Any time you see phrases like "an excellent psychological choice against booked-up juniors", you can usually be sure the opening is not good. Usually phrases like that are just fancier ways of saying "I'm scared of playing good, theoretical lines and can't be bothered to learn theory, so I'll just play something crappy and hope that they'll play poorly also!"
As I see your FIDE rating is above 1900, there's no reason you should be playing this kind of stuff.
Any time you see phrases like "an excellent psychological choice against booked-up juniors", you can usually be sure the opening is not good. Usually phrases like that are just fancier ways of saying "I'm scared of playing good, theoretical lines and can't be bothered to learn theory, so I'll just play something crappy and hope that they'll play poorly also!"
As I see your FIDE rating is above 1900, there's no reason you should be playing this kind of stuff.
I always like to play the bad theoretical lines, because its funny to smash up standard players like you, who know the QGD till move 22, but are totally lost in the sidelines of the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit.
Is it so unsual to have a FIDE-rating of 1900 and above, only by playing crappy openings?
I can state, that i have my 1900-OTB rating because of dubious and unsound gambits, but i dont have the goal to become a National Master like you.
But i think, you cant buy a life or something at the bakery for having an NM-title or a rating of 2100.
And as long its not forbidden by law, Paulie, Karel and me will play (successfully) our bullshit openings and you cant do anything against it...
I totally agree with the statement of my mate Karel,who stated in an other thread "as long as the second or third best move isnt enough to beat me in the opening, the opening is good enough for me" :D
@Dark_Falcon
"Its funny to smash up standard players like you, who know the QGD till move 22, but are totally lost in the sidelines of the Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit."
Ah...nothing provides refreshment in chess debate (or any other internet debate for that matter) like a baseless ad hominem attack. That's really nice, especially considering that you don't know me even one bit! And no, having made a cursory glance at my profile page (looking for things to criticize, I presume) does not constitute knowing anything about me.
As for your point, the problem with the sorts of lines you're proposing is that while they certainly may work once, all a reasonable player needs to do is to look up the opening after the game. And then he will remember the next time he faces it what to do, and he will never lose to it again (unless he blunders, which, admittedly, will happen a hell of a lot of the time if you're playing crappy opposition).
For example, you brought up your beloved Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit, an extremely awful opening. After I read your comment, I spent not five minutes playing around with my Stockfish 6 engine, and found a very simple refutation to your gambit! It took minimal effort and I will remember it whenever I play against this opening in the future:
1. d4 e5? 2. dxe5 d6 3. Nf3 Bg4!? (I saw this was the move you are playing against this line) 4. Bg5! Qd7 (4...Be7 5. Bxe7 Nxe7 6. exd6 cxd6 7. Qd3 and no compensation) (4...f6 5. exf6 Nxf6 6. e3 and no compensation) 5. Nc3 Nc6 (5...dxe5? 6. Nxe5 Qxd1 7. Rxd1 f6 8. Nxg4 fxg5 9. Nb5 and black has nothing better than resignation) 6. exd6 Bxd6 7. Nb5 Ne7 8. Nxd6+ cxd6 9. h3 Bf5 10. c3 and white is at least +1 after only 10 moves. This opening sucks. What have you got for a pawn?
And are you counting on your game being the first time he's ever seen the opening? That's pretty silly, given that most >1800 players have played tens of thousands of games.
Now is there a straight refutation to these 1. h4, 1. a4, 1...a5, or 1...h5 moves in the same way as there is a refutation (probably many more than one) to your Hartlaub? Perhaps not, or at least not as simply, since they are less directly confrontational and don't lose material right away for no compensation as your Hartlaub does. But surely, they are based on strategically questionable principles, and experience and common sense should point players in the right direction. Players facing these openings should analyze their own games, and take note of how large an advantage they got out of the opening against their opponent's garbage lines, and where/if they ever went astray, and after only a few games, they should be fine. Again, I am not saying these lines will not win games. And they might be fun. But a little work can go a long way, and I'd rather play something that actually makes sense...
It's your own life. Do whatever you want. But a) what you're proposing here does not make sense, and b) you need to learn basic rhetoric.
Regards.
Wow, I didn't expect flaming from an innocent post. I would like to respond to dpnorman but please settle down. It is only Chess.
