WARE, Meadow Hay opening

Dear masters and other high rated players,

I have been trying to understand this opening and cant work out why this opening is hardly played, games are drawn quickly or even resigned for no reason after a few moves whilst winning or better positioned and being much higher rated than opponent, up to GM level.

http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/A00_Ware_Opening

Could someone please give a hint or idea how this opening works?

Much appreciation.

The opening doesn't work. Only a few games played means that you can't trust stats, and the games are likely to be friendly unrated ones where the play might have been suspended without a reason. You are certainly strong enough to realize that 1.a4 does foundamentally nothing (neither developing nor controlling the centre), and so throws away all the advantage white has at the beginning of the game. 

Its a good opening if you somehow believe bishops are better than rooks.

With all do respect, the opening although not popular does work. In the data base it is the most successful opening. Chess is a two horse race and because of opening a4 doesnt mean black is going to win on contrary the chance of winning should still be greate, just imagine it is black with an a4 start. After the opening you can always continue developing through the centre. I have just played four games with my trainings partner of which i have a fifty fifty win chance and won all four games, that of course dont mean much cuz i had two days of studying the opening and he only two hours. Maybe i wasnt clear enough, what i meant was that i know the opening aint popular but when played (have look at the data base) it is played so weird and games are unnecessary resigned or drawn. Many games i have played  not fighting for the centre i won. When i play otb i play completely different than cc, simply due to time control and not having the possibilities to look things up.

Anyways, i had a good day and played very refreshed with a new look at chess other than the daily d4 or e4, maybe you should try it to see what it is like.

there are many other openings other than d4 or e4 that are very sound, it certainly isnt neccesary to lose materiel to play something new.

I specifically asked for comments of high rated players to avoid nonsense remarks.

1.a4 is playable, but objectively inferior compared to the mainstream first moves. In my opinion it is inferior to 1.b4 and 1.a3 which are similar ideas. I would study master games of it and give it a try in blitz. Chess played by humans has a strong psychological aspect; Miles used to play stuff like 1.c4 followed by 2.Qc2 and win with it. You don't necessarily have to get a slightly better position with white to win the game. The player of the black pieces can get overconfident and/or overextend after equalizing. I guess an analogy would be giving your opponent a soft serve in tennis; you can still win the point.

Well, there you go, that's what i meant, a surprize opening. I am sure most players will not have studied this opening and mistakes are on their way. Apart from that the opening it self is not a lost move if you build a good strategy around it. But that still doesnt explain why that many games were resigned early in the game. That just keeps me puzzled.

It's not a good surprise opening. A good surprise opening poses the opponent a problem which might be 100% solvable but tricky to handle. 1.a4 poses blck no problem. He can play whatever setup he likes, because 1.a4 doesn't archieves anything and so he is left with total freedom of action. White is not worse, but he has lost his advantage and has not a specific plan and so there is no surprise value in this. Of course at our level is not really important to be = or +=, but posing problems to the opponent is always important. 

Also you shouldn't be bothered by the stats. 10 games are not enough to draw any statistical  conclusion; and the fact that many games are "absurd" further proves that they were friendly nonsense games (or maybe a draw has been agreed before the game). the most reasonable game i have found was the one where white assumed a reversed classic dutch setup where a4 is an useful extra move. But still a draw was agreed after a few moves, suggestion that it was yet another non-game where a draw was agreed before the game and 1.a4 was played as a sort of joke "haha, i opened with this nonsense but you still have to accept the draw".

Right, didnt realize the games were practise games. Thing is my rating is not high enough to beat the +2000 guys at team championships with any regular opening and was hoping an unexpected opening could do some damage. Last year I lost 7 of 7 and this year the competion is even much stronger, the lowest rated player of the top teams is 2050, that's 350 more than me so I have to come up with something.

The opening is not going to be the silver bullet against a stronger opponent. Just play a standard setup and do your best. If you manage to score, it will be because you played a good middlegame. Opening is never decisive, and trying to be innovative against a players which has a better chess understanding is probably just a way to make the rating difference even more telling(if you play a standard opening you know well, you will be sure you're not going to be worse out of the opening; but if you are both on your own on move 2, he will start outplaying you on move 2...).

It is not wise to judge others based on your preconceptions and by their appearances. 

Well, the fact is that you effectively made a nonsense remark. 1.a4 doesn't hang material.

The opening in the title does hang materiel and there is no getting around the fact that 1.a4 is a positional blunder. The fact that the OPer can even consider this opening says it all about him.

However i would to play my games is not up to you, and the fact i asked high rated players to contribute is for a reason. First of all the high rated players have given info i can deal with while you mr. Iamkataphraktoi are just an annoying twat.

i have tried b3, it didnt do it for me, it looks like the opponent sees straight where i am  going and i must say i havent tried it for two years and at the time i was only playing for a year, maybe i should practise on that, maybe something good comes out for me.

My suggestion is to stay away from it. Not because it's a bad move (if it was good enough for Larsen...) , but because it's a difficult move. I have seen several strong players putting 1.b3 to good use. However the ideal 1.b3 player is a very experienced guy which knows the ins and outs of several flank openings (1.c4, 1.f4, 1.Nf3) and uses 1.b3 as a devious move orded to trick black into some favourable trasposition to another line. When you play 1.b3 you have little control on the resulting position; black will be the one deciding the central formation.  So you need an enormous experience to play it well. I don't think it's a good choice as an opening to learn instead of the main lines; it's a good choice for a strong player with experience in a great variety of positions  which faces a weaker but extremely well-booked guy and tryes to destroy him by creating "who understand this unusual equal position better wins" fight. It's the sort of opening those stronger guys might try with great effect against you. Not the reverse i fear.

I respectfully disagree with you.  While White may have given Black the ability to play 1...e5, for instance, he still has move 2.  He can even play something like 2. d4 (which I doubt any serious 1. b3 player would play) - but he still has cards.

I do agree with you about the idea of 1. b3 being part of a setup revolving around hypermodern control of the center, and I think it has quite a bit of bite if White knows his stuff.

As for 1. a4, the intentions are clear.  White wants to gain queenside space, damage Black's pawn structure if possible, and not give Black any quick targets.  1. a4-a5 e3 a6.  That is a straightforward plan, fishing for a target for later attack.  It may not be the best approach, but it is interesting at the least. 

I'm sorry but i don't understand what is the point on which you're disagreeing. Yes, black might play 1...e5 among others . White might tackle in the centre with d4(a funny variation which just crossed my mind: 2...exd4 3.Qxd4 Be7!? 4.Qxg7?? Bf6 0-1 Meaningless but funny ) or e4 then, but these moves are not very effective.white should better continue with a flank strategy. 

I was disagreeing that Black decides the central formation.  To some degree, yes, since he can still choose 1...e5.  But even then, 1...e5 can be met by 2. c4, and 1...d5 can be met by 2. f4.  Either move, White still holds some cards on central development.  That was all I was saying.