Principle play Vs Random play

In chess we have seen tactics Vs positional play,but I am on the cross roads of Principle play Vs Random Play.

Let me tell you what is my conception of Principle play

1) Centre control

2) developing Knights before Bishop

3) Castling

4) Connecting Rook

5) Developing Queen later in the game

Sticking on to time tested systems like catlan system or KIA or RETI system and shunning unnecessary exprerimentation.

Now to the Random play like

Fried liver attack, Grob Attack, Borg type of play Patzer opening and Kings indian gambit , all these opening wait for opponent to make a mistake or may be a slight blunder.

Now If one wants to improve in chess which is better taking up a principle play approach or threading on random line Please help

Random is perhaps the wrong word, learning the main principles obviously outweighs learning obscure lines & traps. There is room for both though. I remember when I'd only been playing for a bit, this guy set up a position and asked what I should do next, I opted to move my d pawn to a central position, this was a principle move, whereas the correct move was to attack the queen with my knight while revealing check on the king. Obviously this is very basic but I think it sort of shows the idea of having a rule and having exceptions to that rule. The position I mentioned is in the Scandanavian opening.

Chess Principles are important, but they aren't absolute. 

Attacks like the fried liver attack are based on principles as well. Having a localized advantage gives one the right to attack, and the caveat of all of the principles you mentioned being "All things being equal it is usually best to."

In the fried liver, all things aren't equal. It is a sound, principled attack based on specific positional considerations. Indeed, in many example games, one sees that it is white you has the best development and central control. Consider a famous gem from Morphy:

1. e4 e5 (central pawns fighting for control of the center)

2. Nf3 Nc6 (Knights before bishops)

3. Bc4 Nf6 (white fights for the center, developing his kingside bishop after the knight).

4. d4 exd4 (white continues to fight for the center)

5. Ng5 d5 (white initiates a sacrificial attack based on better localized force -- his pieces are ready to act on the f7 weak point and black isn't ready to defend that spot).

6. exd5 Nxd5? (more fighting over the center)

7. 0-0 Be7 (castling)

8. Nxf7 Kxf7

9. Qf3+! Ke6 10 Nc3!! and white has the better develooment and by far the easier game. 

If you go look up the game (Morphy v NN 1858 New Orleans sim) you'll see that the whole game is played very principally. It's an example game for young players on how to handle a sacrificial attack. 

That you think an opening like the Fried Liver is in the same category as the Grob, and that you further think it violates basic principles of good chess suggests maybe you don't really understand those principles that well. I'm by no means an expert, but I see Steinitz' rules being followed very closely . . .

thanks i will check out the game

The beautiful thing about chess is, good moves are always logical... but not always intuitive!  They may break convention, but there's always a reason why they work.

On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite.  -- Lasker

so in this game was principle being sacrified for adventurism.Some body was pointing in earlier post about random play I think a better word would be " Adventurism".When I see games like this I am temted to try more open adventorous opening and game play.But as any opening breaks down into a middle game Would opening like fried liver attack break even into mild middle game.

The fried liver leads to tactical, unbalanced positions with both sides having their chances. With best play from both sides, it's probably a drawn opening, but both sides really need to be on their game as tactical shots are the basis for every move. And when tactics are in play, principles take a back seat to the specific demands of the position.

Remember, no chess principle is absolute. 

On move 5, in the morphy game, black makes a huge mistake. The correct thing to do is to realize that hte principle of moving each piece only once in the opening isn't absolute. His knight is attacked and by far the best move to defend the knight is to make the move "Na5."

That seems on the surface to violate two principles: it moves a piece a second time and it puts a knight on the rim. But remember, all things aren't equal here. White moved his knight twice in order to initiate an attack (based on the weakness of black's f7 pawn), so moving the c6 knight is not a tempo waster, and the knight on a5 actually comes as a move with a threat, it's not merely development but counterattack. 

after 5. ... Na5 6. Bb5+ (again moving a piece twice, but he is responding to a threat and making one of his own so it violates no principle either), 6. ... c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qf3 0-0 12. 0-0 (as one example line) 

we end up with a game that is probably objectively equal. White has two pawns for the piece, and his c pawn is a protected passer when it starts moving. Black is ahead in development, but white in many ways has the easier game because of the pawn position. White has lost his tactical initative, but his pawns give him real chances. 

Black, meanwhile, has better piece activity/development right now, the bishop pair, and has managed to obtain some initative. Play might continue:

12. .. Ng4 13. Ne4 f5 14. Ng3 e4 (black's using his development and pawn majority on the kingside to hamper white's development) 15. Qe2 Rc8 16. Nc3 Bc5 17. h3 Ne5 18. d3 f4 19. Bxf4 Rxf4 20. Ncxe4 Ng6 21. Nxc5 Rxc5 22. c4 Rc6 23. Qe3 Rf7 -- and we have a pretty interesting middle game, but far from mild. 

The whole point of the fried liver is to create a major imbalance in the position (sacrificing a piece for a pawn after all!) so it never gets "mild," but it can get to where the tactics aren't the only thing to consider.

goooooooooooooooodddddddddddddddd geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeee

king why isn't fried liver attack not seen often in gm level play.

is it offensive to play fried liver attack it is like saying "ok i gave you a bishop for a pawn now try to beat me "

'random' is indeed the wrong word just about every time it is used. Often it can be simpy omitted - as in, for example, "Here is a random game I played recently".

