Not to be rude to any of the posters, but why all of these silly offbeat tries like 1...g5? What an absolute waste of the chess universe's time. To ask for something offbeat and strong is not really possible, Ivan. The good moves are the normal moves, and that's just how chess works. Why not look up a response that's actually good against the English and take the bull by the horns? Given that you know he refuses to transpose to normal 1. d4 lines, that's an advantage. Why not play something similar to what you play against 1. d4, but book up on all the lines that don't transpose? Good luck.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Aah, but if we wished to enrich the chess universe with every game we wouldn't really be playing blitz now, would we? In fact we mere mortals might as well give up altogether.
Not to be rude to any of the posters, but why all of these silly offbeat tries like 1...g5? What an absolute waste of the chess universe's time. To ask for something offbeat and strong is not really possible, Ivan. The good moves are the normal moves, and that's just how chess works. Why not look up a response that's actually good against the English and ta ...[text shortened]... what you play against 1. d4, but book up on all the lines that don't transpose? Good luck.
I agree you can't have everything in one opening but surely there's something to be said for forcing some original thinking early on, especially when the opponent is a specialist in a particular opening? In fact, my only blitz victories against players in the top 100 on this site have been with 1...g5?! They weren't Rembrandts but I doubt my handling of a symmetrical English would have been either.
I never claimed to want to enrich "the chess universe". I just deem conversing about such move a waste of time. The OP clearly wants to win the game, and I personally feel like 1...g5 is an absolutely terrible way to start the winning process. The problem with the logic that 1...g5 gets someone out of book isn't a particularly strong argument when the move played to get someone out of book is a bad one. It doesn't matter if your opponent is out of book if he can play straight forward moves to gain a great position. I wouldn't mind seeing the games. I doubt if they were top 100 players that you gained a playable position out of the opening. If you did, kudos, and touche! 😀
Both Tony and Hunter are correct in their own way.
A solid set-up or a gamble - It's up to Ivan now and it looks like
he has taken my advice and gone for a early night.
I wonder if he will come back on and tell us what he done?
I also wonder what he's going to do when he finds out his opponent
has read this thread.
I dont want to be rude, but !~TONY~! seems to be typical chess bore, unable to see over "good" ("correct" "the best" etc.) moves. If others would follow his dogma and would play only openings he considers good then chess would become more boring. Also he (like other dogmatics) refuses to understand that it`s worthless to choose "good moves" if "bad moves" gives better practical results. So if 1...g5 gives better results for you in practice then its better to choose this move.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Considering chess as "trying to always play the best moves" is pure anachronism.
Forgive me Korch, for trying to always play the best moves. My mistake, I thought that's what chess was all about!
Modern chess is "creating more complicated tasks for your opponent to give him more chance to mistake".
"The best move" and "move creating more complicated tasks for your opponent" in many cases are not the same as searching for the best move ignores individualities of you and your opponent.
For example 1...a6?! is definitely not the best move but Miles got his only win over Karpov in official competitions (while he was beaten several times in more solid openings) using this "crap".
If there had never been abstract thinking we would never have developed into the 'frontier' of chess that is played today. Instead we would be stuck in the stone ages of rapid development and 2 piece attacks because everyone would be afraid of playing a 'silly' or in a 'silly' way because its unconventional even if you can gather a good position out of it.
My goal in the opening is to get a position that I enjoy playing, and hopefully one that my opponent doesn't enjoy playing. I have a vast, but not deep, opening repertoire. Depending on my mood and my opponent, sometimes I'll answer 1 e4 with 1...c6, and other times I might answer 1 e4 with 1...g5. I've told this story many times, but it seems appropriate to this thread: the only time I took clear first in a rated blitz tournament at the Chess Palace I played 1 g4 in every game as White and 1...g5 (or 1...h6 and 2...g5) in every game as Black. When I consider a move (assuming no favorable forcing continuation is available), I ask myself "does this move give me good practical winning chances?" I'll let the 2750-players and Rybka, et. al. search for "truth" in chess.
Originally posted by KorchIt really pisses me off that people bring up Karpov - Miles every time someone brings up unorthodox openings. It was one game. What type of problem does 1...a6?! or 1...g5? pose any White player? White can develop sensibly and get a nice edge, or can look for even more if he wishes. Why don't I post a nicer game in rebuttal?
Considering chess as "trying to always play the best moves" is pure anachronism.
Modern chess is "creating more complicated tasks for your opponent to give him more chance to mistake".
"The best move" and "move creating more complicated tasks for your opponent" in many cases are not the same as searching for the best move ignores individualities of you ...[text shortened]... etitions (while he was beaten several times in more solid openings) using this "crap".
I should perhaps restate my argument in clearer terms: I agree 110% with you that it may sometimes be more important to "pose your opponent problems" than play the absolute best move. I definitely agree, and I always enjoy pushing the pace of a game even though it may not be the correct thing to do, for instance:
Game 4683358
Was 24...Rxc2!? the best move? Probably not. I was pretty certain 24...Qc8 was better, but I thought that the text move would complicate the game more, and give me the intiative, so I played it instead. My real argument is that you can pose your opponent problems while still not playing crappy moves. I doubt you could argue that 1...g5 is a good try as Black, Korch, and that that's the best way to pose problems.