People Who Don't Use Specific Openings, Attacks, or Defenses

I just want to see if there is anyone else out there who doesn't care about memorizing any special formations or moves. This is just a discussion between people who would rather play their own way.

Yup.  Zero memo necessary.  (I hate writing memos anyway)

I'm utterly lost against players that go out of book. Without my databases, I'm unable to find an appropriate reply.

Fortunately, most players conform to excellent book play, such as the participants in this tourney: Fried Fox.

^ Likewise.

Any opening is a book opening nowadays. 1.h4 - Grob opening. I think you need to know some defense as black, while as white you can get away with murder. 

I find it that if i play spanish or italian or sicilian, the games takes many opening moves before you need to think and actually start playing, if your oponeent knows your opening better than you do the game can be over before you turn your brain on, very unsatisfactory way to play chess. If i blunder a queen now and then why should i play like Anand in the opening? That is why i play 1.d4 2.Bg5, the computer says that i lose my advantage, well... prove it.

You must apretiate though that most of the book moves come with a certain threat or an idea, if you do  not meet it appropriatelly you can be in a world of hurt and would do really well to learn that threat or idea and apply it to all your games. For example in the Spanish a lot depends on the a6 b5 pawns, was it a good idea to move them forward or not.

What i would hate is that i get very high rating here, and when playing with friends who are not so strong lose because they use uncomon opening.

Cheers

I don't think you can play chess960 if you are not good in the standard chess, it has been around for 40 yrs and not many people know about it. Like saying the future of Baskettbal is Netball. Check two of my chess960 games (first two of my life), after blundering terribly in the opening and my oponent running out of 'cool' moves he just crumbled.

You don't need to learn openings if you follow sound ideas and learn from your mistakes.

I agree with echecs06, you can assume that oponenets with the same rating as you knows everything you do. Onwards to other threads...

Well I usually try to play somewhat traditionally, but it is still really annoying when I get those opponents who have never bothered cracking any chess books and just wing it as they go.

I especially see a lot more early Queen and Bishop development with the non-book players than with the book players. Can make for some irritating early threats and development interuption.

Play 1. f3 and 2.g4, this will throw your opponents out of the book right away !

I like to experiment in my Internet and casual games (for example, recently on this site, I played a king's gambit as White, neither me nor my opponent knew anything about it, I won :-) ... In "serious" OTB tournament play, I try to play something I know well.

i'm personally just trying to learn the game, so i give anything a go. never used a database so guess i don't play with much theory. one day i will though maybe. i feel that it would be a good idea, an more fun, to try figure it out for yourself first.

I'm trying to learn to drive, but first I need to build a vehicle and some roads.

 Well , I think that better is the guy who tries to play " and see what comes out" than another who playes 1.e4 ,but has no clue why does he play it , and what is it for .

Sure, it is silly to play something by rote and not know why. Doesn't mean you ought to re-discover chess completely.

If you pay bills and can't spend more than 1-2 hours a day on chess, leveraging off the expertise and history of others to help you play more effectively is not such a bad idea.

The "figure it out for yourself" approach is perfectly sound ... just that it appears a bit inefficient unless you combine it with some necessary verification procedures after you get stuck/confused.

For instance:  

Trying to guess the moves of one side of a Master vs Master  game => Good!

Figuring out why the played move was played instead of your own move by using reference material or seeking out a coach  => Better!

Does it really take a genious to understand why 1.e4 is good opening move ? It's a good move because it controls some central squares and prepares to develop two pieces. After 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 is a good move because it develops a piece while attacking a central pawn. Etc. It's no rocket science really.

 No, I think I can still play 1... e5 against that.  But then, what do I know; I don't play book anyway.

See I find that it makes for more interesting games to play out of book. And besides, chess isn't like a puzzle or something to really be figured out. It is more of a thing to expirement with and enjoy.

Well stated.  If your goals are simple, unadulterated pleasure with no rating goals to run after or tournaments to do well in, you couldn't have said it better.

When I first learned chess, the biggest emphasis was on openings...seems like I read a ton of books (slightly an exaggeration...maybe only half a ton) on same.

I studied and memorized all the plays, their names, the countermoves... My methods were to develop pieces quickly, take control of the center, don't bring the queen out too early...stuff like that.

Some players come out of the gate full-speed ahead. I preferred to develop my pieces and protect the fort, first. Of course, the results varied. Depends on who you play against. Sometimes I'd be under such fierce attack at the opening that I couldn't so much do what I wanted to do...but what I had to do.

I don't know if anyone plays the Stonewall Defense these days, but that was one of my favorites. Then, too, I used to like the Queen's Gambit because it seemed to work a lot...often, they took the bait.

Yes...it comes back to me...Nimzo-Indian Defense, Sicilian Defense, Ruy Lopez, etc. I spent a lot of time back then learning these openings, and many more.

I've been away from chess for many years. Right now, I'm working at rounding out my skills. I don't want to re-memorize all the openings. I'd rather practice with the Tactic Trainer here. Maybe later...also king and pawn endings...I always hated that stuff and could really use some work there.

Anyway, for openings, I keep my current repertoire on a short list. I particularly hate getting my knight pinned by a bishop in the Ruy Lopez and then the opponent almost always swaps bishop for knight and I end up with a doubled pawn and a lousy strategical situation because of the stupid (of course, I don't really mean "stupid" because it isn't...maybe just irritating) swap.

So, if I am playing black, I keep alert for the white opening up the bishop diagonals. Then, I move the corresponding rook pawn to square 3. For me...I feel so much better that they can't do the "same-old-same-old" on me.

I'm not trying to expound on anything. Just a few idle thoughts from a rusty old guy. Of course, if I wanted to get to the very top of the world chess ladder...learn ALL the openings and ALL their names and ALL the counter plays and...

or just play because you find it fun. rather than taking it so seriously. learn from your mistakes an move on. so what if people are better, or care more about being good. its just a board game at the end of the day