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

Gabran, I'm mostly with you. I only know certain openings from the games I have played here-and I still don't know their names. Playing games with memorized openings doesn't seem too fun. You could have two players making automatic moves into a seemingly automatic endgame.

Plus, if you play in tournaments, and play the same opening time after time, someone will notice and figure a way to beat that opening.  

There is always going to be somebody out there better than you, and at the end of the day your rating is nothing more than insignificant numbers on a computer screen relating to a board game.

Play for the purpose of having fun, not winning.

I play the bongcloud for this reason... it is a challenge from the start.  I've played games where we spend half the game time thinking on the first 10 moves. The problem is that you learn what moves work, and all of a sudden you have that damned opening theory again.

Me ! Never use . Unique unexplored immaculate instinctive game has max fun !

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/chess-fun-or-evil

I probably play on book about 7 to 10 moves tops. Nothing too crazy. I just want a shot at the end game.

I usually just make sensible looking moves. Amazingly enough, postgame research demonstrates that it is usually my opponent that leaves book first.

The only thing "shot down" was the insults from those who must have computer aids in order to play. You guys like to "gang bang" anyone who dares disagree with you...as you are now doing to that unsuspecting soldier in Afghanistan. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

You wanna play me...you'll have to do it in person. I told you numerous times that I play traditional chess, in person only. I truly would like to play you; I don't know who would get trounced, but I wouldn't be so egoistically inclined if I were you.

Too bad it won't happen, though, because you are so dependent on databases and such during your game play.

Your attacks on me and others do not disburse the fact that you just can't play a game of chess, as it was intended, man-to-man.

BTW, I didn't "threaten to leave", I said I was going to ask for a pro-rated refund. Which I did. Since I didn't get it, looks like you are stuck with me until October.

Shoo fly, you bother me.

Chessstrategist, perhaps you could have worded your post differently. Still......

Ziryab, please don't take this as an attack. We can see your rating. No need to "prove" yourself. Now, I'm unfamiliar with chessstrategist's other post that you cite, but I think he's simply trying to make a point. And, seeing your 2000+ rating, I wouldn't doubt that others go off book before you! They might not even know they are playing book moves or not. Or, probably more often, you know more of the book moves than your opponent.

I believe his point is that those that have simply learned many book moves does not necessarily make them good players. I realize that this game has been studied so much that certain openings or defenses seem to work, and, therefore, are used often. Playing that way seems very mechanical. I like 1pawndown's post where he obviously uses some openings, but then you must use your noggin. I truly believe this, because in some games, my "unconventional" play has allowed me to win against much "better" players.

CS,

You have made claims for which you present no evidence. You claim to play traditional chess, but there is no one in the country that you claim as your residence with the name that you claim is yours who has any rating history beyond seven games. My Chess Skills blog offers dozens of OTB games and commentary on my activity in a local chess club. You claim to prefer "traditional chess"; I show abundant evidence that I play it regularly, and with growing success.

Count the posts and posters in the other thread to which you are referring. Your "gang bang" is another claim without substantiation. I think that what you call "gang bang" is the weight of evidence. I suspect it can feel oppressive when one offers empty platitudes in opposition.

I attack ideas, or their lack. You attack people, as you've shown here yet again.

Have a look at my first post in this thread. CallingFried Fox "excellent book play" is hardly contrary to the "independent thinking" that the OP called for. Look at some of the games in the tournament link if you think otherwise.

hmm...

To the OP...

Yeah, I can relate to your question of just playing an informal game of chess and improvising rather than memorizing moves and simply having fun.

If you have a few good friends who have the same perspective...go for it. Keep it simple, spontaneous and unscripted and just have fun.

If you do ever want to progress, I would compare it to other sports...golf, for example. You can start off just goofing around for the sheer joy of it. If it "gets in your blood", then you want to get a coach who can show you how to swing the various clubs, A good golf swing looks easy but it reults from a lot of practice...good practice that a coach can provide.

You could get a chess coach, read some basic books, practice with a chess engine... Learning strategy and tactics... Learning the openings, middle ands end games.

I do think that you can learn certain concepts without memorizing all the openings, for example.You might keep it simple, to start. However, if you really want to progress, then you need to sharpen your skills, learn new techniques. 

It comes down to how involved you want to get, but you can start off "nice and easy".

This might look like a terrible opening, but this works so often on players above 2000 rating in a 1 minute game:

If you're not a tournament player it isn't really necessary to learn volumes of openings. What you should know is the openings that have been around for centuries and their major lines. That way you can avoid a quick opening trap. FWIW, I think it is more important to understand why you are making certain moves. For example, moving the e file and d file pawns to fight for the center and to get your bishops into play. Leave your queen at home early so she doesn't become a target. I love throwing my opponent off by leaving the main book line.

Basis principles of play (paritcularly basic opening development) have been around for so long and have been tried and tested, that I'm never surprised that trying something really unorthadox will land you in it sooner rather than later in a game. How about that for a boring comment? Unflippant replies welcome...

Actually, 1.g4 is the Grob.

me, but maybe this will change the day that I finally give serious chess study a try.

I don't know many openings. But the surprising thing is that often my first few moves, maybe up to 10 or 11 even, I later find out are "book". 
Seems most openings are just a matter of following the chess principles. 

But even as someone with little interest in openings, I'm starting to learn some just from familiarity. It's inevitable. The only choice you have is whether to learn openings from studying or from playing (the latter taking longer).