Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.
Openings that you would never play
This could have been a poll but the number of possible openings would have been too many.
Anyway, which openings are so distasteful that you would never ever want to play them? For whatever reason?
I'm pretty opened-minded about adopting different openings but I don't think I would ever play the Pirc or the Botvinnik Semi-Slav for example.
For a while, the discussion was serious and thoughtful, with examples like the following
punter
YaBB Newbies
Budapest - 101 ways for white to get better ending
Any kind of scotch gambit/max lange attack etc. where black is better if he knows what he is doing
Pirc - 101 setups for white, all dangerous and black don't have clear way to equalize in neither
King's gambit - black is better
Basically no opening which leads to inferior position if opponent know the theory and no which leads to unpleasant ending out of the opening (even if it's drawable).
LostTactic
Junior Member
The Benoni systems, they're sound as far as I'm aware, but I still don't like the look of the positions they get.
Phildor defence, again don't like the look of the position for black.
The posts poured in. Occasionally you would see someone expressing open-mindedness, followed by someone who showed a limit to that open-mindeness – and sometimes those two "someones" would be the same "someone."
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
I have a friend who's a master. He's made it a point of playing every legal first move in a rated tournament game. Ok, he chooses which openings to play against specific opponents, but I like his courage.
In blitz, I've played all sorts of openings. In tournament and correspondence chess, I don't know. I'm curious to see what Stefan Buecker would say. I doubt I'd ever play the Latvian, even in blitz. Nevermind.... I have played it in training games. Hmmmm.....
Other than that, I need to think about it some more.
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
I wouldn't play the Transvestite Opening. There are some openings that are an affront to the game, and that's one of them. I also wouldn't play 1.Nf3 2.Ng1.
The latter post prompted some pleasant exchanges, all in the name of good fun (if not necessarily good chess)
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member
Dear Smyslov_Fan, would you be so kind to fill this gap in my chess knowledge - what is that??
Funky
YaBB Newbies
It's an opening in which king and queen trade spots on the first few moves, i.e. 1.e3 2.Ke2 3.Qe1 4. Kd1. It's playable for both sides, although White can claim a slight edge if you play it as black.
Michael Ayton
God Member
It skirts all dangers, and trousers the full point.
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member
Maybe 1.d3, 2.Qd2, 3.Kd1 and 4.Qe1 is more solid, as the king is not so exposed after move 2 !?
Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.
Chess is all about finding the best move orders.
Some posters gave the discussion question some serious thought, and came back with some serious answers, like
Ty
YaBB Newbies
Here are some off of the top of my head:
As white:
-Grob
-Orangutang
-1.b3
-Annoying 1.d4 systems such as the london, colle, trompowsky, blackmar-diemar, veresov and others where white does not move the c-pawn.
-king's gambit
-caro-kann fantasy variation
-french exchange
-danish gambit, scotch gambit, max lange attack or any of those gambit lines where black is at least equal
-any anti-sicilian apart from maybe the Bb5 sicilians
-exchange slav
-vienna opening
-french advance
As black:
-QGD orthodox
-englund gambit
-petroff
-latvian gambit
-elephant gambit
-scandinavian
-1...b5
-1...b6
-philidor defence
-sicilian four knights
-sicilian pin variation
-mainline french with 3...dxe4
-Lowenthal sicilian
-Czech benoni
-Gurgenidze system of the Caro-Kann
There are probably more that I would not play, but I cannot think of them right now.
Uhohspaghettio
Full Member
Anything where you are relying on your opponent not to play accurately, eg. Elephant Gambit
* Any very sharp flank opening where you are hoping your opponent doesn't know it as well as you do.
* Anything where you do something that your opponent can easily avoid, for example Owen's Defence, Anderson's Opening.
* London System, Colle.
As will happen sometimes, the posts often approached the philisophical, if not the existential, as in
TN
God Member
The list of openings that you would never play is a reflection of the limitations of your playing style and chess culture.
That said, I would never intentionally play bad moves in a tournament game.
BPaulsen
God Member
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.
Which is exactly why I wrote earlier I wouldn't play anything that sucks.
If it doesn't suck, I'll play it.
Fromper
Senior Member
GrandPatzer
So what does it say about me that I've actually played half the openings mentioned in this thread?
As to the original question, I have no answer. There are some things I can't imagine myself ever trying, like the Bongcloud Opening, but I could imagine myself maybe trying even the silly stuff once in a casual game just to see what happens. I just can't imagine ever ruling out any possible opening and saying that I'll never play it.
I read along, enjoying myself, skipping quickly over the inevitable squabbles that can threaten to derail, if not destroy, a good discussion, until I ran into the following. You knew it eventually had to come to
SWJediknight
God Member
There aren't many openings out there that I can say I would definitely never play, as although I have a reputation for offbeat gambits (e.g. Göring, Scotch, Albin's, Portuguese/Jadoul, and Blackmar-Diemer) I occasionally wheel out something more mainstream for a change. For example, I recently surprised one member of my local chess club with the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.c4!.
There are certain openings that I seriously doubt I would ever play though:
Fred Defence (1.e4 f5)
Damiano Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6)
Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)
Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)
Grob (1.g4)
Omega Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4)
Oh, well, a long time ago I reconciled myself to the fact that not everybody was going to love/like/appreciate/tolerate/avoid denigrating the Jerome Gambit...
The discussion continued in the thread, mostly on topic, with some wrangling over the definition(s) of "gambit", for example.
A highlight for me was a series of posts by Stefan Bücker, editor and publisher of the awesome chess magazine, Kaissiber, who has reportedly been ill of late.
The last post left me smiling.
Mark Stephenson
YaBB Newbies
For me, the answer depends entirely on the circumstances. In correspondence, I would never play any dicey opening that depends on my opponent not knowing the best replies, since he or she will have access to every book, blog, forum, and database available. In blitz, I will try almost anything. And in classical, I may choose an opening that I ordinarily wouldn't play, if I know that it will really annoy my opponent. For example, as White, I will only play a KID exchange variation against a fire-breathing opponent who hates that.