Firstly, you have made the assertion that players that play unusual openings don't know theory or are lazy. But I don't think this is true. In my case, I feel I know theory extremely well. Grunfeld, Nimzo, QGD, Pirc, Petroff, KID - I know them all in a lot of depth - sometimes too much depth. I know because I play them regularly. I recently played 22 moves of home preparation against an IM in the main-line Pirc. ie I work hard to find tiny advantages in well-trodden main-lines. My point is I choose when to play main-lines and when not to depending on my opponent.
The other thing is I don't tend to play the same weird opening against the same player twice. So they can go home and prepare all they want for a next time, but there will never be a next time - against me anyway. I take my win and I am gone ;-) [Damn it - where did the crazy guy go!]
For a long time I was afraid to play weird stuff because everybody says it just wrong. But Chess is amazing and you can't really appreciate it until you step out onto your own.
And do you know how good it feels to win with 1.h4!? It is amazing!! I am still buzzing from that game. I never feel like that in a main-line. It is all about creating your own piece of art - not someone elses 1,000,000 times before you.
The other thing that happens is after a while you get really good at understanding the ideas of something your opponent knows next to nothing about.
ps. I have being playing 1.b3 A LOT and racked up win after win. Theory says 1.b3 hasn't got a lot going for it. But what was Bent Larsens record with it? +35 =6 -6. That is phenonemal given he was playing the best in the world with something supposedly not so good.
pps. What to do against 1.f4!? [Another opening frowned upon which is great to play]. Well every 1.f4 player is expecting (and is used to 1...d5). And they are booked up against 1...e5. So what do I do? 1...f5! Haven't lost a game yet ;-)
Fajarowicz anyone? Another opening I have racked up great results with. Beat an FM in 26 moves OTB and get draws with ease. Theory doesn't think much of it. And my opponent has never seen it before - but afterwards is a different story.
So I encourage you to open your mind dpnorman. And if you are reading this, give 1.f4, 1.b3, 1.h4, 1.b4, 1.g3 and 1.g4 a go and enjoy everything that falls out of it. They all have something unique and wonderful. Let creativity take you to places you can only imagine ;-)
@Dark_Falcon
"Its funny to smash up standard players like you, who know the QGD till move 22, but are totally lost in the sidelines of the Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit."
Ah...nothing provides refreshment in chess debate (or any other internet debate for that matter) like a baseless ad hominem attack. That's really nice, especially considering that you don't know me even one bit! And no, having made a cursory glance at my profile page (looking for things to criticize, I presume) does not constitute knowing anything about me.
As for your point, the problem with the sorts of lines you're proposing is that while they certainly may work once, all a reasonable player needs to do is to look up the opening after the game. And then he will remember the next time he faces it what to do, and he will never lose to it again (unless he blunders, which, admittedly, will happen a hell of a lot of the time if you're playing crappy opposition).
For example, you brought up your beloved Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit, an extremely awful opening. After I read your comment, I spent not five minutes playing around with my Stockfish 6 engine, and found a very simple refutation to your gambit! It took minimal effort and I will remember it whenever I play against this opening in the future:
1. d4 e5? 2. dxe5 d6 3. Nf3 Bg4!? (I saw this was the move you are playing against this line) 4. Bg5! Qd7 (4...Be7 5. Bxe7 Nxe7 6. exd6 cxd6 7. Qd3 and no compensation) (4...f6 5. exf6 Nxf6 6. e3 and no compensation) 5. Nc3 Nc6 (5...dxe5? 6. Nxe5 Qxd1 7. Rxd1 f6 8. Nxg4 fxg5 9. Nb5 and black has nothing better than resignation) 6. exd6 Bxd6 7. Nb5 Ne7 8. Nxd6+ cxd6 9. h3 Bf5 10. c3 and white is at least +1 after only 10 moves. This opening sucks. What have you got for a pawn?
And are you counting on your game being the first time he's ever seen the opening? That's pretty silly, given that most >1800 players have played tens of thousands of games.
Now is there a straight refutation to these 1. h4, 1. a4, 1...a5, or 1...h5 moves in the same way as there is a refutation (probably many more than one) to your Hartlaub? Perhaps not, or at least not as simply, since they are less directly confrontational and don't lose material right away for no compensation as your Hartlaub does. But surely, they are based on strategically questionable principles, and experience and common sense should point players in the right direction. Players facing these openings should analyze their own games, and take note of how large an advantage they got out of the opening against their opponent's garbage lines, and where/if they ever went astray, and after only a few games, they should be fine. Again, I am not saying these lines will not win games. And they might be fun. But a little work can go a long way, and I'd rather play something that actually makes sense...
