You know, your post would be a lot easier to understand if you actually gave the starting moves instead of the "start" of some variation from some unknown position?
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Sort:
"I have also seen how some grandmasters got offended and even resigned on the first move just because the best player in the world, the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, played unconventional openings against them, such as g5 or a6!?"
Those openings are so bad that at grandmaster level the opponent can't be said to be playing their best, rather they are implementing a self-handicap or showboating, which is hugely frowned and generally considered bad sportsmanship and against the rules.
"It’s as if some people get upset when someone deviates from the established norms, going against the system. They feel insulted just because their opponent chooses an unconventional opening, as if it were a sign of disrespect and not taking the game seriously."
Well in the case above that is exactly what it is.
"Just like that grandmaster who defeated Naroditsky and then Nakamura in the World Championship with and 2.Ra3."
What the hell are you talking about? The world championships, what? There was an online player from Brazil who played Naroditsky using that opening a few times late at night in online blitz. It was a fairly obvious case of cheating and he was quickly banned. Nobody knows why he did it.
His name was Vii Sou. https://lichess.org/@/NDpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-kinda-viih_sous-2-ra3-and-a-modest-research-proposal/3DgK4rPl
Mar 10, 2025
0
#4
Uhohspaghettio1 escribió:
"I have also seen how some grandmasters got offended and even resigned on the first move just because the best player in the world, the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, played unconventional openings against them, such as g5 or a6!?"
Those openings are so bad that at grandmaster level the opponent can't be said to be playing their best, rather they are implementing a self-handicap or showboating, which is hugely frowned and generally considered bad sportsmanship and against the rules.
"It’s as if some people get upset when someone deviates from the established norms, going against the system. They feel insulted just because their opponent chooses an unconventional opening, as if it were a sign of disrespect and not taking the game seriously."
Well in the case above that is exactly what it is.
"Just like that grandmaster who defeated Naroditsky and then Nakamura in the World Championship with and 2.Ra3."
What the hell are you talking about? The world championships, what? There was an online player from Brazil who played Naroditsky using that opening a few times late at night in online blitz. It was a fairly obvious case of cheating and he was quickly banned. Nobody knows why he did it.
His name was Vii Sou. @/NDpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-kinda-viih_sous-2-ra3-and-a-modest-research-proposal/3DgK4rPl
I was talking about Brandon Jacobson
he won with a4 against Naka in the world rapid Chess Championship 2024
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5
Bro you haven't even played any games, let alone make opinions on forums.
Mar 10, 2025
0
#6
ChessAGC_YT escribió:
Bro you haven't even played any games, let alone make opinions on forums.
you can find me in lichess where I have games , same nickname
hey you never know, nyzaro might have played irl before coming here
nvm. but see, they played somewhere else...
nyzaro wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 escribió:
"I have also seen how some grandmasters got offended and even resigned on the first move just because the best player in the world, the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, played unconventional openings against them, such as g5 or a6!?"
Those openings are so bad that at grandmaster level the opponent can't be said to be playing their best, rather they are implementing a self-handicap or showboating, which is hugely frowned and generally considered bad sportsmanship and against the rules.
"It’s as if some people get upset when someone deviates from the established norms, going against the system. They feel insulted just because their opponent chooses an unconventional opening, as if it were a sign of disrespect and not taking the game seriously."
Well in the case above that is exactly what it is.
"Just like that grandmaster who defeated Naroditsky and then Nakamura in the World Championship with and 2.Ra3."
What the hell are you talking about? The world championships, what? There was an online player from Brazil who played Naroditsky using that opening a few times late at night in online blitz. It was a fairly obvious case of cheating and he was quickly banned. Nobody knows why he did it.
His name was Vii Sou. @/NDpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-kinda-viih_sous-2-ra3-and-a-modest-research-proposal/3DgK4rPl
I was talking about Brandon Jacobson
he won with a4 against Naka in the world rapid Chess Championship 2024
Brandon Jacobson is his real name, I gave his alias.
