I read somewhere that there was no point looking for a new opening as everything has already been done.
Not sure if it's true, but it certainly sounds reasonable.
my invented opening
Sort:
how do i add the pgn???
Seems somewhat unlikely that the pawns and the knights would be arranged like that.
well i moved the pawns to fianchetto the bishops
This opening looks silly. Even if both sides deployed their knights before anything else, after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nc3 Nc6 your opponent isn't going to mirror g4 or b4, he's simply going to pick off the hanging pawns with an easy win to follow.
This is crazy! hahaha... Ok I'm interested in the opening theory of your new found opening. Please enlight me...share with us the goal or advantage your are trying to accomplish and don't forget to apply opening principles. You are not the first beginner on the site that came up with an opening...and probably not the last 
May 7, 2008
0
#8
This opening is not practical...it looks like you are more interested in symmetrical openings than understanding imbalances...get Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess and gain some understanding of why you play certain moves, and then try to devise an opening plan. Or better yet, pick a plan that GMs have dedicated countless hours of study to, like the Ruy Lopez or the Queen's Gambit, and pick one solid line within it, and learn how to develop. Then you won't try ideas with "pointless" pawn moves - it is easy to see that the knight pawns are hanging.
But at least you are trying. Maybe you ought to look into Owen's defense with b6 Bb7 and g6 Bg7, controlling the center from the flanks. The pawns aren't quite so endangered like in your opening with b5 and g5. Then from there you can proceed with moves like e6 and d6, Nd7 and Ne7, and 0-0 and attack the center with c5 or f5.
Apart from the hanging pawns, you would also have unsafe kings and white and black square weaknesses. Good though, because you have made a real big step on your way to chess stardom Grashopper.
Evil_Homer wrote:
I read somewhere that there was no point looking for a new opening as everything has already been done.
Not sure if it's true, but it certainly sounds reasonable.
Well, I created an opening called the Burris Gambit against the Caro-Kann and it even made its way onto an encyclopedia by that name. Many people who I show it to begin playing it almost immediately and have great results. So that statement is not true.
KillaBeez wrote: Evil_Homer wrote:
I read somewhere that there was no point looking for a new opening as everything has already been done.
Not sure if it's true, but it certainly sounds reasonable.
Well, I created an opening called the Burris Gambit against the Caro-Kann and it even made its way onto an encyclopedia by that name. Many people who I show it to begin playing it almost immediately and have great results. So that statement is not true.
can you please post "the Burris gambit"?
KillaBeez wrote: Evil_Homer wrote:
I read somewhere that there was no point looking for a new opening as everything has already been done.
Not sure if it's true, but it certainly sounds reasonable.
Well, I created an opening called the Burris Gambit against the Caro-Kann and it even made its way onto an encyclopedia by that name. Many people who I show it to begin playing it almost immediately and have great results. So that statement is not true.
Thanks for the heads up. :-)
KillaBeez wrote:
Well, I created an opening called the Burris Gambit against the Caro-Kann and it even made its way onto an encyclopedia by that name. Many people who I show it to begin playing it almost immediately and have great results. So that statement is not true.
Alekhine won a game in 1936 with what you call the "Burris Gambit". So, I have to ask, how old are you to have been the first to try this idea? ;-)
I never said I was the first to try it. I was unaware that Alekhine played that opening. But it had not been named yet, so I guess I named it and provided a little bit more analysis on the gambit. So if Alekhine played it, it has to be good. And it is never mentioned in any books on the Caro-Kann so it has very good surprise value.
KillaBeez
How did you come up with that name? Also you said that you create the Burris Gambit opening not name it!
1. h4! gets an exclam because it allows white to push the f and g pawns without getting mated on h4, but 2. h5? is just pointless.
i don't like it :/
Loomis wrote:
Alekhine won a game in 1936 with what you call the "Burris Gambit". So, I have to ask, how old are you to have been the first to try this idea? ;-)
Actually, Alekhine lost a game with that opening...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1468352
is it any good also is it original?