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.
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.
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.
This one is so bad, I am not sure I have ever faced it and if I someday do, I will give it the necessary amount of thought during the game.
Unless the opponent is a lot stronger, I will probably manage to win that game and if they are a lot stronger, they probably will not play that opening, simply because good players rarely play really bad openings.
Now if I had to play some GM, or a master even, who were forced to play those opening moves against me, sure, i would probably lose, but not because of the opening.
Against someone like Magnus Carlsen or any other GM I would most likely lose with piece odds. That does not have anything to do with the opening though.
All openings are equally as good at a lower level, unless that opening is outright losing.
Also, I would like to ask you, why would you start a thread titled "is this brand new opening good or bad" if you genuinely think that all openings are equally as good. That makes no sense.
Just because a particular opening may be just as good to a beginner as another opening, doesn't mean that one opening is necessarily as good as another opening objectively.
Exactly. And the opening you present is just plain bad, objectively.
You must prove that you can exploit it first. Explain how this advantage would be meaningful to you.
I already explained. Scroll back if you want, I am not going to repeat myself.
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.
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.
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.
This one is so bad, I am not sure I have ever faced it and if I someday do, I will give it the necessary amount of thought during the game.
Unless the opponent is a lot stronger, I will probably manage to win that game and if they are a lot stronger, they probably will not play that opening, simply because good players rarely play really bad openings.
Now if I had to play some GM, or a master even, who were forced to play those opening moves against me, sure, i would probably lose, but not because of the opening.
Against someone like Magnus Carlsen or any other GM I would most likely lose with piece odds. That does not have anything to do with the opening though.
All openings are equally as good at a lower level, unless that opening is outright losing.
That is not true at all.
The opening is only good when it is good. Pretty much all mainline openings are good, so pick any of those and you are OK.
No, the opening does not determine the outcome of the game at beginner levels, but still, it is better to have an advantage than to be at a disadvantage out of the opening. The slight advantage would give the player who has it slightly higher chances of winning and in the long run, that will show.
Also, one will not be a beginner forever (unless they keep playing these kinds of bad openings) and if they have played bad openings they will have to learn the good ones instead. This will be extra work that would not have to have been done if they had just started out with some respectable openings in the first place.
A positional advantage means nothing to a weaker player, as only strong moves will be able to beat the opponent and strong moves are meaningless to weaker players.
Also earlier, you were searching for the objective truth. Or whatever factually derived stuff it was you were talking about.
Whether the weaknesses in the opening mean something to a weaker player or not does not have any bearing on whether those weaknesses exist.
Objectively, the opening you suggest, is bad, and I thought you were searching for the objective truth.
You claimed that you would be able to beat a player of the same level as you if they were using this opening, yet I want you to prove it to me that you would be able to exploit this bad opening against an opponent.
I said I would PROBABLY be able to beat them. Now that probably is a very important word there. Now it would not happen every time, but over the long run, that slight advantage will show.
Now finding an opponent at my level willing to play this against me might prove to be very difficult. Because the opening is bad and almost no one plays it.