He only ever won with a4 + Ra3 online and was still banned from chess.com early this year.
a4 and Ra3 (saccing the rook) is not just an unusual opening, it's not even just an unsound opening - it's completely unplayable for anyone at all who isn't blundering every few moves.
It wins no pawn with the exchange and has zero positional compensation. It's resignable straightaway for white at any decent level. Only stockfish could win like that against Hikaru.
Mar 10, 2025
0
#10
I think theorists hate the Barnes the most out of all because the Barnes is this
fools mate variation
Mar 10, 2025
0
#11
the Barnes is a white opening basically asking just end this game please I resign Im too dumb to play chess
Mar 10, 2025
0
#12
if Barnes was a grandmaster maybe 100 elos will be grandmasters because this is worse then they play this is also what happens if you do stockfish vs worst fish if you make stockfish play e4 and not the d4 it is begging you to play
Mar 10, 2025
0
#14
crazedrat1001 wrote:
What career?
The moves 1. a3 / 1. a4 are somewhat interesting, because you never see them or think about them. They're also positional, and they can be transpositional. I wouldn't play them though.
I play 1.a3 myself. On chess.com I have a modest score of 63% wins, 35% losses, and 2% draws, or a total score of 64%, with opponents ranging from 2100 to 2400. It's not that bad - at worst, you just play as black. a6 is quite useful in a lot of openings, and many transpositions are possible.
Currently, since I'm trying to switch openings to the modern as black, I'm switching from my normal sicilian-a3 to a modern defense a tempo up. a6 is common in the modern, and is what I like to play as black anyways.
nyzaro wrote:
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Throughout my chess career, ...
Which theorist cried and what career? The community must be told!
Mar 11, 2025
0
#16
sawdof escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Throughout my chess career, ...
Which theorist cried and what career? The community must be told!
I’m referring to those guys like Nunn and company who look down on unconventional openings or even ones that are almost refuted by the engine, like the Latvian Gambit.
Throughout my career as a chess player, I’ve encountered people who have reproached me for playing the Halloween Attack against them and then beating them, and they got offended because, according to them, it’s not very gentlemanly to play this line, because they also believe it’s refuted.
nyzaro wrote:
sawdof escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Throughout my chess career, ...
Which theorist cried and what career? The community must be told!
I’m referring to those guys like Nunn and company who look down on unconventional openings or even ones that are almost refuted by the engine, like the Latvian Gambit.
Throughout my career as a chess player, I’ve encountered people who have reproached me for playing the Halloween Attack against them and then beating them, and they got offended because, according to them, it’s not very gentlemanly to play this line, because they also believe it’s refuted.
Your opponents are complaining because you play bad openings? Very believable.
Mar 11, 2025
0
#18
nyzaro wrote:
sawdof escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Throughout my chess career, ...
Which theorist cried and what career? The community must be told!
I’m referring to those guys like Nunn and company who look down on unconventional openings or even ones that are almost refuted by the engine, like the Latvian Gambit.
Throughout my career as a chess player, I’ve encountered people who have reproached me for playing the Halloween Attack against them and then beating them, and they got offended because, according to them, it’s not very gentlemanly to play this line, because they also believe it’s refuted.
Well then if they believe it's refuted, why can't they refute it.......
Mar 11, 2025
0
#19
magipi escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
sawdof escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Throughout my chess career, ...
Which theorist cried and what career? The community must be told!
I’m referring to those guys like Nunn and company who look down on unconventional openings or even ones that are almost refuted by the engine, like the Latvian Gambit.
Throughout my career as a chess player, I’ve encountered people who have reproached me for playing the Halloween Attack against them and then beating them, and they got offended because, according to them, it’s not very gentlemanly to play this line, because they also believe it’s refuted.
Your opponents are complaining because you play bad openings? Very believable.
That's right, there are people who can't stand seeing something unconventional, I've experienced it myself, so I know what I'm talking about.
It was a grandmaster, I don’t remember his name now, who abandoned his game against Carlsen a few months ago because he was offended by the move 1 ... g5 from the Norwegian
Mar 11, 2025
0
#20
Usjefecusc1 escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
sawdof escribió:
nyzaro wrote:
The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry
Throughout my chess career, ...
