how to counter ¨dumb chess¨?

Hello. I saw many comments on chess opening videos about people complaining about how their opponents always play a bad/dubious move that cant exactly be punished but is just bad. i think many people (even me) see this at our level and cant really punish it in shorter time controls so we have a much harder time.

for example. heres a well known ¨dumb move¨ thats +0.7 for white but has no real refutation

people will play this to throw you off and hope you are dumb enough to lose or fall into their trap. dont use this example in the comments this is just an example of what i mean

Just play with "General Principles" Nxd4 is the main move here

however, if I didn't know that, I would start with checks, captures and threats Bxd7 leads no where, Nxd4 doubles pawns okay, c3 hits the knight but oh no my horse, Bc4 bishop is safe, Nc3 protects the bishop also figure out does it obey the opening ideas centre, development and king safety

After the game look up what should be played 1 move at a time!

so you would recommend people just to play principled chess? what about the openings where chess principles arent as needed. for example ive gotten this in the catalan alot

or even something like this in the alekhine

what im trying to get at here is when people play obviously bad/weakening moves that arent losing but just bad

:l

If your opponent plays a "bad" move and you can't figure out a way to take advantage of it, perhaps it was not such a "bad" move after all.

id just play nxd4 without thinking here

Yeah it can be frustrating when you feel like a move is bad but you can't quite figure out how to punish it. I recommend just playing princplied by Nxd4 a quick castle and then f2-f4. black is strong on the queenside but I think they'll struggle to develop that side of the board while white is going to have a very nice attacking game. also black's c7-c6, d7-d5 is not that dangerous as depending on the position you will meet it with exd5 cxd5 making those d-pawns targets, or even just playing f4-f5 and ignoring the tension. meeting it with e4-e5 I would say is generally not advisable (note I said generally) as you leave the light square complex weakened (f4-f5 also weakens the dark square complex but its not as big of a deal because white has a DSB on that side of the board while the LSB is stuck on the queenside.

in the second example i really dont see what youre getting at? do you think youre supposed to have mate in 9 when the other guy pushes a flank pawn? in the third example the alekhine mainline move d6 and the natural developing move nc6 are both good choices. just play normally?

¨i cant figure out the winning move for white here. Bb7 must be a good move¨

- your logic

you likely do the same thing these guys do and dont get punished. people who play like you are the people im trying to ask about

Yeah, basically, just make good moves. Not all "bad moves" give you a win. They just give you a good position, and your opponent has a worse one. The first position you showed, I believe the famous English master Blackburne was known for playing it (in money games), because a lot of people would blunder, and the ones who didn't he figured he still would be OK. To prove him wrong--you or I will fail--takes a lot of good moves. But all you can do is try to make those moves.

well look at stockfish?? in all of your examples the most natural, obvious moves are good ones.

I do think calling it "dumb chess" is a bit much though, usually (like in the cases you gave) you can mark the move as inaccurate, in the alehkine you get central control but black tries to make white overextend like many other modern openings, I wouldn't really even call it inaccurate below 2500 (IMs and GMs feel free to say if you feel differently). mostly when you are faced with a weird move you should try to figure out the plan and evaluate whether it is actually bad, a lot of times weird moves are either tricks or very well thought out moves. then afterwards try to analyze without the engine and then after you are done with the initial analysis you can go back over and critique your analysis with an engine, or even better a coach!

¨As a beginner nearing 1000 elo, this is still the hardest part of the game. Opponent will play something stupid, say jumping the knight into the position on move 3 or something. I'll try kicking the knight out, make an inaccuracy or something, and now the opening is in unfamiliar territory, and well... It's time to wing it and play some chess¨ 

- a chess comment on youtube

¨ It's hard enough trying to start out and learning an opening only for my opponent to make some wild move 10 seconds into the game and I'm freaking out wondering if it's a legit move only to learn that it really wasn't ¨

Puffer,

I think you already understand, to be honest. You know what there is to know about this. You just want there to be more. Sometimes a "stupid move" by your categorization is worth less .75 of a pawn. That's not much. It's going to take you all game to win, and maybe it won't be enough, and that's if you don't do anything worse yourself. But overall, it's better to have .75 pawns than not have it. That's all there is. You want there to be more, but there isn't.

this topic is about how to play agianst these bad moves. i obviously did not understand and so i asked. what i got out is that i just need to play principled chess and hope that i didint miss anything with the move they made

Then you respond by doing the exact opposite:

Play obviously good/strengthening moves that aren't winning, but are just good.

Example, a bullet game I played:

My opponent went for a strange "all pawns to the 6th rank" approach. Obviously bad, but there isn't an obvious knockout punch to be seen, right away.

So I just played "good" moves: developing my pieces to strong squares, occupying the center with my pawns.

Then, when I was all developed, I pushed for a pawn break.

Black's position crumbled quickly, and my pieces were well-placed to mop up any available tactics.

"Tactics flow from a superior position", as Fischer claimed.

Just strive to play "good" moves in response to your opponent's "bad" ones. This, alone, won't automatically give you the win - but it should (hopefully) place you in a good position to take advantage of any positional weaknesses that might arise, later in the game.