lichess.org
Donate

Why Are Some Openings So Weird?

What is weird changes over time. There was a time when the Najdorf was considered weird: losing tempi.
There was a time when the Sveshnikov was considered weird: leaving a hole on d5.
There was a time when the London was considered weird: play a bishop instead of a knight.
There was a time when the Scandinavian was considered weird: let white chase your queen.

What is weird changes over time. There was a time when the Najdorf was considered weird: losing tempi. There was a time when the Sveshnikov was considered weird: leaving a hole on d5. There was a time when the London was considered weird: play a bishop instead of a knight. There was a time when the Scandinavian was considered weird: let white chase your queen.

I don't think that the style of the response is conditioned by the style of the opening. A famous example is Karpov and Kasparov, one a positional anaconda and the other an attacking genius. They played many times against each other and no one's opening choice determined the style of the other. I believe the opening is just a symptom and the personality and mood of the player is what dictates the style which then decides the moves.

Engines can help us find deep moves, but they are always safe, minimizing risks. Look at gambits, for example. To discover a good one you need to first play some random moves, expect reasonable human moves as reply and hope that the computer will find a huge evaluation gain down the road. At no point does it decide moves, else it will not be a gambit. If you can't figure out what people would play to your moves, you can't find something that will get played. And if you don't make random moves, you can't get to something no one else thought of.

And as @tpr said above, "weird" is a fluid human concept. Once a weird style wins games, it starts becoming the norm.

I don't think that the style of the response is conditioned by the style of the opening. A famous example is Karpov and Kasparov, one a positional anaconda and the other an attacking genius. They played many times against each other and no one's opening choice determined the style of the other. I believe the opening is just a symptom and the personality and mood of the player is what dictates the style which then decides the moves. Engines can help us find deep moves, but they are always safe, minimizing risks. Look at gambits, for example. To discover a good one you need to first play some random moves, expect reasonable human moves as reply and hope that the computer will find a huge evaluation gain down the road. At no point does it decide moves, else it will not be a gambit. If you can't figure out what people would play to your moves, you can't find something that will get played. And if you don't make random moves, you can't get to something no one else thought of. And as @tpr said above, "weird" is a fluid human concept. Once a weird style wins games, it starts becoming the norm.

@tpr said in #2:

What is weird changes over time. There was a time when the Najdorf was considered weird: losing tempi.
There was a time when the Sveshnikov was considered weird: leaving a hole on d5.
There was a time when the London was considered weird: play a bishop instead of a knight.
There was a time when the Scandinavian was considered weird: let white chase your queen.

I would argue that all those openings (except the London) are, in fact, weird/anti-natural, because they are in some way breaking well-established opening principles. The London is just a case where you develop the bishop out so you play e3 and don't hamm in your own bishop inside the pawn chain.

@tpr said in #2: > What is weird changes over time. There was a time when the Najdorf was considered weird: losing tempi. > There was a time when the Sveshnikov was considered weird: leaving a hole on d5. > There was a time when the London was considered weird: play a bishop instead of a knight. > There was a time when the Scandinavian was considered weird: let white chase your queen. I would argue that all those openings (except the London) are, in fact, weird/anti-natural, because they are in some way breaking well-established opening principles. The London is just a case where you develop the bishop out so you play e3 and don't hamm in your own bishop inside the pawn chain.

@TotalNoob69 said in #4:

I don't think that the style of the response is conditioned by the style of the opening. A famous example is Karpov and Kasparov, one a positional anaconda and the other an attacking genius. They played many times against each other and no one's opening choice determined the style of the other. I believe the opening is just a symptom and the personality and mood of the player is what dictates the style which then decides the moves.

Engines can help us find deep moves, but they are always safe, minimizing risks. Look at gambits, for example. To discover a good one you need to first play some random moves, expect reasonable human moves as reply and hope that the computer will find a huge evaluation gain down the road. At no point does it decide moves, else it will not be a gambit. If you can't figure out what people would play to your moves, you can't find something that will get played. And if you don't make random moves, you can't get to something no one else thought of.

And as @tpr said above, "weird" is a fluid human concept. Once a weird style wins games, it starts becoming the norm.

I do agree that these weird openings can become the norm. As I mentioned, I think Sicilians, by definition, are almost always anti-natural. However, I don't think that their popularity or even soundness diminishes their weirdness. In regards to the opening choices, the opening choices of one side or the other can dictate the resulting middlegame complexity/sharpness. The case you're referring to of Karpov - Kasparov is a case where, often, Kasparov would be pushing for complicated positions, playing Sicilians, and Karpov would try to steer the game more towards his playground by playing calm systems with Be2 0-0.

@TotalNoob69 said in #4: > I don't think that the style of the response is conditioned by the style of the opening. A famous example is Karpov and Kasparov, one a positional anaconda and the other an attacking genius. They played many times against each other and no one's opening choice determined the style of the other. I believe the opening is just a symptom and the personality and mood of the player is what dictates the style which then decides the moves. > > Engines can help us find deep moves, but they are always safe, minimizing risks. Look at gambits, for example. To discover a good one you need to first play some random moves, expect reasonable human moves as reply and hope that the computer will find a huge evaluation gain down the road. At no point does it decide moves, else it will not be a gambit. If you can't figure out what people would play to your moves, you can't find something that will get played. And if you don't make random moves, you can't get to something no one else thought of. > > And as @tpr said above, "weird" is a fluid human concept. Once a weird style wins games, it starts becoming the norm. I do agree that these weird openings can become the norm. As I mentioned, I think Sicilians, by definition, are almost always anti-natural. However, I don't think that their popularity or even soundness diminishes their weirdness. In regards to the opening choices, the opening choices of one side or the other can dictate the resulting middlegame complexity/sharpness. The case you're referring to of Karpov - Kasparov is a case where, often, Kasparov would be pushing for complicated positions, playing Sicilians, and Karpov would try to steer the game more towards his playground by playing calm systems with Be2 0-0.

Weird? I always play like that Fisher beginning in first game, and don't think it's very unsual , it's just attacking style

Weird? I always play like that Fisher beginning in first game, and don't think it's very unsual , it's just attacking style

This explains why it can feel difficult to punish some "woodpusher" players. Playing principled chess is still good, but sometimes you need a sprinkle of crazy to refute their crazy.

This explains why it can feel difficult to punish some "woodpusher" players. Playing principled chess is still good, but sometimes you need a sprinkle of crazy to refute their crazy.

i think you copied the 2+2 from Gothamchess / IM Levy Rozman. He said the exact same thing!

i think you copied the 2+2 from Gothamchess / IM Levy Rozman. He said the exact same thing!