Forgive my ignorance, but what do the plus signs no minus signs symbolize when they are on top of each other
± means small edge to White.
∓ means small edge to Black.
± (or ∓), also written as +/- (or -/+) is roughly in the range of 75% of a pawn to 150% of a Pawn
+= (or =+) is roughly in the range of 25% to 75% of a Pawn
= is roughly in the range of 0% - 25% of a Pawn
± is roughly greater than 150% of a Pawn
Or see these definitions from wiki – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_anno … on_symbols
Position evaluation symbols
These symbols indicate the strategic balance of the game position:
* [b]∞ – Unclear:[/b] It is unclear who (if anyone) has an advantage. This is often used when a position is highly asymmetrical, such as Black having a ruined pawn structure but dangerous active piece-play.
-
=/∞ – With compensation: Whoever is down in material has compensation for the material.
-
= – Even position: White and Black have more or less equal chances.
-
+/= (=/+) – Slight advantage: White (Black) has slightly better chances.
-
+/− (−/+) – Advantage (This is the plus over/under): White (Black) has much better chances. It is also written as ± for White advantage, ∓ for Black advantage; the other similar symbols can be written in this style as well.
-
+− (−+) – Decisive advantage: White (Black) has a winning advantage.
Example:
1.e4 f5 +/-
This was an official USCF online rated tournament:
I played my German Opening almost perfect in Round 7 here: chess.com/live chess/game?id=1178723393
If this is what you call “almost perfect” you have a long way to go.
(328) divncom (1630) - Jion_Wansu (1260)
Live Chess Chess.com, 08.06.2015
1.e4 f5 2.exf5 g6 3.fxg6 Nf6 4.gxh7± [Black is already dead lost, but stronger for White is 4.d4!±] 4…Rxh7 5.Nc3?!+/- [5.d4!±] 5…d5 6.d4 Rg7? 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.Be2?! [8.Be3!±; 8.h3!±] 8…Nc6 9.Bh6 Rg6?? 10.Bxf8 Kxf8 11.h3?± [11.Ne5!±] 11…Bf5 12.Nh4! Rg5?? 13.g4??± [13.Qd2!±] 13…Bh7 14.f4?? [14.Qd2] 14…Rg8 15.Bd3 e6?? 16.Bxh7 Nxh7 17.Qd3?? [17.Nf3!±] 17…Qxh4+=/+ 18.Kd2 Qf2+ 19.Ne2 Nf6 20.c3? Ne4+ 21.Kc2 Re8?=/+ [21…Qh4-/+] 22.Raf1 [22.Rhf1=/+] 22…Qg2??± 23.Kb1?? And now Black resigned in a winning position. [23.Rhg1 Qh2 24.Rh1 Qg2 25.Rhg1 Qh2 26.Rh1=] 23…Nf2 24.Rxf2 Qxh1±+ 1-0
Funny that you are dead lost out of the opening, and you resigned in a winning position and you think of this as “almost perfect.”
Whether I resigned r lost on time… Same difference
But not the same when you thought you played almost perfectly. And why not play a winning move - at least then there is a chance.
It’s too bad you waste your time on these bad ideas. The same effort spent on good ideas could be making you a better chess player.
I understand. My point in doing these is to see something new instead of the “same old, same old” theory/memorization of about 10 to 20 moves deep before being out of the book. This way, we’re out. The book a lot sooner. Black does well with gambits just like white. Depends on your opponent.
Here is an example of a Queen’s Gambit in Reverse, in other words, for black:
Part of your attitude is very healthy: thinking is more fun than rote memorization. But one can throw opponents on their own resources without playing utter garbage. And I regret to repeat that 1.e4 f5? is simply that terrible. While it is positionally desirable to trade an e-pawn for an f-pawn, in this particular case, the total cost (development, king safety, and material) is just too high. And in the 2.exf5 g6? line, Black is “gambiting” that White is a very weak player unable to convert a straightforward win.
On the other hand, your 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5!? is very respectable: Rubinstein played it.
In response to Bill’s comment - a key point is that if White is THAT bad, then it is unnecessary to play a losing move to get out of the book in order to beat him.
Additionally, there are many, many, lines where you can quickly get out of the book. Andersson, when being trounced by Morphy resorted to 1 a3 and had probably his best overall results (although he didn’t understand why.)
If you truly enjoy chess, then part of the fun should be about growing as a chessplayer. Philidor started to lead us down a path of understanding chess, but his student Labourdannais still believed that attacking conferred the advantage. It was Morphy who clarified that the opposite is true - and Steinitz and Lasker who first understood that.
How do you expect to grow as a player when you are using concepts that have been disproven for 150 years? Think of how much better you would be if you spent your time understanding these concepts.
If your goal is to be as strong as the strongest players from 1540 - you’ve achieved it. Consider moving into the modern world.
Watson & Schiller’s new book, http://www.uscfsales.com/taming-wild-chess-opening.html, has a page on the Fred. The stem game is Pillsbury-Magagna, Paris 1902 (1-0, 10) where Magagna played 2…Kf7? Recommended instead is 2…Nf6, but White is much better. 2…g6 is ignored.
Alex Relyea
Freddie’s Dead: oldielyrics.com/lyrics/curti … _dead.html
Fast Buck Freddie: metrolyrics.com/fast-buck-fr … rship.html
So, I played this on and it’s called Duras Gambit according to lichess.
Let’s revisit this…
If you have anything to say, knock yourself out. I don’t see any compelling need to add to the 11 pages and six+ years showing why the opening reeks. It has been pretty well demonstrated.
In time controls of 5|0 and less this is an ok opening for black
I can give you the name of a reputable detox center, if you’re interested… 
In those time controls all openings can still lead to any result, because time is a randomizer. To call it an “ok” opening, though, is a gross exaggeration. No one can objectively make that statement.
In less than one month this thread will be 7 years old.
Jion, you started this thread asking and wanting to discuss this opening of yours.
In the last 6 years, 11 months and 2 days many have discussed this.
In this thread we have seen chess masters and others point out to you that this is a bad opening. Yes, this is an opening that does not offer any chances for Black if White plays even somewhat correctly.
And there is no player posting in this thread, except you, claiming that this opening has any merit whatsoever.
You apparently have ignored all these facts given by the various Chess players posting in this thread that are all much stronger than you.
I have a friend that plays an offbeat opening, the Polish. While it is acknowledged as not the best opening choice for White, there are times when it can work.
Unfortunately this opening you have chosen is not one in the same category as the Polish and others like it. There really are no times when this opening can work.
Sure, if the opponent plays really bad moves, any and all opening choices will win or get better positions. Dan Heisman has talked about something called Hope Chess. This is where you make a move and hope your opponent doesn’t play any refutation to that move.
If you want to play this opening and hope your opponent doesn’t refute it, that’s fine. But please do not insult our collective intelligence by saying that this line of play that relies on only hope for validity is truly a workable opening.