Is this brand new opening good or bad?

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.

Wrong.

I do not need to prove anything for the weaknesses to be weaknesses. Just like I do not need to prove that the Earth is spherical in order for it to be spherical.

Also, the weaknesses are weaknesses and they do not stop being weaknesses if they are not exploited. Just like a hanging piece does not stop being a hanging piece if it is not captured (unless you defend it of course).

PS. Could you show me one of those factually derived truths you constantly questioning everything has led to?

If something cannot be exploited it's not a weakness. As long as a player is capable of exploiting a weakness it's a weakness. I didn't say that a weakness is no longer a weakness just because a player refused to exploit them, I said a weakness is no longer able to be a weakness if a player is not able to exploit them, you have completely missed what I have said. You expect me to believe to even though you cannot prove and backup your claims, I know the earth is round because there is proof.

The weaknesses have already been explained to you multiple times. I am not going to go into parrot-mode and repeat the same things that have been explained already.

If you choose to ignore what has been said, well, good luck on your chess journey.

If you cannot show how those weaknesses can be exploited you have not proven how they can be weaknesses.

How the weaknesses would be exploited will depend on how the game progresses. It is difficult to show exactly what would happen because, well, it is chess, and also the opponent has their moves. Maybe a piece, like a Knight could land on the holes you are creating and be controlling a lot of squares in your territory. Maybe your King might get attacked, because the pawn wall is compromised in front of it. Could be many different things.

That being said, I do not feel the need to prove that those weaknesses exist (or anything else) to you. You have been given good answers already. I already said, you may choose to not take those answers seriously (although I would not recommend that).

My only problem with your approach is that you never, ever accept any answer whatsoever. You just keep asking why, why, why. It leads nowhere.

PS. You forgot to answer my earlier question about what factual truths you have been able to derive with these questions?

Just because you are not able to come up with a precise answer, it doesn't mean others aren't. You should instead try to become more rigorous for once and try to examine more.

I have actually answered your last question and have already shown through rigorous questioning the need to show how weaknesses can be exploited.

1) About this part: "Just because you are not able to come up with a precise answer, it doesn't mean others aren't."

I have to say: You are absolutely correct.

2) About this part: "You should instead try to become more rigorous for once and try to examine more."

I have to say: No I should not. I should not give any more thought to these bad opening moves you are presenting.

3) About this part: "I have actually answered your last question and have already shown through rigorous questioning the need to show how weaknesses can be exploited."

I have to say: No, you have not answered the question.

1) About this part: "Just because you are not able to come up with a precise answer, it doesn't mean others aren't."

I have to say: You are absolutely correct.

2) About this part: "You should instead try to become more rigorous for once and try to examine more."

I have to say: No I should not. I should not give any more thought to these bad opening moves you are presenting.

3) About this part: "I have actually answered your last question and have already shown through rigorous questioning the need to show how weaknesses can be exploited."

I have to say: No, you have not answered the question.

How the weaknesses would be exploited will depend on how the game progresses. It is difficult to show exactly what would happen because, well, it is chess, and also the opponent has their moves. Maybe a piece, like a Knight could land on the holes you are creating and be controlling a lot of squares in your territory. Maybe your King might get attacked, because the pawn wall is compromised in front of it. Could be many different things.

That being said, I do not feel the need to prove that those weaknesses exist (or anything else) to you. You have been given good answers already. I already said, you may choose to not take those answers seriously (although I would not recommend that).

My only problem with your approach is that you never, ever accept any answer whatsoever. You just keep asking why, why, why. It leads nowhere.

PS. You forgot to answer my earlier question about what factual truths you have been able to derive with these questions?

Giving thought to bad openings is important otherwise you won't know how to defeat those bad openings and will lose to a player who is using bad openings.

Just because you are not able to come up with a precise answer, it doesn't mean others aren't. You should instead try to become more rigorous for once and try to examine more.

I have actually answered your last question and have already shown through rigorous questioning the need to show how weaknesses can be exploited.

1) About this part: "Just because you are not able to come up with a precise answer, it doesn't mean others aren't."

I have to say: You are absolutely correct.

2) About this part: "You should instead try to become more rigorous for once and try to examine more."

I have to say: No I should not. I should not give any more thought to these bad opening moves you are presenting.

3) About this part: "I have actually answered your last question and have already shown through rigorous questioning the need to show how weaknesses can be exploited."

I have to say: No, you have not answered the question.

Giving thought to bad openings is important otherwise you won't know how to defeat those bad openings and will lose to a player who is using bad openings.