Irregular openings

I've found that my middlegame is quite solid, but I am often subjected to bad positions due to irregular openings surprising me. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this problem?

It's a difficult question to answer because irregular can be fairly subjective.

Likely things such as 1.g4 are going to come to mind when you say ''irregular'', and as such most of the responses will urge you simply to develop in classical fashion and be ok.

However, as these threads often pan out, I find a lot of players authoring these posts will conider an ''irregular opening'' to be some offbeat gambit they've encountered which is actually fairly sound and requires concrete play.

For this reason you should try and attach some diagrams with examples of the types of openings you have trouble against.

Sweg

Personally I'm an aficionado of symmetrical openings, so my strategy against irregular first moves is simple: copy them. Yes, that means that some of my games are going to have ridiculously amateurish-looking openings like 1. a3 a6 or 1. g4 g5 (And how about a "Grob Center Game"?: 1. g4 g5 2. h4 gxh4 3. Rxh4 ), but that also means I have an even game, and I don't get my knights driven off with an unexpected b4-b5 or g4-g5. I admit I'm still struggling with my conscience about my strategy, however. For example, do I really want to play a "Symmetrical Gedult" (1. f3 f6)? Or a "Symmetrical Kadas" (1. h4 h5)? That's one of the decisions I'm contemplating now, while I will be developing my repertoire against human players over the next couple months.

The key to understanding irregular openings in general is considering what they establish. For example, a3 is played to block a black knight from playing Nc6-b4 and threatening c2.

Chesscoaching is right. That's the more analytical and more ambitious approach to irregular openings. One problem with weird flank openings is that they anticipate conditions that may not happen, in which case they're wasted, so the trick is to change conditions to make sure those moves are wasted. For example, h3 prevents Black's bishop pin ...Bg4 in a KP opening, but if Black plays a QP opening (1...d5) in response, then Black probably won't have a pin on the kings side anyway, so White's first move went to waste. Similarly, h4 might anticipate Black castling kingside with a fianchetto, in which case all Black has to do is castle queenside to make that move a waste. But that approach does mean you should memorize a response for all possible first moves...

If you play a6 to a3, then you may as well play a3 to begin with. That would be consistent. The irregular player may have some theory or tricks based on surprise or something. That is why every player must prepare for or be confident for meeting an irregular opening. 

There are two types of irregular opening players: ones who come with a bagful of tricks and ideas, and joke players. There's nothing illegitimate or invalid about the former. It's not objectionable to play a rare trappy opening to catch the opponent out, they do it at super gm level all the time... the difference being their "irregular" openings are much more sophisticated.

I know this is 5 months old, but considering the rating I think it's good to mention some basic advice.

Grab some center, develop your pieces, and castle to where it's safe. Avoid starting a fight before your development is finished (i.e. don't make a lot of captures, don't push pawns to open lines).

You might be facing an odd opening, but it's still a game of chess.

A common mistake is to try to immediately punish a "bad" opening. Sometimes the most effective punishment is simply developing all your pieces. At the end of 10 moves you'll notice their opening is obscure for a reason. They've likely given up space, tempo, king safety or other things.

The reward for playing well against an odd opening is rarely a win in 10 moves. Most usually it's a very good middlegame.

Here's another way to create two categories of unorthodox opening moves: (1) Good, waiting move that doesn't weaken anything. Examples: 1. a3, 1. c3, 1. e3, 1. d3. (2) Bad, weakening move. Examples: 1. g4, 1. Nh3, 1. Na3, 1. f3.

----------

(p. 48)
      ANDERSSEN OPENING

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/P7/1PPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR b - - 0 1

1.a3

   The Anderssen Opening, actually recorded in 1939 in the game
Zekeriski - Boncourt, is primarily a transpositional device, and there
are many possibilities leading to the English Opening, Bugayev Attack,
and almost any opening which includes an early a3 by White which
does not involve an attack on an enemy piece.
   As such, it is difficult to comment on the opening, except by exam-
ining the limitations on those transpositions. Black can, of course, oc-
cupy the center with pawns, and take over those privileges usually asso-
ciated with the White side. The move a3 may be simply irrelevant, but
then again it may not.

(p. 183)
      GROB OPENING

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/6P1/8/PPPPPP1P/RNBQKBNR b - - 0 1

1.g4

   The Grob Opening is arguable [sic] the worst opening in chess. White
weakens the kingside, and after 2.f4?? experiences the humiliation of
Fool's Mate with 2...Qh4#. Nevertheless, it enjoys a devoted following
of fans, or perhaps fanatics, who use it persistently.
   The opening can be played in two ways. If White follows up with
h3, we have the Macho Grob. When the g-pawn advances to g5, we
have the Spike, though that is extremely rare these days. Other ap-
proaches for White involve a gambit of the g-pawn, or various schemes
of development explored by Claude Bloodgood, who wrote a book titled
The Tactical Grob.

