from-black-what-do-you-think
Thank you.
I have book on strategy and endgame that I am studying, and some other training materials. Unless I am not really sure of something I will try to avoid this drivel.
pfren wrote:
I see no evil pointing at a beginner his mistakes, no matter how obvious or ridiculous they are. After all, this is the fastest way to learn.
After some posts, I'm not sure if the O.P. is a beginner, or not. But he is a troll for sure- especially #32 is epic.
With respect Pfren I think you are just confusing the spider with the counter spider...
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
With respect Pfren I think you are just confusing the spider with the counter spider...
True, true.
I saw once a spider in a counter, and she beat me at chess... but I have never lost to any other spider.
Apr 7, 2014
0
#54
In response to the original post, not only are more than half the moves nonsense, but in his later comments about requiring explanation, no explanation is needed. If the position is "+4.03" after 10 moves, then obviously Black's moves are HORRIBLE! Black should not be losing after 10 moves. Next, White's 11th move, it jumps down from +4.03 to +1.74. Clearly not a good move by White, just not bad enough to throw the advantage completely away.
You preach this whole "formation" baloney. Why the hell? It's useless!
If you are trying to play the White side of this, dream on bro! You'll never face it! Even lower rated players aren't that stupid. 2...d5?? - That gets a big fat "Come on, Man!". If Black wants to play such a move, he'll go into an Anti-Grunfeld, 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5, NOT 1...g6 and 2...d5.
If you are trying to play the Black side of this, I don't know what else to say except that only a Moron would play the Black side of this!
must argee that this opening is the stuidest since ths one
g4 e5 f4 qh4#
pfren wrote:
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
With respect Pfren I think you are just confusing the spider with the counter spider...
True, true.
I saw once a spider in a counter, and she beat me at chess... but I have never lost to any other spider.
I'm 40% spiders! ^_^
Dedicated to the OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G_zSos8w_I
The OP mistook "engineering" for extensive work with his LEGO set.
Nice, all that's left is to give it a name.... maybe "The Balogna Sandwich"