ROT, a new opening system?

I prefer to stick to Nimzovich, Tarrasch er cetera...

I played the hippo a few times in blitz chess-I even won once!

i have great admiration for someone who is 2200, but less so for someone who has been stuck there for 25 years because they are using an opening system like this :)

Sounds like a sub-optimal idea to me. 

yes, in that game black couldn't play :-)

I don't like this. Flexibility is not worth the huge disadvantage of being way behind in development in the open game. It's the only way attacks are made! How is ROT ever supposed to do anything without the pieces developed at a reasonable time? If the game is closed it's not a huge deal but it doesn't have to be if you play like this in the opening. Huge amounts of pawn moves is what hypermodern players put extreme criticism on: The pawns can be undermined and the pusher is overextended with hideous weak squares and nothing to compensate for them. In fact the pawns will be for sure be undermined if no pieces back them up! Pieces on the back rank are just so passive, I can never imagine a knight on it's first rank attacking a king. Delaying castling? With such a passive position I would actually put more emphasis on castling since the king will not be safe in the center! Pawn moves waste time and they can be destroyed if not backed up. It is absolutely hideous.

Did you want to write this?

what is more likely - that white played amazing moves and black was just overwhelmed despite strong play, or that white played surprising but dubious moves that shocked black into psychologically crumbling and playing poor defense?

i think the strength of this system is entirely psychological, not chessical.

One way to settle the issue whether this ROT System works or not, is to try it out against Chess.com's "Against the Computer".

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1493708

This is why it's unsound.  It comes with a psychological advantage, but it will lose against solid chess.

It's interesting that a player who shares some of my unorthodox views on castling has achieved such a high rating. Perhaps that's something I won't need to grow out of after all.

There is probably a lot of interest in his pawn idea, but I think it is explained horribly. Certainly there is a degree of sense in pawn moves which shield the intented development of key pieces so that they can be delayed, but the *option* to castle should never be restricted - the minor pieces do not belong in their starting positions! Surely this is just a reworking of Philidors(?) "pawn's should not be obstructed" theory, classical centre theory, coupled with some hypermodern ideas.

Perhaps the writer has some difficulties expressing his system... for a start half of that thesis could have been replaced with "The concept of a strong pawn centre being desirable is a well-known part of chess theory." I'm one to talk about being verbose, but then I'm not trying to get people accredit my ROT.

I'd hate to think this guy accidentally mish-mashed a strong system together based on fundamentally non-sensical ideas like this concept that pieces should "wait" so that they aren't chased from their ideal developing squares. The moves that chase pieces also control the squares regardless of the presence of a piece in them. Commiting pieces on the back rank to defending pawns and giving your opponent greater opportunity to control your developing lines does not sound like a good combination.

I've played some successful games in the English Opening where 4 or 5 of my first 7 moves were pawn pushes. It was definitely hypermodern , and positional ideas that gave me good positions on these ones, not uber-super-extra-hypermodern ones. Where development could be assured when the piece would be needed in a square, it could be delayed so that a pawn move could be played which improved my options for verall flexible development, or reduced those of my opponent. Some aspects of staking out space with pawns, as long as the pawn structure would not become to inflexible, some of allowing my opponent to reveal a part of his plan before making any commital moves. In fact, the pawn moves were in part to goad something committal from black. The ideas have always been weaker when I have tried them in the Sicialian, with white's extra tempo being the key. I have an aggressive temperament, so more pure hypermodern ideas don't work so well for me, charging a few men up the board allows me to vent a little while I wait for the right moment.

Interesting point Erik - something must be wrong with his system, if he hasn't improved his rating in 25 years. Perhaps simply believing himself to have such a revolutionary new way has stagnated his own chess development by forcing him to stick by his words, due to a psychological refusal to adapt his game.

Do it when you get home then... Or get Mike Surtees to do it!

it's nice to try against chess.com's computer...

rofl

They believe you that Mike owns this copyright. I think they are laughing because you admittedly have reproduced his work without permission, copyright notice and all!!