If it got a name, it's worth playing!
Just maybe in a casual game...?
Mostly in correspondence games.
You can look up names for heaps of unplayable garbage. I think you need to re-evaluate your philosophies on such matters!
@TonyRo: Let me ask you a (rhetorical) question: If Magnus Carlsen plays 1. a4 against you, would he still win?
(without being sarcastic or anything, but I freely admit that you're a way better player than myself, however I believe that the gap between you and a super-elite player is much wider than the gap between ourselves)
What I'm trying to get across here is, that with enough talent no opening is truly unplayable to you (or so I view it). So on a purely hypothetical level, each opening choice has its own merits. Furthermore, adding variety makes the game more interesting. :)
(without being sarcastic or anything, but I freely admit that you're a way better player than myself, however I believe that the gap between you and a super-elite player is much wider than the gap between ourselves)
What I'm trying to get across here is, that with enough talent no opening is truly unplayable to you (or so I view it). So on a purely hypothetical level, each opening choice has its own merits. Furthermore, adding variety makes the game more interesting. :)
Of course he would. Not certain that furthers your point in any way though. Consider your final quote:
"So on a purely hypothetical level, each opening choice has its own merits."
Not sure I agree - 1.a4 has almost entirely zero merit as an opening move. You can "add variety" to your games using any one of the hundreds of opening choices that are completely legitimate. To again use your example, Magnus does so all the time without playing crappy chess moves. Your choice of 1.a4 is an absolutely abhorrent chess move.
This is my only point - you can "add variety" and mix it up without ever having to stoop to some of the things you're probably considering. There's no reason to play things like the Grob, 1.a4, 1.c3, etc. Good players never do this, and it's for a very good reason. And an obvious one that shouldn't need explaining, yet here we are! ;)
"So on a purely hypothetical level, each opening choice has its own merits."
Not sure I agree - 1.a4 has almost entirely zero merit as an opening move. You can "add variety" to your games using any one of the hundreds of opening choices that are completely legitimate. To again use your example, Magnus does so all the time without playing crappy chess moves. Your choice of 1.a4 is an absolutely abhorrent chess move.
This is my only point - you can "add variety" and mix it up without ever having to stoop to some of the things you're probably considering. There's no reason to play things like the Grob, 1.a4, 1.c3, etc. Good players never do this, and it's for a very good reason. And an obvious one that shouldn't need explaining, yet here we are! ;)
It would be childish to continue arguing with you; you're absolutely correct.
I concede defeat in this dispute. Allow me then to rephrase my opening statement: If it got a name, at least ONE person on Earth considered it to be a worthwhile move. For example, 1. a3 is called the Anderssen's Opening, named after probably the most successful German chess player there ever was. In hundred games, he'd beat me in the most creative ways you could imagine. I feel like honoring his memory when choosing it, and that's the case with any of those obscure lines nobody ever plays anymore. ... aah well, but of course, with my life on the line, I would just go with 1.e4.
But the Grob really sucks, even by my standards. -_-
I concede defeat in this dispute. Allow me then to rephrase my opening statement: If it got a name, at least ONE person on Earth considered it to be a worthwhile move. For example, 1. a3 is called the Anderssen's Opening, named after probably the most successful German chess player there ever was. In hundred games, he'd beat me in the most creative ways you could imagine. I feel like honoring his memory when choosing it, and that's the case with any of those obscure lines nobody ever plays anymore. ... aah well, but of course, with my life on the line, I would just go with 1.e4.
But the Grob really sucks, even by my standards. -_-
Best Opening ever: The Grob.
^^^ This guy.
1. a4 isn't nearly as bad as you guys make it out to be. I obviously don't play it, but with 1. a4, you're just limited to "open style games" to get a playable position. as d4 stuff is just bad for white while committing to a4. If black takes the center early, you play a KID/philidor and a5 is a fine move there. if he doesn't, you have an early space gaining move. It's just very limiting and you likely forfeit the advantage. Some people actually like playing without taking the center- though noone really plays that move for obvious reasons. why ever create a weak square for nothing?
h4 is a different story. It's kinda just bad because castling queenside takes too long anyway, revoking it's only merit. I'd also stick to e4 structures in this case, but maybe not.
1.a3 is a little less useful, but less weakening i suppose. Maybe a reverse pirc?
The worse move has to be 1. f3 i think. Mainly because your g1 knight strongly opposes you playing it..
h4 is a different story. It's kinda just bad because castling queenside takes too long anyway, revoking it's only merit. I'd also stick to e4 structures in this case, but maybe not.
1.a3 is a little less useful, but less weakening i suppose. Maybe a reverse pirc?
The worse move has to be 1. f3 i think. Mainly because your g1 knight strongly opposes you playing it..
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.