look the grob is just bad. it doesnt have any objective merit because you are creating weakness on your kingside with no compensation and not even really developing. maybe you can get away with this and maybe not. its quite easy to lose from the opening playing the grob and even if you study this opening in depth to avoid losing that time wouldve been better spent learning a logical opening. i dont think anyone plays the grob for it merit they just play it to be different. and really that simply shows impatience because there is opportunity to be creative without being bad in any chess game. you dobt need to be 'different' on move 1. so honestly even if you consider being different to be more important than winning you still should not play the grob. because the weakness you create limits your reasonable later decisions more.
This is not entirely true. The Grob has been played at very high levels from GMs such as Keres, and even today, there are a few GMs who still champion it. I am not saying it is as good as 1. e4 or 1. d4, but if someone is able to traverse the minefield and come out with a better position, then may the best player win.
"He can wait for you to slip up and win rather than pushing too hard."
First, you are assuming my opponent was not "pushing" to win. Wrong. He played the book moves through most of the opening theory. He then deviated in an attempt to trip me up or cause me to use time (30 min/game). I found an excellent move and kept with him. Furthermore, he did not "wait for me to slip up" and he didn't go easy on me. How do I know? He told me. He also said he was impressed at how well I knew the opening and played after he deviated. So don't be assuming.
You are entitled to your own choice of play...and so am I. Maybe I played the game of my life and will never do better but this I know for a fact... I played a 2300 player (2304 to be exact), and it took him 51 moves to force me to resign (I could have gone on a half dozen more). Had I played ANY other opening, he could have beaten me twice, maybe three times in 51 moves TOTAL for all games put together.
Now according to the near 1000 point difference in our ratings, I should have been wiped out long before 50 moves had elapsed....especially considering the average game is less than 40 moves.
One day (if it hasn't happened already, more than once even) you and your kin will find yourselves on the losing end of some "inferior" opening. Your only solace will be IF your opponent had played that opening when you were more improved (if ever) THEN you would have won. (Maybe) I am not angry nor being confrontational. I am merely stating facts. I hope you're not playing a game that is critical when you lose to that inferior opening.
I am perfectly happy with my strategy and will relish the points when I steal them from a higher rated player. It's funny. Most of those adamantly declaring these "inferior" openings should never be played seem to think GM's are the only chess players out there. Fact is, the overly vast majority of chess players are weak and moderate club players. AND virtually every GM HAS studied the 'inferior' openings because every opening has something in it that can be learned and utilized.
(For those of you who didn't see my first post or remember, the opening I played against a much higher rated player was the Scandinavian.)
May you always have the first move...and if not...may you win anyway.