Books and openings

[Paul Cooksey]

Hello, the depressing voice of common sense here. I think the nearest a famous player has come to saying something like this is Kasparov, with a really substantial caveat.

I think all openings are 100% sound - all normal openings, that is! It is just a question of your mood and preparation.

People rightly make the point openings are less important at lower levels. But a worse opening is still a worse opening, even if it is less likely to determine the result of the game.

[MJMcCready]

I suppose it will always be comparative. I think where a lot of people go wrong is they think they just have to memorize move orders to become good in the opening. But even if that were true it's not too helpful if your hopeless at endgames because you only ever study openings. Perhaps it's the case that chess should no longer be thought of in such terms.

[Simon Rogers]

I tend to win a lot of my games in the middlegame.
The games that rarely go to an endgame, I tend to be enough material up.
Who said " 99% of games are won through tactics" ?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Usually ascribed to Richard Teichmann. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/ext ... ctics.html

[Matt Mackenzie]

To which suggestion a certain A Karpov reportedly responded "rubbish!"

[Simon Rogers]

I'm reluctant to admit it but against 1.e4 I play 1. ...a6, and have been for a few years. I've been laughed at many times but rarely come out of the opening worse because is more transitional than people think. It's not the joke the vast majority see it as. I've had titled opposition on the back foot with it more than once. Similarly, the Staunton Gambit in the Dutch defence is derided yet if you don't know what to do against it, you will be in real trouble with it.

I'm pretty sure opening theory is, on the whole, not to be trusted. The very best in the world aren't going to reveal their closely held secrets for all to share, and what is shared is often poorly expressed. Apologies if I sound cynical but several years of playing 1. ...a6 at all levels has shown me it does not deserve the reputation it has.

[Simon Rogers]

You talk a lot of sense in the first paragraph.
I certainly wouldn't have laughed if you or anyone else played 1.a6.
I have faced 1 a6 just once in a competitive match.
I have faced Brett Lunds' 1.h4 a number of times, who is a 210 grade and have played against 1.c3.
I thought the two Schiller books: Unorthodox Chess Openings and Big Book of Busts were very good.
There was apparently a Mike Basman book came out in 1982 about the St.George Defence.
If you want to take it a stage further, Mike Surtees plays the Revolutionary Opening Theory and had his own website with it.
I remember Mike Surtees played the ROT against Jovanka Houska at the British Chess Championships in 2008 and won.
I sometimes play Unorthodox Openings like 1.b6 and have caught out stronger players.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Back in the 80s I saw Brett Lund play 1 Nf3 h5?! as Black as well. And he won.

[Paul Robert Jackson]

Back in the 80s I saw Brett Lund play 1 Nf3 h5?! as Black as well. And he won.

i am sure Tim Krabbé's Chess Curiosities' website has discussed
1. h4 for white
1.......h5 as black
in the past.
Both moves were good enough to beat computers 15 - 20 years ago,

[Simon Rogers]

Back in the 80s I saw Brett Lund play 1 Nf3 h5?! as Black as well. And he won.

I remember the first time I faced Brett Lund, was in the Gazette Silver Queen Tournament about 25 years ago.
I had a fantastic tournament, I had beaten Graham Taylor of GRE in the previous round and then faced Brett with the black pieces in the penultimate round on top board. George Ellison played Natasha Regan on board 2.
It was the first time playing Brett. As white he played 1.h4, I panicked and played Nf6, as you can imagine, I lost quite quickly.
I was told by the controller after, the best reply is h5.
I won my final game against Paul Worsley and finished joint 3rd overall, winning a nice cash prize.
I remember I was buzzing after.

[Ian Thompson]

It was the first time playing Brett. As white he played 1.h4, I panicked and played Nf6, as you can imagine, I lost quite quickly.
I was told by the controller after, the best reply is h5.

By what criteria? My computer reckons 1... Nf6 is the 3rd best move, after moving a central pawn 2 squares forward.

It reckons 1... h5 is the 16th best move, being better than only 1... Na6, 1... Nh6, 1... f6 and 1... g5.

[Simon Rogers]

It was the first time playing Brett. As white he played 1.h4, I panicked and played Nf6, as you can imagine, I lost quite quickly.
I was told by the controller after, the best reply is h5.

By what criteria? My computer reckons 1... Nf6 is the 3rd best move, after moving a central pawn 2 squares forward.

It reckons 1... h5 is the 16th best move, being better than only 1... Na6, 1... Nh6, 1... f6 and 1... g5.

It was 25 years ago.
I was 110 grade, the controller was 150 grade.
The guy was a bit of a strange character. He dropped out of the chess scene about 5 years later after a disagreement with some Poulton players. He then concentrated on his bridge.

[Paul Cooksey]

I wouldn't laugh at 1..a6, although I'd be pleased to see it.

The only opening I can recall actually making me laugh was a game between Miroslav Houska at about the time he got the IM title and an arbiter and KID specialist whose identity I will protect. Miroslav played 1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bg5 against more or less everything at the time. Black tried 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 h6?!. Unfortunately Miroslav went 3 c4 and won a mainline KID where h6 was a wasted tempo.

[MJMcCready]

Up to 180-200 level its very playable, lower than that few people really know what to do against it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Black tried 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 h6?!.

Possibly worth a punt if you know for certain that White's third move would otherwse be 3. Bf4