Overrated Openings

Directly out of the wikipedia article:

"It is a myth however that the Maginot line ended at the Belgian border and was easy to circumvent."

They went through the forest to the North.

LOL I studied under a professor of war.

I don't count pawn moves as developing moves myself. However, I do believe that in a chess.com instructional video entitled 'Counting Development' within which several methods of counting are described, the e- and d- pawns can be counted as developing under some systems.

Probably because without them it is difficult to really complete your development.

One can also think how many moves you are away from castling.

Ugh - I hope they don't do this in hopes of quantifying opening advantages ("let's see I have 5 developing moves made and they have 3 and it's my move, so I get to sac a pawn!")

This reminds me of a recent thread, 'What is the point value of castling' in which misguided players attempted to discern the value of castling in pawns. (In the same system that 3 pawns = knight or bishop, 5 = rook, 9 = queen.)

I'm not sure what the argument was here, but I don't think they were saying it does nothing for black's development, they were saying c5 isn't a developmental move in and of itself. (Whereas Nf3, Bc4 are.)

Regarding how much castling is worth, I wonder how Rybka would do against top opposition if it wasn't allowed to castle. "Castling odds".

Or, I wonder if a GM would rather give pawn odds or give castling odds.

Get back to the salt mines.

Black only spends a move on c6 in the Caro because he doesn't want to play d5 without pawn support. If black were more concerned with development he would not do this, and one can't make the argument that c6 is a developing move, in the same way that one could make the argument that e4 and d4 are developing moves, on the white side of the Caro.

Wait, so after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 white is already ahead in development! *Bah* Gonnosuke!

I think pawn odds. (Which pawn?) As I have seen in so many puzzles, high rated games where one player doesn't castle seems to end in disaster for said player! 

I think things would be a lot different if that player knew he couldn't castle right from the outset.

What opening would you play? I see one of two choices. Stay in theory with something that is ultra sharp, where the main line has white giving up castling, or play very conservatively, with no hope for an opening advantage (let's face it you don't really have one anyways if you can't castle haha), and play for a middlegame.

Look it's all well and good to say that development concerns pieces.  It is correct.  But it is only a simple extension to realise that in order to move one of your bishops, you need to move at least one relevant pawn, and as this is a move that is necessary for development it is only nomenclature that keeps it from being a developing move in itself.  So if one player makes such a move, and the other player makes neither a development move, nor another move necessary for development, the latter can be considered behind in development. 

Uh huh

As I recall, there are several popular lines of the French where one or both sides don't castle; White often doesn't castle in the Benko Gambit; etc. However, if both players knew that whichever player couldn't castle, then the opponent could steer the game towards lines where castling is important, possibly with a specially prepared repertoire.

As for 1...c5 not being a developing move, if you take that stance, then 1...e5 or 1.e4 or 1.d4 aren't either, and if development is all that important, then 1. Nf3 would clearly be the best move, and games would start 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nc3 Nc6 all the time... However, given that mindset, players would prefer to play without several of their pawns, so that they could develop pieces faster. Which brings a question: which pawn would a world-class GM most like to give as odds. I think it's pretty clearly not the f-pawn, likely not the c-pawn, but a-, b-, d, and e- all have a decent amount going for them.

I smell myself pitting my engine against itself with various combinations of pawn odds and no castling allowed...

I'm ok playing Kasparov as black if he doesn't have his a2 pawn.

Just take off his a1 rook too.

By not having the a pawn though, your pawns can still control the center though you don't get an open center file.

There is a clear and critically important difference in that c5 is a pawn move that is unnecessary for development. 

Also, I actually think maybe the f pawn would be given.  I know it was the pawn given in 'pawn and move' odds games so it cant be that bad.  At least it usually gives some compensation for the pawn.  Don't forget the f7 square is weak regardless of whether there is a pawn on it.

This makes me think about an 'odds' tournament that happens at my local club. Now, Ozzie, you're a half-decent player, right?  Take a look at the handicap chart on the table at the bottom of the following webpage (gradings are ECF)- don't the odds seem too much to you? I mean, if I play someone rated 90 above me, so about 200 ECF, I'm pretty sure I'd have an easy game while they're missing their queen and queen's rook...

http://www.farehamchess.org.uk/estlin.php

I agree, French is underrated, Sicillian/roy lopez is overrated.

Wow guys ! Please consult any chess glossary and look for "development " . It concerns pieces, NOT pawns ! Yes, some pawn moves are necessary and a pawn move can be an "aid" to development but a pawn move in itself is NOT development. 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5  and neither side has developed anything...... YET.

This is not in dispute.