Unorthodox Chess Openings #1: Strange Rook Moves
Sort:
Strange rook moves in the opening are always cool for blitz at least. I sometimes play 6.Rg1 in the Najdorf. I will try these openings out in my next few blitz games. Thanks for the heads up on these odd openings chesslover96.
What's the thought behind those rook moves?
yeah...what's the point-to confuse your opponent or make him overconfident?
Feb 7, 2008
0
#5
matthiassmall wrote:
Unorthodox way to enter the Grob or Polish?
I've played the Penguin variation of the Reti (just for fun) and often times get a position like this (if I'm lucky):
So basically your opponent has no concept of position and decides to open up the rook by (I am assuming) taking a knight with a bishop. FUn, maybe- if I want to lose a game.
Here is the variation of najdorf Graw mentioned. It's very aggresive and very fun to play.
The idea with the rook move here is to later play g4. The g4 square is defended by blacks knight and bishop, if black capture the g4 pawn now white can trade it's rook for blacks knight and bishop.
I play these openings, especially the Penguin Variation in Lightning Chess frequently. Often it confuses my opponent when I do not play a standard opening in a minute-long match.
these strange rook movements would definitly put a halt to my usual game and confuse me.
Feb 8, 2008
0
#9
matthiassmall wrote: erikido23 wrote: matthiassmall wrote:
Unorthodox way to enter the Grob or Polish?
I've played the Penguin variation of the Reti (just for fun) and often times get a position like this (if I'm lucky):
So basically your opponent has no concept of position and decides to open up the rook by (I am assuming) taking a knight with a bishop. FUn, maybe- if I want to lose a game.
When I say fun, I refer to the use of creativity or originality in quick over-the-board games with friends. So (I am assuming) your usual pleasure, on the other hand, revolves around play of a more competitive nature. As such, your preference would obviously tend to openings that are recognized as constants over variable novelties. Differing viewpoints do have a tendency to make "fun" an objective concept.
WHile I see your point...The fact is there is MUCH room for creativity in any opening.
And yes I am competitive. But, mostly I play to have fun and improve :D. I have played a total of 1 tournament in my life. A few of the players I play with are trying to get me to play rated tournaments though. I spend enough time and money on billiards competition though.
Feb 8, 2008
0
#10
I think these Unorthodox openings are playable in lightning chess, if you really think your opponnent will be confused into making a blunder because of lack of knowledge of the opening, but I think these openings are generally inferior to more "standard openings", and I can't recommend them in serious games. But, I DO agree that there is much room for creativity in the opening, and the moves played for centuries can be challenged with new theories, even by players like you and me!
I'm so tired of seeing bad/horrible openings explained with "it's good in blitz". Making subtle changes in known opening variations is great in blitz, playing some advanced gambits that puts alot of pressure on the opponent is great too but expecting your opponent to blunder because you make several blunders in the opening isn't going to work on anyone rated over 1000
I don't think it's a matter of hoping your opponent will blunder so much as hoping to take your opponent out of theory that they're familiar with early. Sometimes in blitz this can be good I think.
On ICC Nakamura (one of the top online blitz players in the world) plays some crazy looking Alekhine defenses in 3 0. I have seen other masters play some "dubious" openings regularly as part of their 3 0 repertoire.
Personally I find that I do best with openings that I'm familiar with - which are orthodox ones.
BTW 6.Rg1 in the Narjdorf is called the freak attack. Cool name and perfectly playable 
(often just becomes a normal looking sicilian after 0-0-0)
There are so many people here I'd love to play blitz with.
Steering the game out of book openings and known theory for your opponent and into a game that fits you is great both in blitz and normal otb games but playing BAD opening moves is not a good way to do it. What I was refering to in my earlier post is when people make openings wich are pure blunders and just waste tempo or even material then when they can't describe a single thought behind the moves they say "it's good in blitz". It's not good in any type of game if you play blunders, simple as that.
I would never think to do any of those openings, but after looking at them I kind of like the one that moves the queen rook (cause i like the short castle). I think i might try it in a game. It seems like it protects that b2 pawn that is always vunerable after the bishop comes out. It does expose the a2 pawn more, but i think youd get a quicker open b-file than an open a-file (maybe after a bishop for knight exchange). A nice interesting (although maybe completely worthless) move.
Did anyone ever did serious analysis on these attack openings? Did van Geet seriously play the Twyble attack?
Are these attacks unorthodox or just bad?
Nice article. I have an opening that provides for creative knight use and one that is strong for bishops. I read this as I am trying to find one that caters to more open and creative rook play. Thanks for the article.
This is my favorite variation of th grob i use
I was just searching for an opening to get my rooks involved more quickly and I came across this. After reading all of the comments, I still don't see any explanations as to why these moves are being made.
well perhaps all of those asking about the sense of unorthodox opening moves should stop asking to be served a yes-or-no-answer on a silver platter (where there can't be one, in a game of chess, the second most irrational creation of man) and most of all stop asking the computer, the most orthodox player of all, but start a couple 14-days-per-move games where they would actually play these moves and take their time with it.........you never know, there may be more fun to chess than your computer thinks :)
Nov 25, 2017
0
#20
gambitlover wrote:
Decoy321 wrote:
Did anyone ever did serious analysis on these attack openings? Did van Geet seriously play the Twyble attack?
Are these attacks unorthodox or just bad?
Van Get did not, Twyble did !
I know this is a crazy old post, but I was playing around in explorer, found this crazy Twymble attack, and holy crap you found a game where it actually did work, and did Twymble do an in depth analysis on this opening? Or was he just another random player who got a opening named after him?
Hi Everyone,
I am posting 2 topics on Unorthodox Chess Openings: Strange Rook Moves and Strange King Moves. Here are the Rook moves: 1. Ampel Variation, 2. Twyble Attack, 3. Reti's Opening, Penguin Variation: