good
juicysnail
Well unorthodox opening strategy certainly has its advantages. Look at Carlsen and the magic he can conjure up from a bad opening (he is notoriously poor at openings), and yet aronian and the like still play cold and calculating. Both methods work and have their individual drawbacks.
Because these unorthodox variations rarely give white an advantage or fully equalise, though the dutch and tromp in your example are actually quite good.
The dutch is very risky though, and when chess is your job most would play safe prefering equalise and get a draw as black, rather than going for a win and risky a paycheck.
The trompowsky doesnt exact full advantage, although it too is quite good and woefully under used. Top GMs want every scrap o an advantage they can find, since playing against opposition at that level, any advantage is difficult to come by, and once again how much they get paid may depend of winning all their games as white.
Nakamura has been a heavy weight candidate chess player for as long as ive been playing chess. He is known as a very aggressive and creative player who doesnt like short draws. But there is something that sets Hikaru unique form other super gm's.
He plays all openings! Incuding the strange unorthodox openings!
His reasoning is that if he plays the dutch, or his trompovsky attack, or all of these out of "fashion" openings then he will arrive in a position which he is more comfortable in than his opponent because of his preparation.
Why hasent this strategy kickied in with other Super Gm's? Why isnt it reccomended for players striving to get better? What are the drawbacks to this?
They're apparently not as confident in their ability to outplay their opponent in any random middlegame. Carlsen does the same as what you've just described and just tries to get a middlegame where both players are out of their prep and just have to play chess.
It's a great idea as long as you're good in any sort of middlegame and endgame position. Players striving to get better usually haven't read at least 1 middlegame and 1 endgame book though, much less are strong in those phases. Learning an opening in the context of the middlegame gives improving players a chance to get into familiar territory in their games where they build useful experience and test their knowledge bit by bit.
But most recommendations are to favor middlegames and endgames and tactics to opening study. Opening study is often cited as the least important consideration for an improving novice player. It's also often ignored and novice players do the opposite and obsess over opening instead :p
The traditional way of scoring chess results is : Win = 1 point, Draw = 1/2 point, Loss = 0 points... so two draws are worth as much as a win and a loss.
But it's becoming more and more popular to host tournaments that are scored as : Win = 3 points, Draw = 1 point, Loss = 0 points.
Under that system, it no longer pays to play it safe, since two draws are worth LESS than a win and a loss.
I expect that as time goes on, more Grandmasters will start to play unorthodox or risky opening systems.
The impression I get is that Carlsen plays unusual openings to get the opponents out of their prep. Nakamura on the other hand plays unusual openings to surprise the opponents, and to use that momentum to win with aggressive follow-ups. These are two different strategies.
The traditional way of scoring chess results is : Win = 1 point, Draw = 1/2 point, Loss = 0 points... so two draws are worth as much as a win and a loss.
But it's becoming more and more popular to host tournaments that are scored as : Win = 3 points, Draw = 1 point, Loss = 0 points.
Under that system, it no longer pays to play it safe, since two draws are worth LESS than a win and a loss.
I expect that as time goes on, more Grandmasters will start to play unorthodox or risky opening systems.
Could explain why most super GM games are boring =(
'Boring' is in the eye of the beholder. There are, to be sure, some games (not many, imho) that most would agree are boring, but I think the majority of the games that are considered boring by most of us are interesting to those who are able to see deeper into the game due to being more skilled or being more willing to analyze the game more carefully.
A draw can happen because both players play well, always neutralizing their opponent's plans and tactics before they can be achieved. Such a game might actually be very rich in tactics and strategy, but not much of it actually happens on the board -- it's all in the annotations to the game after the fact, and in the heads of the players during the game. If one is able to see some of what was in their heads, then the game becomes much more interesting.
No drawn GM game is not boring, if you think there is a drawn GM games that is not boring then would you mind to show us the game? There are many beautiful and awesome games by GMs due to combinations and tactics or excellent moves that wins them the game.
Nakamura's problem isn't his openings, it's his attacking philosophy of chess.
He scores many beautiful victories, but against the best players his attacks are blunted. His fantastic defensive skills are what keeps his ratings high, not his attacking philosophy. I don't know if it's possible for him to change that philosophy now, but he needs to take fewer positional chances at the highest level. They keep backfiring.
Magnus Carlsen, on the other hand, doesn't seem to take any positional risks after the opening. He's willing to play milquetoast openings as white and then turn them into positional masterpieces. Even his game against Gawain Jones in December where he played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4?! a6 5.h3?! was positionally justified even if the resulting position was only equal.
He seems to agree with the statement, "it's good to sacrifice your pieces, but it's better to sacrifice your opponent's pieces!"
No drawn GM game is not boring, if you think there is a drawn GM games that is not boring then would you mind to show us the game?
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008353
when mentioning unorthodox openings, bent larsen, comes to mind.
no-one could bend 'em like Bent
Bent was a cool dude. I met him at the Canadian Open back in the 1970s when I was just a 1600-player, and he invited me out for a beer after he'd finished his game!
Unfortunately, I was under-age and didn't want him to end up in an ID-check variation, so I had to decline the "Beer Gambit".
No drawn GM game is not boring, if you think there is a drawn GM games that is not boring then would you mind to show us the game?
Nice game. Here's another:
No drawn GM game is not boring, if you think there is a drawn GM games that is not boring then would you mind to show us the game?
Wow such a fun game. . . . .
Nakamura has been a heavy weight candidate chess player for as long as ive been playing chess. He is known as a very aggressive and creative player who doesnt like short draws. But there is something that sets Hikaru unique form other super gm's.
He plays all openings! Incuding the strange unorthodox openings!
His reasoning is that if he plays the dutch, or his trompovsky attack, or all of these out of "fashion" openings then he will arrive in a position which he is more comfortable in than his opponent because of his preparation.
Why hasent this strategy kickied in with other Super Gm's? Why isnt it reccomended for players striving to get better? What are the drawbacks to this?