Bad, wastes a move. Could've developed a piece instead or at least tried a gambit.
Is this brand new opening good or bad?
Sort:
t15k wrote:
Bad, wastes a move. Could've developed a piece instead or at least tried a gambit.
G4 doesn't waste a move, there's nothing wrong with g4.
What is your point in starting thread after thread asking people to give their opinion on some dubious opening move you made up?
If it's not frequently played by the masters, it is probably not too great. If it's almost never played by the masters, it is probably just plain bad.
G4 doesn't develop a piece, control the center or improves king safety.
It instead exposes you to a counterattack: d5 by Black. Once you take the pawn (best move) the queen comes in. You'd be forced to bring the queen to f3 to avoid hanging a rook.
After trading...
Yes, Black has an isolated pawn, but your kingside is very weak and the knight on f3 has no protection (at least for now). While your development may be better, your king safety is so bad that it isn't worth it
Habanababananero wrote:
What is your point in starting thread after thread asking people to give their opinion on some dubious opening move you made up?
If it's not frequently played by the masters, it is probably not too great. If it's almost never played by the masters, it is probably just plain bad.
How is it any of your business whether or not I choose to make threads that request whether a certain move is bad or not? I am not doing anything wrong by asking whether any openings are dubious or not, I am allowed to ask a question in order to find the correct information so I can decide for myself whether or not an opening is dubious.
How can your second statement be proven? Do you have proof that just because a certain opening was never played by masters that it must somehow be bad?
taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
What is your point in starting thread after thread asking people to give their opinion on some dubious opening move you made up?
If it's not frequently played by the masters, it is probably not too great. If it's almost never played by the masters, it is probably just plain bad.
How is it any of your business whether or not I choose to make threads that request whether a certain move is bad or not? I am not doing anything wrong by asking whether any openings are dubious or not, I am allowed to ask a question in order to find the correct information so I can decide for myself whether or not an opening is dubious.
How can your second statement be proven? Do you have proof that just because a certain opening was never played by masters that it must somehow be bad?
I asked what your point is. I did not say you are not allowed to start these threads.
So, what is your point?
taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
What is your point in starting thread after thread asking people to give their opinion on some dubious opening move you made up?
If it's not frequently played by the masters, it is probably not too great. If it's almost never played by the masters, it is probably just plain bad.
How is it any of your business whether or not I choose to make threads that request whether a certain move is bad or not? I am not doing anything wrong by asking whether any openings are dubious or not, I am allowed to ask a question in order to find the correct information so I can decide for myself whether or not an opening is dubious.
How can your second statement be proven? Do you have proof that just because a certain opening was never played by masters that it must somehow be bad?
If you truly want to find out the correct information so you can decide whether the opening is dubious or not, you might want to try some other place than the beginners section of the chess.com forums.
If on the other hand, you want to find out the opinion of a bunch of beginners, you have come to the right place.
Mar 31, 2023
0
#9
1) the beginners thread must be visited by people trying to help them, for obvious reasons
2) g4 just... breaks all the rules
black is playing white basically, but its even better because of the weak pawn
and any Bg2 ideas are blocked by the e pawn
just play 1)g4 that makes more sense
and if you want the g pawn to be protected, go g4 then e3 so a bishop on g2 has the diagonal
btw, g4 and e3 g4 arent that good and i have just proved why e4 g4 is worse than both of them
also
look at your f3 square
tell me what pawn you will use to defend it
thats right, none of them
and same for the h3 square
and the f4 square
and the h4 square
squares like these are called weaknesses, and skilled players can exploit them
so why create literally four of them by the second move
AND your king will be very unsafe if you castle kingside, and castling queenside is a remote possibility
and besides, if e4 g4 has aggressive ideas, then why on move 2
do this stuff when there is a target (a king on g8) and you have developed properly
of course everything is playable at low levels
but still, why handicap yourself
2.g4 is a fairly terrible move--which you would expect, since it violates every known opening principle. After 1.e4 e5 2.g4 d5! White isn't lost, but he has completely thrown away White's opening advantage and stands worse. I don't see any upside at all to the move 2.g4
t15k wrote:
G4 doesn't develop a piece, control the center or improves king safety.
It instead exposes you to a counterattack: d5 by Black. Once you take the pawn (best move) the queen comes in. You'd be forced to bring the queen to f3 to avoid hanging a rook.
After trading...
Yes, Black has an isolated pawn, but your kingside is very weak and the knight on f3 has no protection (at least for now). While your development may be better, your king safety is so bad that it isn't worth it
Do you mean this?
Habanababananero wrote:
taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
What is your point in starting thread after thread asking people to give their opinion on some dubious opening move you made up?