It's your own life. Do whatever you want. But a) what you're proposing here does not make sense, and b) you need to learn basic rhetoric.
Regards.
Hey chess nerd, then i hope, that you have access to your Stockfish engine, next time you meet an unusual opening in an OTB match...and sorry for my bad rhetoric as iam not an american native speaker like you are.
Maybe we can talk in german next time :-)
This is an interesting discussion. I wrote a book called the `Shuffleduck` a while ago suggesting ways to play h4 and incorporate it into a system, and along with my friend and editor, Pete willoughby looked at some of the practical aspects of playing at Evening League level, and contributed some new ideas and thoughts . The book is still available, (£7.99 plus P&P) and has been reviewed by Raymond Keene GM both The Times and Spectare. See my website www.kennorbury.co.uk, and follow new developments particularly in terms of playing The Nine Pawn Game
The thing about 1.a4 and 1.h4 is: If it were allowed to move pawns backwards, one of the better second moves would be 2.a4-a2 or 2.h4-h2 respectively.
By playing 1 a4 or 1 h4, you are basically giving the opening move to Black and hoping that whatever opening you transpose into isn't lamed by the rook-pawn move. E.g. imagine a Ruy Lopez where Black starts out with a pawn on a5. You couldn't kick the B.
By playing 1 a4 or 1 h4, you are basically giving the opening move to Black and hoping that whatever opening you transpose into isn't lamed by the rook-pawn move. E.g. imagine a Ruy Lopez where Black starts out with a pawn on a5. You couldn't kick the B.
Strangely there is a very obscure line against the Lopez with 3...a5 with the idea of equally bizarre follow up ...Na7
You don't have to stop with the Ruy (I just put that out as an e.g.).
Think of other openings where a or h pawn advances look super odd.
By playing 1 a4 or 1 h4, you are basically giving the opening move to Black and hoping that whatever opening you transpose into isn't lamed by the rook-pawn move. E.g. imagine a Ruy Lopez where Black starts out with a pawn on a5. You couldn't kick the B.
Actually it's much worse than that. These moves create significant weaknesses. After a5 for example, playing c5 at a later point in the game is quite commital, because of the permanent weakness of the b5 square.
Against kingside fianchetto systems white often plays h4 at some point. Black then has the choice to either allow h4-h5 or to stop it by playing h7-h5. The latter avoids problems on the h-file, but creates new problems: White now has firm control over the g5 square, and can plant a bishop or knight there. Kicking that minor piece is rarely an option because it would weaken the g6 square, which has already been weakened by h7-h5, too much.
What does that have to do with 1.h4? Well, compared to the situation I just described, you give this bishop/knight outpost to the other player on a silver plate, on the first move. The opponent did not have to spend a tempo. He did not have to weaken his own kingside. You have compromised your position, and even spent time on it that could have used for development and central control.
And naming two or three moderately good players who have sometimes been successful playing this crap is not an argument for anything. They have not been successbul because, but despite playing 1.a4/1.h4.
Oh yes. A Two Knights Defense (the Ng5 line) where Black can't play h6 to kick the Knight would be really irritating.
Surely a4 is less worse than h4. Holes on the kingside are more fatal as a rule.
Faint praise, there.
I thought I would offer some thoughts. I think it is important not to throw moves like 1.h4!? under the bus. Saying it doesn't control the centre, loses a move for no reason etc is too simplistic. As well all know, Chess isn't that simple. The Desprez Opening has two key advantages in my view.
1. It has a psychological advantage. It puts Black on his own resources immediately. There is very little theory on it and I would say it is an excellent psychological choice against booked-up juniors.
2. People often comment that White's king has no good future, but I would say it puts questions to Black on what to do with his king as much as it does White's.
So I have similar views to Michael Reyes - but with the point 1.h4 doesn't necessarily lead to tactical skirmishes. Of course Michael would be the foremost expert on it given he plays it exclusively.
The Hungarian player, Gabor Kadas played it regularly with a lot of success. Of the 28 games I have of his in Megabase, he only lost 3 games and this was against many players 2300+! So this can leave no doubt the move has some merit.
So I think saying the opening is plain bad or losing is just not correct IMO.
Here is a game I recently played with it - much more of a strategic nature rather than tactical. The interesting thing is the h4 pawn never moved but it was always lurking ;-)
Enjoy!
Macdonald,Paul - Sharma,Akshay [A00]
Friendly Match (2), 05.02.2016