I think the OP would have been better to have talked about "tactical" openings - ie, those in which (short-term) tactics over-ride (long-term) principles.

Just a random comment from me.

Well random/uncommonly known openings can lead to traps that your opponent may not know about. But there are still also traps in princible play too. 

What I do is play an opening that most people know and then play a line not many people know.

Planetmongo -- I have a few guesses as to why it's not seen at high level play. But given that I'm just a club guy, these are purely guesses. I don't claim any deep insight here.

First, because of the early tactics, many of the moves are very much forced moves. There's not a lot of room for a GM to flip out a prepared novelty along the way to take his opponent out of the opening. 

And how many GM's aren't familiar with the model games of this opening? They all studied Morphy, Chigorin, Speilmann, and the like since they were kids. 

Second, and related to the first, is that in the Giocco tree, both 4. d3 and 4. c3 are each about twice as popular as 4. Ng5. They give games where principles matter more than tactics, and there are fewer forced lines. Not every GM is Fischer and Tal and willing to go into messy tactics right from the start. So even if Black plays into the two knights (which isn't a given from 1. e4 e5, white tends to bail earlier in order to give themselves a bit more creative freedom. 

Third, I suspect that GM, and then the IMs and FMs below them, tend to follow trends. No one played the Scotch till Kasparov revitalized it. The Berlin sat wasting away till Kramnik became it's spokesperson. Right now, the fried liver has no champion at the top end. And like the Berlin and Scotch it is probably because it is thought of as old-fashioned and stodgy and perhaps even boring because the theory is so well known.  Like many other openings, it's sitting relatively unused waiting on some Super-GM to become it's champion. 

Fourth, and perhaps most important, GMs in general shy away from sacrificial openings. They don't like to gambit pawns, let alone pieces, and while it appears that white gets adequate compensation for the piece, what GM is going to put prize money at risk sac'ing a piece if they have options to play a different line?

Also realize you can't just decide to play the Fried Liver attack; black has to play into it. Even Ng5 isn't Fried Liver--black can play Na5 as stated and avoid that hassle. While it's exceedingly difficult for black to defend, I've always heard it's an unsound sacrifice with best play. Still, no black player in his right mind would play into that willingly when there are better alternatives available. It's something like an 80+% win percentage for white, sound or not, just because it's so difficult for black to play.

Hmm, I was under the impression that the fried liver starts with 5. Ng5, so Paul's point 2 isn't really applicable? Or is the fried liver only those lines where black plays 5. ... Nxd5? 

In which case, I'm talking about the lines after 5. Ng5 and not the fried liver . . . but I thought the fried liver was everything after white's fifth move.

GMs for the most part do not like to take risks. They will innovate but almost always in lines that are already often played.

One reason they do not try new openings is that they really do not understand such openings. To give an example the 1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Qxd5 opening.  Once Anand was playing Kasparov and Anand decided to play this line as he was behind in the match.

As it turned out neither really undersotod this opening.  Anand got a very big advantage out of the opening with Black but did not know how to follow through and Kasparov eventually won.

GMs know to learn a brand new opening [brand new to them] it takes a long time and they do not want to invest the time.

The best player in the United States tried the Ponziani Opening a few years ago. But, unfortunately, he did not know the best lines and chose a very inferior line and lost. But it was not because of the opening it was because of the inferior line he picked. He chose a line from ideas of 20 years ago rather than the most current ideas.

That's actually another interesting point - a lot of the less popular openings have harder to access theory. The important games are happening in correspondence tournaments, not in OTB games, so the important ideas don't get populated into the major databases as quickly. The top novelty might have been played last month, but the game won't be over till next year.

...which highlights the boldness and preparation behind Fischer's adoption of 1d4 against Spassky in their 1972 world championship match.

In football terms it might be likened to Spain turning up at the next World Cup with a big unknown number nine, pumping long balls to him and easily winning the tournament.

Are you a tactical player or a positional player, by nature?  Do you play bullet chess, 15-30 minute chess or are you preparing for tournament chess?  If you're a tactical, bullet chess fanatic and love to attack from the opening bell, then experiment with "random" chess. However, I don't think it will improve your overall chess game as much as studying "principle play".  If you prefer a slower game, stronger defensive structures, a more solid and safer game with less risk, then definitely "principle play".  You could try both though.  How about "random chess" when you play white and "principle play" when you play black?  Then later you can decide which you like best.  When I was a kid, I started out with e4 e5 openings and made sacrifices to attack the enemy king, early on.  I was playing very weak competition though, so it often worked, but my game wasn't very sound.  After learning basic principles, my game got a LOT better and I was able to compete at the tournament level.  I still pulled out a sac opening from time to time (Scotch Gambit or the Smith-Morra Gambit), but mostly stuck to more solid games, like the Queen's Gambit and French Defense.  Then I discovered hyper-modern openings and started playing the English Opening, King's Indian, Queen's Indian and Sicilian.  I never played the Fried Liver Attack, Grob's Opening or the others that you mentioned though.  They were too risky for my tastes.  

Well said