Is this a trick/gimmick opening?
Sort:
Aug 6, 2016
0
#3
2...Nf6 is the obvious refutation. My longer explanation got deleted by accident.
Aug 6, 2016
0
#4
Yeah Queen H-5 is pretty terrible. You are going to lose tempo when black starts chasing your queen if he's any good then your advantage as white is gone. It's playable but not good especially in blitz unless you already know where you where you want your queen when it's attacked.
Aug 6, 2016
0
#5
Darksaiint wrote:
Absolutely not. While not terribly viable, this opening aka Parham attack or Danver opening has caused some upset in GM-level games. While it does develop the Queen very early, a retreat to f3 if needed puts the queen in a powerful position, causing the black side to suffer a multitude of problems of its own.
Upsets? Like when Naka beat a lower rated player? Was that an upset?
Or when he drew against a lower rated player after Qh5? That's more like an upset but the other way heh.
The suffering is small, but it's all white's. Qf3 blocks the kingside's normal development.
Aug 6, 2016
0
#6
Every chess player needs to memorize the first few moves of the Patzer Opening, with Black's refutation: 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 Nf6. Your posted thing is almost the same except weaker for White since White doesn't even threaten Black's e-pawn, therefore Black doesn't even need to protect that e-pawn first with ...Nc6. In your opening Black can develop and evict in a single move (...Nf6): easy.
Darksaiint a écrit :
No. Upsets like when actor Woody Harrelson, who had no chess experience, managed to force a draw while playing Kasparov using that opening.
"This was a light-hearted consultation game between Garry Kasparov and Woody Harrelson. Woody had a bit of help from Yasser Seirawan."
Yasser Seirawan, one of the best GM of the 90's.
ikerus a wrote :
I know I played it horribly
Everything is said. There is no "trick" opening, just an awful 5th move by Black.
Could a moderator remove Troll/spams by estenssoro on every topics?
Aug 6, 2016
0
#12
Darksaiint wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Darksaiint wrote:
Absolutely not. While not terribly viable, this opening aka Parham attack or Danver opening has caused some upset in GM-level games. While it does develop the Queen very early, a retreat to f3 if needed puts the queen in a powerful position, causing the black side to suffer a multitude of problems of its own.
Upsets? Like when Naka beat a lower rated player? Was that an upset?
Or when he drew against a lower rated player after Qh5? That's more like an upset but the other way heh.
The suffering is small, but it's all white's. Qf3 blocks the kingside's normal development.
No. Upsets like when actor Woody Harrelson, who had no chess experience, managed to force a draw while playing Kasparov using that opening.
Really? What tournament was this? Time control?
lol
Anyway, after 1...e6 I'm guessing it's significantly worse. In the celebrity game 1...e5 was played.
Well, yes it is a gimmick. To bring the queen out very early allows an opponent to make moves with minor pieces which attack the queen with the result that the opponent may well be able to develop more quickly by reason of gaining time when the queen has to be moved more than once.
When you see your opponent play a gimmicky move there are three things to do. Firstly remember that chess does not have a forced win in just a few moves. So no need to panic. Secondly spend a moment or two looking at what the gimmicky move seems to attack, in this case it is your f pawn which, in the starting set up is protected only by your king. Thirdly look to make ordinary developing moves following the normal opening principles. It is OK to confront the gimmicky moves with oddball replies if you know the lines. But if you don't, just develop and let the weaknesses of the gimmick emerge by themselves.
So what happened in your game? Well it wasn't the queen move which led to your downfall. You moved pawns not pieces, got behind in development and one of your pawn moves opened up a gaping hole in your position. That move was 3. ... c5.
Look at the position after you played that move. The white queen is sat doing nothing more than exerting a little pressure on your f7 square. But the white pawn on e5 is attacking your d6 square and, as a result of your 3. ... c5 move you cannot defend that square with a pawn of your own. The square is a hole.
Your opponent is enough of a player to know what to do. He took immediate aim at the hole moving his knight to occupy the hole.
That would not have been a disaster if you had kept your black squared bishop attacking the square. You could then have simply exchanged off the knight. But you did not. You blocked the bishop with your knight. After that the game was lost.
In the opening you seek to get all your pieces out and the main reason for moving pawns is to open up lines to allow the pieces to get out. If your first three or four moves are all with pawns warning bells should be sounding.
You might have a look at what is said on this site
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ten-rules-opening
So don't worry to much about tricks or gimmicks; do get a firm grip on the opening principles and then watch out in your games to see whether following them or ignoring them works well or badly for you and for your opponents.
Refuting a gimmick simply by adhering to the opening principles is rather enjoyable.
johnyoudell a écrit :
But the white pawn on e5 is attacking your d6 square and, as a result of your 3. ... c5 move you cannot defend that square with a pawn of your own. The square is a hole.
Your opponent is enough of a player to know what to do. He took immediate aim at the hole moving his knight to occupy the hole.
[...]Refuting a gimmick simply by adhering to the opening principles is rather enjoyable.
The move 3...c5 is more than correct: it's a developing move that fight for the center.
Far from being a mistake move 3...c5 is a logical move, move 5...Nbc6 is THE mistake because if Black had moved his e7-Knight, White would have never been able to use that pseudo-hole of yours (unless he wanted to lose a pawn) and he would have played hits Knight twice for nothing and would have been the one with a lack of development.
That hole story about ...c5 is ridiculous for every French defense non-patzer player.
Not sure if this really fell under "openings", but I just played a game (and was slaughtered) by this strange opening. Right away it felt kind of like a trick or gimmick that newer players learn (like the 4 move check mate) that is easily blocked, but hadn't seen this before.
Anyone know is this is a legit opening or if it's just a simple trick with an easy counter?
[Site "Chess.com iPhone"]
[Date "08/06/2016 03:37AM"]
[White "reza88887 (1045)"]
[Black "ikerus (1121)"]
1.e4 e6 2.Qh5 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nc3 Ne7 5.Nb5 Nbc6 6.Nd6 Kd7 7.Nxf7 Qe8 8.g4 Nd4 9.Bd3 Ng6 10.Nxh8 Nxe5 11.Qxe5 b6 12.c3 c4 13.Bxh7 Nb5 14.a4 Nd6 15.d3 Be7 16.Qxg7 cxd3 17.Bxd3 Bb7 18.Bg5 d4 19.f3 Rc8 20.cxd4 a6 21.d5 Bxd5 22.Bxa6 Rc2 23.Bb5 Bc6 24.Bxc6 Rxc6 25.Bxe7 Qxe7 26.Qxe7 Kxe7 27.Ng6 Kf6 28.Nf4 e5 29.Nd5 Ke6 30.Rd1 Nc4 31.f4 exf4 32.Nxf4 Kf6 33.Nd5 Ke6 34.Nf3 Nxb2 35.Rd2 Rc1 36.Kf2 Rxh1 37.Nf4 Kf6 38.Rxb2 Rd1 39.Rxb6 Ke7 40.Ng6 Kf7 41.g5 Ra1 42.Nfe5 Kg7 43.Rb7 Kg8 44.Ra7 Ra2 45.Kg3 Ra3 46.Kg2 Ra2 47.Kg3 Ra3 48.Kg4 Ra2 49.h4 Re2 50.Ra8 Kg7 51.Ra7 Kg8 52.h5 Re4 53.Kf5 Rd4 54.h6 Rd5 55.Ne7 Kh7 56.Nxd5 Kg8 57.g6 Kh8 58.Ra8# {reza88887 won by checkmate}.
I know I played it horribly, and though I'm obviously not great,
It still threw me off.. I decided to play through the whole game even though he was way up in material by mid game.