what's the name of this opening?
Sort:
Having looked in some databases, my best guess would be: King's Pawn Game, Irregular Variation.
Apr 4, 2010
0
#3
This is what I got on the ICC:
ECO[ 3]: C25
NIC[ 3]: VG.04
Long[ 4]: Vienna game, Max Lange defense
RainbowRising wrote:
It doesnt have a name because its not an opening
Partial agreement.
1. It doesn't appear to have a proper name, hence my descriptive title.
2. It is obviously an opening of sorts, even if no proper noun can be attached to it.
EDIT: Skwely's name make quite a bit of sense, just couldn't find a single game that continues 3 .... b6 etc.
If it doesn't have a name how do I get it named after me? Do I need to patent it?
Eo____ wrote:
If it doesn't have a name how do I get it named after me? Do I need to patent it?
Normally the Master who publishes analysis/plays the opening gets that honour. Best you keep it quiet until you make 2400+, so as not to have your discovery stolen.
RainbowRising wrote:
its a Vienna up until move 3 when white plays d3... Iv never seen a Vienna with 3.d3 - Bc4 always comes before d3
Yeah, what he said. Personally, I wouldn't like to have that named after me 
"Agreed. There's no reason to block in the bishop with d3, other than to play very passively."
It doesn't matter. The idea is to control the long diagonal.
what about the bf3 + Ne2 + O-O configuration. Is it part of a standard opening?
FirebrandX wrote:
It does matter to the extent that you are playing passively and slowly. You're basically telling black, "I don't want my first move advantage and I'm willing to let you play a comfortable game at full equality". That's not to say it's completely unsound to play that way, as often people make a career of playing passively as white.
You sacrifice tempo for structure. I see nothing wrong with that.
"If you want to control the long diagonal, why the hell did you play e4? Your moves are inconsistent with eachother."
It can be pushed forward when the time is right. The idea is to control the long diagonal without fianccettoing.
RainbowRising wrote:
lol youve got to be kidding with that last post - aprils fools day was a few days ago mate!
Why is it so funny? at least I am trying to make my own moves, not just repeat some opening that someone else invented.
You have a strong Turn-Based rating and you insist that my opening is garbage, but you can't explain why. You also insist that standard openings are better, but you can't explain why. I know from experience that I have fared neither better nor worse when I use my opening instead of a standard opening. I like my opening because I throw my opponent off the script early on while protecting my king and building a solid defense. Sure, I lose a tempo or two, but at my level, tempo, unless you walk into a mate or fall into a trap, means little ten moves into the game. Yeah, at your level every bit counts, but even then I'm willing to bet that the theoretical advantage that you gain is minimal.
Eo____ wrote:
If it doesn't have a name how do I get it named after me? Do I need to patent it?
Yes you do.Tomorrow you should go as fast as possible to a patent office, before someone else takes the credits for your wonderful chess opening idea.
Vienna game
It's Vienna. If instead white plays 3. d4 then that's Fyfe Gambit.
Apr 4, 2010
0
#16
Rich, I don't think I understand your postulate that g4 is a "much better" place for the bishop on the second move, when it's not clear what it's doing there or aiming at. It's a useful square for the bishop when it's pinning the knight to the queen, or when you're trying to take control of e5 and/or d4, but we don't know that white will cooperate to let you do that. If I were white, I'd play 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3, followed by probably Qc2 or Qa4+, depending on where the black queen moves. After that, I can play e4 and it doesn't look to me like the bishop is doing anything useful. Meanwhile, white has more space and is ahead in development. I suspect there is a good reason 2. ... Bg5 is not in any database.
