No.
Managed to hold my own in this match until I blundered in the end:
chess.com/livechess/game?id=1017028070
EDIT:
And here is one where I win:
[Event “Live Chess”]
[Site “Chess.com”]
[Date “2015.01.02”]
[Round “?”]
[White “ondraaaa”]
[Black “Jion_Wansu”]
[Result “1-0”]
[WhiteElo “1661”]
[BlackElo “1541”]
[PlyCount “69”]
[EventDate “2015.??.??”]
[TimeControl “3”]
- e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. gxh7 Rxh7 5. Nc3 d5 6. d4 Bf5 7. Bd3 Bxd3 8.
Qxd3 Rg7 9. g3 Qd6 10. Bf4 Qb4 11. O-O-O e6 12. Be5 Nbd7 13. Nf3 Nxe5 14. Nxe5
O-O-O 15. a3 Qb6 16. Qb5 Qd6 17. Qc5 Qa6 18. Qb5 Qd6 19. Rhe1 a6 20. Qc5 Qxc5 - dxc5 Bxc5 22. Re2 Ng4 23. Nxg4 Rxg4 24. b4 Ba7 25. Rxe6 Bxf2 26. Rf1 Bd4
- Ne2 Ba7 28. Nf4 d4 29. Rd1 Rgg8 30. Re4 Rh8 31. h4 Rhg8 32. Rd3 c5 33. bxc5
Bxc5 34. Ne6 Rd7 35. Nxc5 1-0
You were lost the entire game, not “holding your own.” There are some places where white could have won more easily:
9 Nf3 Rxg2? 10 Bg5 for example.
or 12 Re1
Or 20 Qe2 followed by h4-h5 etc.
Or 22 Nd3
Or 26 Rxd5
[Event “Live Chess”]
[Site “Chess.com”]
[Date “2015.01.03”]
[Round “?”]
[White “knight2B3”]
[Black “Jion_Wansu”]
[Result “0-1”]
[WhiteElo “1439”]
[BlackElo “1455”]
[PlyCount “50”]
[EventDate “2015.??.??”]
[TimeControl “3”]
- e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. d3 d5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 Bh5 7. gxh7 Rxh7 8.
Bg5 Bh6 9. Bxf6 exf6 10. Nbd2 Nc6 11. c3 Qd6 12. Qb3 O-O-O 13. O-O-O Re7 14.
Rhe1 Rde8 15. c4 Bxf3 16. gxf3 Rxe2 17. Rxe2 Rxe2 18. cxd5 Bxd2+ 19. Rxd2 Qc5+ - Kd1 Rxd2+ 21. Kxd2 Qxf2+ 22. Kc3 Nd4 23. Qd1 Qxf3 24. Qa4 Ne2+ 25. Kd2 Kd8
0-1
Here, White is again winning out of the gate, and 8 Ng5! wins easily.
10 Nbd2? is poor - 10 d4! or 10 00! is much easier.
11 c3 is also poor.
Steinitz taught that the player with the advantage must use it - apparently White in this game has not heard that adage.
White also fails to get his King safe. 12 Qb3? is weak, and you should have played 12…Re7! instantly, when White would be in trouble.
Instead, over the next few moves, White walks into losing material.
That you somehow attribute White’s bad play to your bad opening is - phenomenal.
Based on looking at these games, the ratings given to the players are overly generous by several hundred points. That the opening has had any success at all is based on the fast time control. The quality of play is, to be charitable, abysmal. Are there any games from a tournament with a long time control? That is, with a base time of 60 minutes or more?
Please keep posting these bad games. They are good examples of how stubborn players can be in continuing to play weak openings with Black. Most players would be ashamed to post such poor play.
In my opinion you two masters do not understand something. And that is this individual has not shown any desire to improve his Chess play. He apparently does not want to get better and/or play better Chess.
His proclivity to insist on continuing to play this, very obvious, poor opening shows that he is more interested in finding players that are too poor in their ability to play even somewhat correctly against it than playing better opening moves himself.
Thanks for all of the input. What if someone over 2700 uses this opening against someone below 2400?
My money would be on the lower rated player. Upsets happen even from “normal” openings. Give a master a position as fouled up as this opening is, and they won’t let the 2700 player off the hook. Plus if the 2700 played this opening voluntarily, their brain is not performing at their normal level anyway.
If a 2700 rated player used this opening, he would not be a 2700 player for long. His invitations to elite tournaments would dry up. He would be forced to play in open tournaments where he would lose hundreds of points to ambitious little tykes who would happily gobble up the free points. Then he would become one of the wretched of the earth, wandering the streets aimlessly, calling out, “Pawns for the poor.”
Why are the relative strengths of the players relevant? Their relative strengths have nothing to do with whether the opening is good.
Your argument for playing …f5 is like saying “A Volkswagen Beetle is a better car for street racing than a Lamborghini” and when someone points out that is ridiculous you respond “Well, what if your 90 year old grandmother was driving the Lamborghini and Jeff Gordon was driving the Volkswagen Beetle?” The quality of the DRIVER has nothing to do with the quality of the CAR. The quality of the PLAYER has nothing to do with the quality of the OPENING.
