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.
Also there is a logical fallacy here. You keep going back and forth between what is objective and me or some other beginner having to be able to explain it. These are two different things. I do not have to be able to explain anything to you in order for the opening to be objectively bad. And also, I have already explained everything necessary regardless.
In order for weaknesses to be exploited they must be either bad in the short term or the long term. In what way are these supposed drawbacks providing any immediate disadvantage for white? In what way are these supposed weaknesses going to provide any long-term disadvantages?
Has been said already. Scroll back. Will not repeat.
You have not even mentioned once how these advantages can be exploited immediately, just because white has no any advantage doesn't mean black has any immediate advantages either.
Maybe they can not be exploited immediately.
I already told how they might be exploited eventually though.
An advantage has to remain an advantage for a significant amount of time in order to remain as a long term advantage. In this opening how can you prove that these advantages will last and won't eventually disappear?
I probably can not do that.
But you see, I do not really need to.
You are the only person ever that I have come across, who thinks that turning the advantage that white has at the very beginning of the game into a disadvantage that they are going to fight against is a good idea.
If white is the one trying to equalize after two moves, they really did something OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
Whether it is long term or not does not change this at all.
It's an unbalanced and dynamic position, white shouldn't be forced to equalise.
It is an unnecessarily bad position for white. Indeed, white should not be forced to equalize, and they of course are not, but that is the BEST they possibly could do after this horrid opening.
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.
Also there is a logical fallacy here. You keep going back and forth between what is objective and me or some other beginner having to be able to explain it. These are two different things. I do not have to be able to explain anything to you in order for the opening to be objectively bad. And also, I have already explained everything necessary regardless.
A bad opening is an opening that leads to a loss under correct play. You are using the word "bad opening" to describe an opening that isn't actually bad, but is merely difficult to play and has little known theory on it.
If you end up in a difficult to play position, as white, after two moves, your opening is really really, bad.
A difficult to play position is not a bad position.
It is compared to an easy to play position with an advantage.
A bad position is a lost or losing position, not a difficult position.
A bad position could also be a position where you just have no chance of winning and more chances of going wrong than your opponent. It is not losing, but it is very bad indeed.
A drawish opening isn't a bad opening.
Read what I wrote again. You got something wrong.
You have described a drawish and narrow opening, not a bad opening.