Which theorist cried and what career? The community must be told!
I’m referring to those guys like Nunn and company who look down on unconventional openings or even ones that are almost refuted by the engine, like the Latvian Gambit.
Throughout my career as a chess player, I’ve encountered people who have reproached me for playing the Halloween Attack against them and then beating them, and they got offended because, according to them, it’s not very gentlemanly to play this line, because they also believe it’s refuted.
Well then if they believe it's refuted, why can't they refute it.......
Probably the Dunning-Kruger effect.
They've heard that it's refuted, and that's why they don't even bother to analyze the variation seriously.
Once, a guy thoroughly prepared the Latvian Gambit at home against me for a classical game. He played the Leonhardt Variation, which is one of the so-called 'refutations' of the Latvian system.
We actually reached the exact position where I'm supposedly refuted, with a +2 advantage for White. But at that moment, I realized that the line was very playable for Black, and I managed to win that game.
I'll leave here the position we reached and that we had both studied. I also knew that Black was objectively lost here, but it’s not that easy
Throughout my chess career, I have always tried to adopt a heterodox, creative, and aggressive approach.
Because of this, I have often encountered people, both in real life and online, who get annoyed when I play openings against them like the Latvian Gambit ( e5 2.Nf3 f5)
the Halloween Gambit in the Four Knights (4.Nxe5!?)
the Charlick Variation of the Englund Gambit ( 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 d6!?),
the Herrstrom Gambit (1.Nf3 g5!?), the Albin Countergambit…
or even the Grob Attack (), which I have played on occasion.
I have also seen how some grandmasters got offended and even resigned on the first move just because the best player in the world, the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, played unconventional openings against them, such as 1 . e4 g5 or 1 e4 a6!?
It’s as if some people get upset when someone deviates from the established norms, going against the system. They feel insulted just because their opponent chooses an unconventional opening, as if it were a sign of disrespect and not taking the game seriously.
Just like that grandmaster Brandon Jacobson who defeated Naroditsky and then Nakamura in the World Championship with and 1 a4 2 Ra3
Listen, some of us play these openings for fun, but also because they are extremely effective
more so than grinding out theory in the Scotch or Open Sicilian, where Black is usually well prepared.
Currently, my real life rating is 2100, and my online blitz rating is 2400.
I can confidently say that the opening that gives me the highest win percentage is the Latvian Gambit.
With White, the opening that has worked best for me is 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3.Qxd4!? Nc6 4.Qd3!?, a very interesting and underexplored line (it doesn’t even have an official name)
which was actually used by GM Shimanov to defeat Carlsen in a game
Against 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Qxd4 Nc6 4 Qe3, in the main line of the Center Game, instead of playing 8 . Qg3 which Nepomniachtchi often plays but can be well refuted if Black knows the theory
the move that gives me the best results is 8 Qf4!?, which, according to the database, is also statistically the best move for White.
Black is usually much less prepared for it compared to the more thematic Qg3 .
There is a very interesting book called Sabotaging the Sicilian, French, and Caro-Kann with by Jerzy Konikowski.
It’s true that this move b3 is quite tricky against these systems.
I don’t see much sense in it against the Caro-Kann, but I have had good results with it against the Sicilian (Snyder Variation) and against the French (Reti Gambit).
Another thing I’ve noticed is that bringing the queen out early in the opening is often quite effective psychologically.
Openings like the Goldman Variation in the Caro-Kann ( 1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Qf3!), the Center Game and Sicilian lines I mentioned earlier, or even the Open Sicilian against Paulsen setups with …e6, where White can go for Qd3 followed by Qg3, all offer very favorable statistics for White.
Sure, according to the analysis engine, these lines might be "objectively bad," but humans are still human
for now, at least (maybe not in the future with transhumanism and AI).
But as of today, I believe that while these openings may not be advisable in long games, where it's harder to take the opponent out of preparation, in fast games, the best approach is to play fun, dangerous lines to catch our opponents off guard.