Why the Grob is Severely Underrated: An Analysis

 I just checked your account. In your 1500+ game database, you have played the Grob 5 times as White (including the 800 bird gambit game) and scored 20% against and average opposition of 1418.4. While you may not have been the same strength the whole time, that is really bad. In the Grob you currently only have 1 (!) win in the database. Here are the real games: 

 You need a life, and to get better at chess. You say your FIDE is 2178 yet your bullet is 1479 and blitz is only 1722. Your tactics rating is lower than mine and I am only 1398 USCF. Spend your time getting better at chess than trying to "expose" an innocent chess opening article. 

Yes, it might be slightly stronger than most people give it credit for; however, that still leaves it way ahead in the race for worst opening.

Problem: ALL were 3|0 blitz...

Problem: ALL were 3|0 blitz...

Its not like chessgm8 says that it might not be good in classical but can be good in blitz 

It does not challenge the center; it weakens the kingside pawn structure; after black plays d5 and c6, the bishop on g2 is biting on granite; so effectively white wastes 3-5 moves and does nothing but weaken his position in the process.

So you want to give up the center, weaken the kingside, develop pieces on the kingside and then castle long (requiring 3 other pieces to be developed and 1 additional pawn move). When exactly are you going to have time for all of that and a kingside pawn storm?

Statement above seems legit when we take this thread into consideration.

Again, he is playing much weaker opponents in a fast time control.

Why would the rating of the opponents or the time control have to do with the plans of the opening?

Seriously?

Despite what a number of the Noddies say on this thread, simply playing an opening, good or suspect does not win or lose a game (and before anyone takes their hand off it and tries to argue that some opening move sequences lose by force, there is a difference between suspect and junk laden stupidity), you have to consider who you are playing and under what conditions (such as standard and blitz etc).

Sure your internet rating is 1955, even if that translates into real life and lets say it does and you somehow get a game against say a GM (say in the 1st round of a tournament), you don't think considering the rating of your opponent should be important? Do you think then in such a scenario that 1.g4 is a sensible choice??

I can never ever understand just why people believe chess is such a simple black and white game and it is about absolutes

You will not have to use the same plans. The 1200 will more than likely drop a piece before move 20. After that, your plan becomes: simplify into a winning endgame. That is the same when you see a GM playing the Grob against 1400-2300's in a fast time control. Even if the 2300's could exploit the weaknesses in a long time control, the position is not likely one they are familiar with, so the advantage goes to whomever can make the most sensible moves the fastest. When it comes to a GM with a LOT of blitz and bullet practice, it is fairly obvious where the advantage lies.

Maybe it might not be the strongest classical opening, but I feel it definitely can be a good surprise weapon at least in blitz.

O.K if you wish to be pedantic, I will oblige. 

Plans contained with in an opening sequence ideally a fairly static. However the same logic applies. if you front up to a GM thinking my plan of playing 1.g4 with the plan of playing Bg2 & c4 should he or she play Bxg4, there is a strong chance you will lose. 

Not because the opening is crap (as such), you would lose simply because the numbers say the GM is better than you. You could try the Lopez and the Berlin but chances are if the GM is not hung over or is ill, you would still lose.

Openings are just not the be all and end of all of a chess game.

There is a straight-forward refutation of the Grob, and you vcan find it vone many databases.