I would recommend not to be arrogant against opening which you dont understand. I mean not only unortodoux openings like Grob (1.g4) or Latvians gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), but also some classics openings (like French) which some people misunderstands, showing their arrogance and ignorance. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by KorchAmen!
I would recommend not to be arrogant against opening which you dont understand. I mean not only unortodoux openings like Grob (1.g4) or Latvians gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), but also some classics openings (like French) which some people misunderstands, showing their arrogance and ignorance. ðŸ˜
The Latvian and Grob aren't THAT bad -- but there are better openings, no doubt about it!
Tony Miles seemed to specialize in unorthdox openings and he did alright.
Originally posted by KorchHey! If people want to dismiss the french and lose in 20 moves against me, then more power to them!
I would recommend not to be arrogant against opening which you dont understand. I mean not only unortodoux openings like Grob (1.g4) or Latvians gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), but also some classics openings (like French) which some people misunderstands, showing their arrogance and ignorance. ðŸ˜
The post that was quoted here has been removedThey are absolutely playable - in opening white can afford (almost) everything in their first move. So such moves are useful to take off opponent from theory and provocating to punish white for that, which isnt so easy.
Btw. Have you heard about 1.e4 c5 2.Na3!? (possible also after 1.Na3 c5 2.e4) - line invented by russian GM Zvjagincev few years ago? He have good results against GMs in this line.
Originally posted by Crushing DayOf course there are objective better opening than Latvian and Grob,etc., but sometimes (or against some kind of players) using these opening can be more effective, than using classical openings.
Amen!
The Latvian and Grob aren't THAT bad -- but there are better openings, no doubt about it!
Tony Miles seemed to specialize in unorthdox openings and he did alright.
Originally posted by Korchsome guy named tony or something beat (or drew) Anatoly Karpov with 1.e4 e5 2.a3 or something like that.
They are absolutely playable - in opening white can afford (almost) everything in their first move. So such moves are useful to take off opponent from theory and provocating to punish white for that, which isnt so easy.
Btw. Have you heard about 1.e4 c5 2.Na3!? (possible also after 1.Na3 c5 2.e4) - line invented by russian GM Zvjagincev few years ago? He have good results against GMs in this line.
Originally posted by KorchI played a simul against Miles.
Of course there are objective better opening than Latvian and Grob,etc., but sometimes (or against some kind of players) using these opening can be more effective, than using classical openings.
Afterwards i spent some time talking to him.
I asked him about his openings and his famous win.
It was not that he thought his unusual openings strong, but when playing Kasparov and Karpov, you had to realise that they employed teams of great players to find them opening novelties in all the main lines. He felt that it was the main obstacle for him to mount any serious challenge for the top.
Originally posted by KorchI agree completely. Some people do better in certain kinds of opening than others, even if it is "theoretically worse". From what I have learned, it is much more important to play in positions/openings you like. And the only reason I go with some of the more common openings (rather than the Grob) is because I want some solidity when I play - openings that can't end with disaster on move ten. With this said, one should never underestimate the power of taking someone out of the book, it usually also involves a psychological advantage as long you feel good yourself.
I would recommend not to be arrogant against opening which you dont understand. I mean not only unortodoux openings like Grob (1.g4) or Latvians gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), but also some classics openings (like French) which some people misunderstands, showing their arrogance and ignorance. ðŸ˜
But, in which way do you think some show arrogance towards, e.g. the french?
The advice to newbies should be to stick with established openings. People play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 because its how beginners play and they don't know any different.
While not meaning that the less popular openings are not "playable" you should stick to opening conventions against irregular openings.
2.Qh5 is a very powerful signal of someone attempting a rather foolhardy early mate, one that a lot of experienced players learn how to refute and simulataneously gain an advantage (while the other player spends time backpedaling the queen).
2.Qf3 and even 2.Bc4 will raise an eyebrow as the moderate and conservative method of trying the same tactic of a queen mate backed by a bishop against the weak f-pawn.
I don't know as much about more modern openings which seek to control the center in an indirect manner, or perhaps put some pressure in other locations.
I simply play as I usually do, try to solidify the center, and prevent any opponent plans from coming to fruition, meet with some success, some failure..
Originally posted by KorchOr the KG for that matter.
I would recommend not to be arrogant against opening which you dont understand. I mean not only unortodoux openings like Grob (1.g4) or Latvians gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), but also some classics openings (like French) which some people misunderstands, showing their arrogance and ignorance. ðŸ˜