My Opening Invention


if there is no name i will call it ''greek defence''.... actually i have won many games with it when playing on real wooden chessboard....on the net i think i have used once ....


I'm not sure I agree


Anybody have some good books they could mail me?


first of all why change the move order? 2nd i searched it and it has pretty good stats after 1d4 nf6 2 c4 a6 3nce c5 4 d5 b5 5 cxb5 axb5 6 nxb5 ba6 it's more of a benko style after d6 g6 bg7 O-O..........MIKE DO YOU THINK ITS A GOOD OPENING?


OK for 2h games i have to admit that i d be hard for a gm to play well with this but it doent mean its impossible....but for a 5min blitz i think its pretty decent


actually accordingto chess365 database 4 out of5 games with this variation were won by black....


i just think that its another way to transpose to benko style games....anyway its your opinion and i respect it,it just seems to me that if the line goes as i said black has the same comp as anyother player playing against  the zaitsev


ok with all these but do you think people who play blitz with the time running will find the best moves against this?and also forget if black is doing  well or not ok...if you win games its all that matters cause:u dont have to play welle to win u jus need to play better than your opponent'' and if your opponent doesnt find the best moves then this opening did its job....


ok then.....i hope you do well in your next gamesSmileand thanks for sharing your opinion


I think it is "original" of about a dozen people, including me.

But your original QUESTION is different.

I think that c5 is called for, but does not deserve the three exclaimation points given. White will now either prop up the QP with c3 or Nf3, and at that point, you make your decision to play the Sicilian or the French.

I prefer the Sicilian, so ....cxd4

If you prefer the French, e6 is your move.

The first variation can be found under Alapin's opening in the Sicilian ( I believe he came up with his system during the late 1800s)

I think it was Korchnoi that occasionally broke into White's center Pawns with c5 (after the KP advance) as well as Spassky, and some of us were interested in seeing THAT game between the two during the games leading up to finding a challenger to Fischer. (Karpov)

But, as for inventing it...

I wouldn't be so quick to brag about moving a pawn twice in the opening. You have transposed a Karo into a Karo with a half move loss. The Pawn should have gone to ....c5 to begin with, and your move following the e5 push would center around you fianchettoing the King Bishop, and after ....0-0, ....f6

For what it's worth, not many of those games were named by their originators. They got named because the originators had worked for years on them, used them often with success, and, in all probability, were really a form of cursing.

"Oh dang! I have to play Alekhine, again this tournament. That darned Alekhine's Defense!" Like that...


GreenLeaf14 wrote:

Is there a name for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 a6? it came to me one as i was searching for d4 alternatives....{so i didn't copy it from sb else} do you think its good?it can lead to benoni lines and it can surely take your opponent by surprise....

Benko. name for you.

There is a Greek Attack, however, and championed by Larsen.

And the Greek Defense is a Black version of the same game.

Thing is, the big boys that use those games probably eat a dozen players like us before lunch. Or, in plainer alert.

Plus, when you move something like a6 early on? (h6, same thing) then your opponent will merely trim down his attacking to systems that don't call for the push in the first place. Most often you will see that in The Nimzo-Indian: 1. d4  Nf6  2. e3  e6  3. a3? .... Black will now merely describe events without the usual ....Bb4, and trust me on this. It is an almost perfect example of why doubled Pawns on the Queen side are better than pushing that a3. Besides being avoidable, it was also the move White gave away (imagine giving away a move as Black) and now, White will have a craped quarters Q Side with little or no resolution. And that is because Black won't play to the forward a3 Pawn.

But, then, what the heck. If it works for you, I would say use the dickens out of it!


(I know I would!)

pellik wrote:
Powerlevel_9001 wrote:

dude, a6 is garbage.... lol think about it like this, lets change the move order:

d4 a6 c4 nf6, a6 really has no effect in such a position probably after nc3 e6 e4 d5 e5(or even exd5!?))  4.nf3 b5 (only way to justify a6) and cxb5 axb5 nxb5, i highly doubt black has enough comp 

I'm too lazy to keep scrolling up to figure out what you're talking about, but I can tell you that I've absolutely crushed reasonably strong players who, due to ghosts or whatever reason, play some crap move like a6 when it doesn't belong there. You're wasting a move AND your weakening the b6 square. Now you have to worry about crap like Na4.

I crushed a 1900 player who played a6 while on the black side of a main line KID bayonet attack. Worse then useless.

Generally you should only move pawns when you have a solid reason to do so.

pellik, Good News/Bad News, Which do you want first?

The Good News?


The Good News is, you are right when you say that you have beat lower rated players when they play that, often.

The Bad News. It's a toy of Pal Benko's (rated around 2500, I think) and it could be he uses it specifically to draw in someone who thinks the "answer" is easy. But, they too are above 2000 ratings, probably either friends or have played often enough to know what irks the opponent.

C'mon...there can't be a chess player here who doesn't play an opening that they know specifically irks an opponent, huh? I have a couple. I like to hope they never catch me in a dark alley with me unawares, too.



Brilliant! Amazing!!

So tell us...

When you "invent" the opening 1.e4 c5, what arw you going to call that??