We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

The highest level Grobber I'm aware of is IM Michael Basman, and he grobbed at the London Open. Look him up on Wikipedia. He wrote a book called "The Killer Grob," with many games against his peers that you might like to peruse (or not), which I have looked over briefly. His book is a bit terse for my taste, mostly a collection of games without as much explanation as I would prefer. I really liked Edward Lasker's style of writing.

At my level of play, which does not even come close to Master--and never will--I am perfectly safe playing Grob every game, and this has been proven by experience. If Grob didn't work for me, believe me, I'd forget it in a heartbeat. I've abandoned other openings, like the Brooklyn Defense. I seldom play the Latvian Gambit anymore, although it is nice to bring out once in a while for the sake of nostalgia. If White is not aware of the Latvian, then it can be a potent weapon for Black to seize the advantage. An older chessplayer's depth of knowledge can counter the higher calculating speed of youth to some extent.

Now if one is a serious player with pretentions of becoming a Master, then perhaps one had better pick and choose his openings with greater care than me. But if you go with the usual lines, then you also run the risk of encountering novelties or a player with greater depth of memory than yourself. Also, for me, boredom can be a problem when every game looks more or less the same. I can't watch Sicilians anymore because that was about all my brother ever played.

My brother used to sit in his room all day studying the openings. He can identify every major variation of every major and most of the minor openings. He hates the Grob, but I think it is mainly because there are no lines to study, no magazine articles about it, no endorsement from a big name. To me, that is a strength. I kind of like pioneering uncharted territory, even if it isn't the most fruitful territory. At least my lines are my own. I'm not copying any of Michael Basman's lines, to my knowledge, with the exception of 1. g4. I don't think he ever organized any lines, or he hasn't revealed them.

For whatever reasons, I get better results with the Grob than with many other openings, particularly in blitz where it can be devastating, and blitz is extremely popular online so I don't know how anyone can avoid playing it. It is about ten times easier to find an open blitz game than an open standard game online.

I confess that in 3-day per side games, for some reason I have not had any luck at all, so far, with the Grob. So it appears when Black is not under any time pressure, my resutls are not as good, and the reasons for that are not entirely clear to me, although it gives credence to your position. I think I buy the argument that 1. e4 is stronger than 1. g4, because the castling position remains uncompromised, control over the center is asserted, and the Queen can become active. You do not have to persuade me. I also buy the argument that 1. f3 is probably the worst first move White can play. Nevertheless, I play both 1. f3 and 1. g4 on a regular basis because I like the novelty of it, exploring different types of games. And at my level I really get about the same results as if I had played 1. e4, d4, or c4, the "big three" that all the GM's endorse. I couldn't beat a GM no matter what I played, let alone a Master.

I am fully aware who IM Basman is and his book. Basman also had a few other interesting ideas and approaches to the game but he is also an IM and his approach was probably the main reason for that. 

Your story is typical of a player trying to be tricky and not willing to put in the work. Sitting in your room studying and knowing names is fine but there is a lot more to opening study than that,... openings are essentially setting up middlegame plans, trying to create an imbalance/advantage to work with during the middlegame and create problems for your opponent. 

I will state this clearly for you. the grob is interesting but it is not a good foundation for building long term growth on. It offers a few tricks but thats about it for white. Black has multiple good paths for equality and to fight for an advantage due to the weakened kingside structure. 

There IS material on it but if you want a book on it basman is it because he is the ONLY player to waste his time with it. Other players have published stuff on it but only suggest sidelines on how to gain a good game against it or refute it (which means gain equal chances of winning NOT beat someone as most patzers think) your arguement that you would lose if you played mainlines is a weak argument as well. So you lose if you play  a bad sideline but learn nothing but that the bad opening loses or gives you a bad position if you play a serious opening you can still lose AND learn where your position was good and could have been better as well.

study the crazy sidelines like the grob, or the e4 e5 Nf3 f5? (i forget the name) see how serious players deal with them and refute the ideas. they are great oppotunities for learning.

here are  few games where good players didnt go crazy and try to refute whites idea but just played sane and straight foward ideas and white ended up in trouble.

I lost many of my games when I began playing 1. g4, but studied each defeat over the board, the old-fashioned way, for many hours and in each case found improvements to be made in my play and overall strategy. I had my doubts in the beginning and was ready to abandon the Grob if it wasn't sound. The litmus test for this opening is whether I can play it against players of equal strength or slightly better and defeat them, and the answer is Yes and I have no doubt about that due to direct experience over a period of two years playing online chess just about every week.

