The Fritz Gambit

I am so often fascinated how people think that chess is as simple as just rocking up to a chess board, playing some moves from a book (engine or forum) and then going home, job done. It just doesn't work like that.

Every time anyone dares to mention Grob's Attack or the King's Gambit on Chess.com you have all these people lining up fair frothing at the mouth wanting to enlighten the masses on just how crappy they are. The thing is supposed refutations are only any good if (1) your opponent actually knows them and (2) as the technic to play them out successfully. 

I suppose this is where Pfren comes from, he must have the technic because he is an I.M for a reason but then again this poses an interesting question, just how many times since becoming an I.M how many times has he faced the Grob in serious competition? I would hazard a guess it would not many, if any. Who in their right minds would sit down and play 1.g4 against an I.M? Maybe another titled player but even then would they risk such a weakening open move when rating points and potential winning could be on the line?

Chess is not ALL about chess opening's being 'right or 'wrong' as such. Although it does help somewhat to be able gain some advantage going into the middle game. Chess is a multi layered game that should be best considered in its totality ( ie what opening to play vs what time control vs who am I going to play..and so on).

Yes. I play the Grob. I even play Durkin's Attack. I win more than I lose. But that is more do with good management rather by design.

Have a nice day.