Is this brand new opening good or bad? - Chess Forums - Page 2

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#21

magipi wrote:

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.

It's up to you to come up with 3 simple reasons why 2.g4 is bad before asking others to.

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#22

Habanababananero wrote:

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?

I always do the right thing by questioning everything instead of accepting everything I hear to be true without explanation. I will only stop enquiring once I have been provided proof.

MarioParty4

Mar 31, 2023

0

#23

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!

Weather it's good or bad depends on the next move black plays.

Good:

Bad:

Neutral:

You may disagree with this list, but I respect your opinion, so I will not argue.

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#24

Nerd-Man wrote:

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.

By overcommitting, do you mean the bishop is forced to remain on g2? Why is the bishop forced to remain on g2?

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#25

Laskersnephew wrote:

"Why has whites first move opening advantage been thrown away?"

At the start of the game, White has the initiative and a small advantage because he has the privilege of starting first. After 1.e4 e5 2.g4 d5 Black has the initiative and a small advantage. It's that simple.

Why does black have the initiative after d5? What small advantage does d5 provide?

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#26

MarioParty4 wrote:

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!

Weather it's good or bad depends on the next move black plays.

Good:

Bad:

Neutral:

You may disagree with this list, but I respect your opinion, so I will not argue.

Why is this bad?

MarioParty4

Mar 31, 2023

0

#27

taseredbirdinstinct wrote:

MarioParty4 wrote:

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!

Weather it's good or bad depends on the next move black plays.

Good:

Bad:

Neutral:

You may disagree with this list, but I respect your opinion, so I will not argue.

Why is this bad?

They fork both pieces, and while you can defend, they were still able to develop and attack, which is quite rare and not good for an opening.

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#28

MarioParty4 wrote:

taseredbirdinstinct wrote:

MarioParty4 wrote:

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!

Weather it's good or bad depends on the next move black plays.

Good:

Bad:

Neutral:

You may disagree with this list, but I respect your opinion, so I will not argue.

Why is this bad?

They fork both pieces, and while you can defend, they were still able to develop and attack, which is quite rare and not good for an opening.

Is it exploitable for black?

LordVandheer

Mar 31, 2023

0

#29

magipi wrote:

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.

Don't disrespect our leading theoretican like that!

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#30

LordVandheer wrote:

magipi wrote:

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.

Don't disrespect our leading theoretican like that!

You have a good sense of humour.

Habanababananero

Mar 31, 2023

0

#31

taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:

Habanababananero wrote:

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?

I always do the right thing by questioning everything instead of accepting everything I hear to be true without explanation. I will only stop enquiring once I have been provided proof.

Your approach is rather similiar to the one the Flat Earth community has. Just always keep questioning, no matter what you are told and never accept anything as proof.

Multiple good reasons have already been provided in this thread as to why the move is bad, you just will not accept the truth and that’s all there is to it.

Laskersnephew

Mar 31, 2023

0

#32

Yes! The "just asking questions" troll is one of the worst. Most of the members here trust that questions are being asked in good faith and try their best to answer them. These trolls exploit that instinct

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#33

Habanababananero wrote:

taseredbirdinstinct kirjoitti:

Habanababananero wrote:

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?

I always do the right thing by questioning everything instead of accepting everything I hear to be true without explanation. I will only stop enquiring once I have been provided proof.

Your approach is rather similiar to the one the Flat Earth community has. Just always keep questioning, no matter what you are told and never accept anything as proof.

Multiple good reasons have already been provided in this thread as to why the move is bad, you just will not accept the truth and that’s all there is to it.

You are trying to make the act of constantly questioning and enquiring look bad by comparing it the lack of reason that flat earthers possess. You are complaining even when constantly questioning everything leads to factually derived truths as opposed to the assumptions and lack of logic that your strawman arguments are in relation to.

I don't just need explanations, I need proof, evidence is not proof unless there is no room for the possible outcomes to be to the contrary. I believe in thoroughness.

The things that you are claiming are wrong with this opening must first be exploited in order to be considered weaknesses. You must first prove how they can be exploited.

taseredbirdinstinct

Mar 31, 2023

0

#34

Laskersnephew wrote:

Yes! The "just asking questions" troll is one of the worst. Most of the members here trust that questions are being asked in good faith and try their best to answer them. These trolls exploit that instinct

I don't just ask questions, I demand proof, so don't get lippy and assume I am interested in you wasting my time, this is my thread and I will not apologise to your tiny audience that you consider yourself to be a member of. I don't care about your nonsense so don't expect me to go around backtracking on my rather cutting remarks that I have made in response to you.

LordVandheer

Mar 31, 2023

0

#35

Black playing as white means that white has made a suboptimal move that isn't an outright blunder but gave up whites initiative/first move advantage. In this context at least.

TuttiFrutti404

Mar 31, 2023

0

#36

niec

TuttiFrutti404

Mar 31, 2023

0

#37

when does this be nice

TuttiFrutti404

Mar 31, 2023

0

#38

I love water

TuttiFrutti404

Mar 31, 2023

0

#39

an<yone else drink waser

TuttiFrutti404

Mar 31, 2023

0

#40

I love chocolate wafers