Labourdannais - the strongest player of his day - stated that the attacking player had the advantage. It was later that Morphy understood - and Steinitz (and Lasker) codified that exactly the opposite was true - the player with the advantage must attack. The ability to attack comes from having the advantage – NOT that the advantage comes from the ability to attack.
There IS an objective reality to chess that differs from the subjective argument you give. Labourdannais had not yet grasped that - Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker had.
Euwe and Réti (and others) have written about the premise that an individual chess player improves and gains knowledge in approximately the same manner as chess knowledge as a whole has improved[size=85]*[/size]. Based on that argument, one must assume that you are stuck in the days pre-Morphy, and this is why you are not further improving today.
[size=85]*[/size]See Development of Chess Style by Euwe and Modern Ideas in Chess by Réti.
My potato eyes hurt after 18…Bd2. I rather liked 18…Nd4! White played like a coward this whole game and deserves more pain. Note that White can do nothing but watch more stuff vanish for free. Also, aren’t players limited by their ability to judge whether a game is worthy of being seen?
How far into this variation does the 2700 have to play? Maybe the 2700 could escape with just 1.e4, f5. If the 2700 was forced to play the variation up to the seventh move in the game you won. Nothing would save him after NM Bachler’s suggestion of 8.Ng5.
FWIW, in Benjamin and Schiller’s 1987 book Unorthodox Openings, 2…g6 is not considered. However, even after the recommended 2…Kf7 the Fred is considered a Bad opening.
Alex Relyea
This is after Ng5:
- e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. d3 d5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 Bh5 7. gxh7 Rxh7 8. Ng5 Bxe2
Well, no matter how many times I play this opening. White seems to block his/her e-pawn 90% of the time against me like this:
- e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. gxh7 Rxh7 5. Bd3 Rg7
Sometimes I get the following positions which now seem to be “book lines” for this new opening. The reason I call this the German Opening is because I am German:
-
e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. Bd3 h5
-
e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. d4 d5 4. Bd3 Nf6
-
e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. d4 d5 5. Bd3 h5
-
e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nf3 Bxf5 6. Bxf5 gxf5
And your point? After 9 Qxe2 Black is crushed. For example: 9…Rh5 10. g4 Rh8 11. Ne6 Qd7 12. g5 Nh5 13. Qe5 Na6 14. Nc3 c6 15. g6 Qd6 16. Qf5 Ng7 17. Nxg7+ Bxg7 18. Qf7+ Kd7 19. Qxg7 and Black is very lost – while White is solid and still completing his development! Black’s opening is horrible.
It sounds like you’re saying “90% of the time my opponents play poorly.” Well, think of how it would be even better for you if you played a GOOD opening and they played poorly. But what do you mean by “White seems to block his/her e-pawn 90% of the time against me like this:”
In what way did White block his/her e-pawn?? Did you mean d-pawn?
Although 4 Bd3 is not best (4 d4! hxg6 5 Bd3 ±) your move 4…h5? is not good. 5 b3! is winning for White, taking advantage of Black’s weak a1-h8 diagonal.
Again, weak moves. 3 fxg6! is winning for White.
Again, White is now easily winning. Both 6 h3 and 6 Nc3 look good for White. For example:
- h3 Qd6 7. Nc3 a6 8. Nge2 Be6 9. O-O Nc6 10. Re1 Bg7 (10… O-O-O 11. Bf4 Qd7 12. Na4) 11. Bf4
- Nc3 Bg4 7. f3 Be6 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. Nb5 Rc8 10. Qe2 Qd7 11. Nxc7+ Rxc7 12. Bxc7 Nxd4 13. Qe3 Nc6 14. Bf4
In both cases with large advantages to White.
4 Bd3? – instead 4 fxg6! ±
4 …d5? 5 fxg6!!±
If your opponents play badly, it doesn’t make the opening good.
I’ll use this for next week’s USCF online tournament…
While playing this opening, I’ve seen that players of all ratings play 5. Bd3 blocking their d2 pawn. Even chess engines do this, which is actually not the best move for white because it hinders white’s development…
The opening is very weak. We’ve already shown you very good lines for White.
I understand, this is what happens when white only takes 1 pawn. I call it the blitzkrieg variation
Your opponent was well named.
Once again, the result has nothing to do with the opening, but rather the very poor play by both players:
henrybbad-Jion_Wansu, 5/29/2015: 1. e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. Nc3 ± (Somehow Black seems to think this is bad for White. True, White has less of an advantage than normal, but still has a solid edge. 3. fxg6±; 3. Bd3±; 3. d4±) 3… Nf6 ± 4. Bc4? (4. fxg6 hxg6 5. d4±) 4… d5 5. Bd3? e5? 6. Nh3?? (6. fxe6±) 6… e4∓ 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Ba4 Bxf5 9. O-O∓ Bc5?= (9… Qd7!) 10. Re1-+ (10 d4=) 10… O-O? (10… Bg4 -+ 11. Ne2 Bxh3) 11. Ne2? 19 Bxh3 12. gxh3 Ng4 13. hxg4 Rxf2 14. d4 exd3 15. cxd3 Qh4 16. h3 Rxe2+ 17. Kh1 Qxh3# (Jion_Wansu won by checkmate) 0-1