Forums

The Toilet Variation?

Sort:
Haiku575

Is this really the name of the opening? If so, how did it get the name? 

NicholasFooJinSau

it does look like a lousy opening,so maybe thats why.

Expertise87

Actually the move-order for the Toilet is 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nc3. Its name comes from the location where it was thought up by a Grand Prix attack player. Unfortunately, White can't hope for more than equality in this line.

Haiku575

It was named after a place? Interesting.

billwall

I have played this a few times as Black.  Here is my most recent try.



durick

Well, if you imagine it, it does look a bit like a toilet.  It doesn't matter form which side's perspective you are looking.  The bototm two pawns make up the toilet seat cover, and top two pawns make up the lid to the back of the toilet, the bottom knight suggests the pipe near the bottom of the toilet, and the knight at the top...  I don't know, maybe waste flying out of the toilet while it is being flushed.  

—Alas, my analysis of the toilet variation...

melvinbluestone

   Something has to be done about that name. What if this thing catches on? Sure, it looks like a lemon now, but chess is an evolving activity. The Budapest used to be considered suspicious, now it's respectable...... well, somewhat respectable. Imagine reading "Magnus Carlsen, facing the Toilet Variation in Round 3....... " Deplorable! It's just not suitable nomenclature for the Royal Game!

dashkee94

billwall, did you remember to wash your hands after that game?

Ziggy_Zugzwang
melvinbluestone wrote:

   Something has to be done about that name. What if this thing catches on?

Well it has caught on my friend. It's stuck in the U bend and won't flush away. I'm not taking the pee when I say it's a bog standard name and should have stayed in the closet.

It's usually regarded as a crap opening and worth Jack Sh1t !

killercapybara1231
durick wrote:

Well, if you imagine it, it does look a bit like a toilet.  It doesn't matter form which side's perspective you are looking.  The bototm two pawns make up the toilet seat cover, and top two pawns make up the lid to the back of the toilet, the bottom knight suggests the pipe near the bottom of the toilet, and the knight at the top...  I don't know, maybe waste flying out of the toilet while it is being flushed.  

—Alas, my analysis of the toilet variation...

I see it now

poucin

It is a respectable variation, there is nothing wrong playing it as white.

Sure if u trust BillWall with this fantastic game (what a poor play for white)...

Phriex

GM Mark Hebden came up with it whilst doing his business (I think)

Ziggy_Zugzwang

Let's hope a GM doesn't have a eureka moment about a new opening variation when making love to his wife or girlfriend...

Optimissed
Phriex wrote:

GM Mark Hebden came up with it whilst doing his business (I think)

when would that be? I used to know him .... at least, I've played him. But it was book 30 years ago and I don't think it was Mark.

darkunorthodox88

looks pretty romantic! if black doesnt push d5, white may just play it like a Labourdonnais variation  of the french defense.

darkunorthodox88

actually, you can just try to play it like a lizard attack KIA

white is ok if he has time to play g3 bg2 nf3 etc. The only problem is an early e5 where after nf3 exf4 is annoying. May just be about playable, but black has small advantage if he plays it that way. Looks harmless to play at the class player level though.

Optimissed

Looks ok to me. White gets a nice, open file. N b1 is wrong. I know this sort of stuff, wasted moves, is in fashion. I get it playing against the king's indian. Black plays Nc6 before e5, white pushes d5 and black hops back to b8, intending to come back out and harass e4. 1-0.

darkunorthodox88
Optimissed wrote:

Looks ok to me. White gets a nice, open file. N b1 is wrong. I know this sort of stuff, wasted moves, is in fashion. I get it playing against the king's indian. Black plays Nc6 before e5, white pushes d5 and black hops back to b8, intending to come back out and harass e4. 1-0.

the problem is not the knight being kicked back to b1. (for example, 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.nb1 is ok, although nce2 is clearly better), the problem is that white has played f4 too early, so an early e5 has queen check threats, and white cant afford to play g3 in time.

Optimissed

White doesn't play g3.

I remember the context in the book. At that time it wasn't mandatory to play Nc3 before f4. f4 was quite commonly played on the second move. I was one of the very first on the local circuit in the UK to start playing d5 against it. But I didn't think it was great. I want to win and d5 is rather drawish. The context of the discussion in the book is that white might choose to allow d5, then play Nc3 and specialise in the positions that result, which were thought at the time to be a tiny edge for white in unfamiliar positions. So I played that a few times .... maybe two or three times, and decided it was a bit silly. White might sac a pawn.

Optimissed

A few years ago I developed my own system against e4f4 Sicilians. I simply play a6, e6 and then d5. White's best is probably to push e4-e5. It's a complex, maneuvering game where black has chances on either flank or even in the middle.