Now, will I argue that Grob is for you? No, it certainly is not, because one must believe in the opening one plays. Confidence matters a great deal in this game. Can I beat a much stronger opponent, such as a Candidate Master, with the Grob? Of course not, but the chances are that no opening would suffice for that purpose. The first and even the second move is quite irrelevant next to calculating speed, which is the gift of nature. I was born with modest gifts, so I do not aspire to rise in the ranks.

Preparation only helps so much and chiefly against an opponent willing to play along your prepared lines, which I think reveals the chief reason people hate the Grob: their pet lines of the Sicilian, Queen's Gambit, or Ruy Lopez are sidelined, and all their preparation comes to naught. They are forced to think for themselves without the ideas of others. But to me that's a pleasant sensation, and I like to explore new things. Playing 1. e4 all the time would put to sleep, especially since everybody plays 1. .. c5 nowadays.

I like playing fresh and offbeat lines. I do feel it is rather sad that you want to stamp out quirky little openings and discourage people from playing them, as though chess were a religion rather than a pastime. Bizarre lines may indeed be weaker than orthodoxy, but the game of chess needs a breath of fresh air. I like Chess 960 too. Anything to put a new spin on an ancient game I've been playing since 1974. Now, back in the day, I used to prefer Guico Piano, Queen's Gambit, King's Gambit, and sometimes Reti. I may cycle back to those some day too, after they become fresh again through disuse. Let's say I go back to playing the Queen's Gambit Declined, of which I am certain you will approve. Do you think a Grobber will upset me much by 1. g4? I think that by learning different openings one becomes a better overall player rather than placing all his proverbial eggs in one Sicilian basket.

Is the game included your game, or someone else's? I do not know whether you want me to analyze it for my sake or your own. If for my sake, believe me I have experienced over a hundred defeats and a hundred victories with the Grob, and I have analyzed many of them, and I've also analyzed a few of Michael Basman's. If the included game is your own, and if you invite comments, then let me know. I've decided not to bother analyzing anyone's games anymore unless they explicitly welcome comments.

Talapia,

As I said the grob is not losing (white has a small advantage with the first move) but it is weakening and white loses the advantage of the first move if black plays intellgently he at the very least equalizes and has good chances of winning (at least equal to whites). 
in blitz yes anything works but blitz results should NEVER be considered a validation of anything. Its just fun. The discussion is if the opening is valid in a serious game and its not i white wants to try and play for an advantage.  Other players have studied the opening that are stronger than you or I. Multiple GMs give systems that are equalizing or give black a good game against the grob. (I really like Big book of busts for a template against these types of wacky openings) 

your idea that you are going to trick black and refute their study by playing something obscure is also flawed. White is the one wasting time as well. Black only needs to study 1 line that will equalize or challenge white. THis is just part of ANY opening repertiore and no different than studying for white playing c4 or d4 or anything else. Infact I often EXPECT crazy stuff at the amateur level because they have this mentality so your surprise value is diminshed.

As I have mentioned in multiple other posts the problem arises when your have invested a lot of energy and time into a system that will not lead to results later and the structures can not be applied to other mainline systems. Your invested time will lead to greater frustration later when your results drop and you need to start playing serious lines and have to start from scratch. 

Going over things with computers is misleading they show us how to hold things together tactically but in  away that makes no sense to humans. Players drift then the position degrades and they lose... and then poin t at the computer to say look I could have done "ok" if I played this... 

I play as black.

Mateologist,..blitz is a fairly worthless for analysis due to its rapid time control other than as opening study... that said you and your opponent both misplayed the opening. White gets a solid advantage with correct play.

I have faced this opening a lot in blitz and its quite common at the beginning level of chess when players face the queens gambit. 

I have a big feeling that White missed several big chances to bust through my fortress in this game.  Really, his blunder of the e6 pawn was the only thing that gave me hope for survival.  Even with the big pawn plus, I doubt I played well enough to refute a smart white attack, especially after dropping an exchange (albeit willingly to remove that pesky knight of his).

Mateologist,..blitz is a fairly worthless for analysis due to its rapid time control other than as opening study... that said you and your opponent both misplayed the opening. White gets a solid advantage with correct play.

I have faced this opening a lot in blitz and its quite common at the beginning level of chess when players face the queens gambit. 

Hmm...guess that's one major oversight we both made.  After that though, I'm still convinced that White can still crack Black's position.

I meant in the actual game, not in your Qxf7+ line.

How are you guys getting these games annnotated like this and able to go back and "replay"? Is there a tool on Chess.com that allows this that I am unaware of?