If it's not frequently played by the masters, it is probably not too great. If it's almost never played by the masters, it is probably just plain bad.
How is it any of your business whether or not I choose to make threads that request whether a certain move is bad or not? I am not doing anything wrong by asking whether any openings are dubious or not, I am allowed to ask a question in order to find the correct information so I can decide for myself whether or not an opening is dubious.
How can your second statement be proven? Do you have proof that just because a certain opening was never played by masters that it must somehow be bad?
I asked what your point is. I did not say you are not allowed to start these threads.
So, what is your point?
My point is to find out whether or not these openings are dubious. Surely that must be a good thing.
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
1) the beginners thread must be visited by people trying to help them, for obvious reasons
2) g4 just... breaks all the rules
black is playing white basically, but its even better because of the weak pawn
and any Bg2 ideas are blocked by the e pawn
just play 1)g4 that makes more sense
and if you want the g pawn to be protected, go g4 then e3 so a bishop on g2 has the diagonal
btw, g4 and e3 g4 arent that good and i have just proved why e4 g4 is worse than both of them
also
look at your f3 square
tell me what pawn you will use to defend it
thats right, none of them
and same for the h3 square
and the f4 square
and the h4 square
squares like these are called weaknesses, and skilled players can exploit them
so why create literally four of them by the second move
AND your king will be very unsafe if you castle kingside, and castling queenside is a remote possibility
and besides, if e4 g4 has aggressive ideas, then why on move 2
do this stuff when there is a target (a king on g8) and you have developed properly
of course everything is playable at low levels
but still, why handicap yourself
Why does g4 break all the rules? Do you mean opening principles?
Why would black be playing as white in this opening?
Why would the king be unsafe if the king was to castle?
Laskersnephew wrote:
2.g4 is a fairly terrible move--which you would expect, since it violates every known opening principle. After 1.e4 e5 2.g4 d5! White isn't lost, but he has completely thrown away White's opening advantage and stands worse. I don't see any upside at all to the move 2.g4
Why has whites first move opening advantage been thrown away?
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
1) the beginners thread must be visited by people trying to help them, for obvious reasons
2) g4 just... breaks all the rules
black is playing white basically, but its even better because of the weak pawn
and any Bg2 ideas are blocked by the e pawn
just play 1)g4 that makes more sense
and if you want the g pawn to be protected, go g4 then e3 so a bishop on g2 has the diagonal
btw, g4 and e3 g4 arent that good and i have just proved why e4 g4 is worse than both of them
also
look at your f3 square
tell me what pawn you will use to defend it
thats right, none of them
and same for the h3 square
and the f4 square
and the h4 square
squares like these are called weaknesses, and skilled players can exploit them
so why create literally four of them by the second move
AND your king will be very unsafe if you castle kingside, and castling queenside is a remote possibility
and besides, if e4 g4 has aggressive ideas, then why on move 2
do this stuff when there is a target (a king on g8) and you have developed properly
of course everything is playable at low levels
but still, why handicap yourself
To brag about how skilled you are, you could play a dubious opening against a weaker opponent, and if you still win... that could work.
Hikaru reached 3000 elo in blitz using the Bongcloud Opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE58lPy2gGk
If it's brand new it can't be bad.
Another week, another opening-related topic by taseredbirdinstinct. Same old, same old.
Also, a quiz for beginners: find 3 simple reasons why 2. g4 is bad.
taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
What is your point in starting thread after thread asking people to give their opinion on some dubious opening move you made up?
If it's not frequently played by the masters, it is probably not too great. If it's almost never played by the masters, it is probably just plain bad.
How is it any of your business whether or not I choose to make threads that request whether a certain move is bad or not? I am not doing anything wrong by asking whether any openings are dubious or not, I am allowed to ask a question in order to find the correct information so I can decide for myself whether or not an opening is dubious.
How can your second statement be proven? Do you have proof that just because a certain opening was never played by masters that it must somehow be bad?
I asked what your point is. I did not say you are not allowed to start these threads.
So, what is your point?
My point is to find out whether or not these openings are dubious. Surely that must be a good thing.
I read the couple earlier threads and every time you were given an answer, you just went why? No matter what the answer, you seem to ask why. Why?
Mar 31, 2023
0
#19
taseredbirdinstinct wrote:
Is this good or bad? Explain your reasoning as to why you think it looks either good or bad. It looks brand new to me!
The second move overcommits the bishop to g2. If you want more flexible central openings, don't play e4 so often. Try d4 or c4.
Is this good or bad? Explain your reasoning as to why you think it looks either good or bad. It looks brand new to me!