(p. 184)
      DOUBLE GROB

rnbqkbnr/pppppp1p/8/6p1/6P1/8/PPPPPP1P/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1

1.g4 g5

   As bad as 1.g4 is for White, this is perhaps the only move (other
than 1...f5) that actually justifies White's play in the Double Grob.
   1...c6; 2.c4 g5; is another form of the Double Grob, seen in a corre-
spondence game between Grob and Stuecheli. After 3.d4 h6; 4.e4 and
now 4...d5 is relatively best. (4...e6?; 5.d5 White secured an advantage
in space which led to a rapid victory.) 5.cxd5 (5.exd5 cxd5; 6.Qa4+
Bd7; 7.Qb3 Nc6 gives Black some counterplay.) 5...cxd5; 6.e5 gives White
a lasting advantage in space and mobility.

Schiller, Eric. 1998. Unorthodox Chess Openings. Cooper Station, New York: Cardoza Publishing.

Sqod, why the hell are you pasting all of that? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. You just decided that since we were talking about irregular openings you'd just post that you found about irregular openings online? 

I like my categorization is better - 1) Irregular openings with ideas and theoretical advantages or tricks behind them for example the Grob and 2) Irregular openings with nothing behind them, no point. 1. e4 creates weaknesses and much more weaknesses than 1. e3 yet noone would deny 1. e4 is a better move. I'm pretty sure 1. f4 probably has better standing than 1. a4 even though it's much more weakening. Just because something is partly weakening doesn't make them "bad", every active move near the start is partly weakening something.  

There is no similar value in your categorization so shut up and stop bolding words nonsensically.  

I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to the original poster, who asked how to respond to irregular openings. Since it seems the rest of my logic was lost on you, I'm not going to go over it. Like to make enemies much?

I thank you all for your suggestions, and I have learned much more about chess in my five month absence from this thread (I assumed it was dead). I am much more proficient now at understanding openings rather than memorising moves. My problem now is understanding the offbeat gambits of which the original replier spoke. I have not developed a sense that can tell me when things are becoming dangerous and I need accurate play. Does anyone have any suggestions for honing such skills?

With respect that you are a higher rated player than myself...

play by principle, in the openings, with the gambits... look what they lead to. My personal style of play (tactics, traps, aggressive open play preffered :)), means I am more than happy to sacrifice a pawn or two for a lead in tempo, development or control of the board. Doesn't matter what point in the game it is.
As for memorising moves, I can't remember the last time I met someone that was able to memorise several billion combinations of something. It's all well and good memorising your 10 times tables but if you know HOW to multiply, then by Joe, the worlds your oyster!....
Fiveofswords put it best in his first comment.

Before I end up rambling too much, I'll leave you with some typical opening gambits I pretty much play all the time.

- Danish Gambit - Two pawns for development lead, control of board and lots of traps
- Smith Morra - Same as Danish (pretty much), can lead to a game called the franco benoni that Im fortunate enough to know how to play
- Scandinavian (1.e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6) - I typically sacrifice c pawn by playing c6 on third move, all for speed of development. Stuff the pawn, if whitey wants to help me get ahead of him in the arms race for a minor financial contribution... fine, i'll only gonna use those guns to take back what I gave him and more...

- The old benoni (1.d4 c5) - You probably know, but white wants to push that pawn, capturing c5, would just lead to a later Black Bxc5 or an undermining of whites Queen side pawn structure. Fun to play though, especially at my level! :)

Thank you for your suggestion, and I am well-familiarised with said gambits(though the scandinavian and old benoni are not gambits), for they are common. As for me being a higher rated player, I mostly waste my time playing blitz. Although my online chess rating probably more accurately represents what my FIDE or USCF rating would be, I mostly use it to mess around with friends who are rated significantly lower than I am. With respect to blitz chess, in which you are rated roughly 200 points higher than I am, your opinion is appreciated.

Please be relevant, helpful & nice!I also think the some irregular openings are very good.Kings indian attack,english opening,some Reti lines......are some of best irregulars.

kings indian attack,orthodox.......

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.0-0(we want to castle quickly.)4........e5 5.d3 Nf6 6.Nbd2 0-0 7.e4

I don't really consider those irregulars. Those openings are fairly well-studied. I was thinking more along the lines of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6. It's not a good opening, for it puts the queen on a risky square immediately, but I have lost several times to it from the surprise factor alone. I realise now that the best way to deal with this is to play d3/d4 and then try and kick the queen with the bishop.

There is no "surprise factor" with 2. ....Qf6 because there's no possible attack or thing to deal with. White playing Nd5, Ne4, Bg5 will all lose a tempo for black. Even his "threat" (lol) of 3. ...Bc5 4. ....Qxf2# is already blocked by the Nf3. 

1.Nf3 g5...thats what i call irregular (the Beta-Weidenhagen-Gambit,my personal favorite against this boring Nf3-stuff)

Since we're talking about irregular openings, I thought I'd add one I encountered yesterday which was unusual, to say the least...

Unfortunately I'm not really good enough at strategy to know how to take advantage of an opening like that.