Single Comment

Sam Trenholme wrote, in part: ' . . . modern chess matches are under
shorter time controls than older chess games, making it so that one is
better off having a great deal of memorized opening lines so as to use
less time in the first moves of a chess game. Or it could be that one gets
a better position playing a mainstream line.' -ST
GKG Reply: This opening memorization is a sword that cuts both ways in
over-the-board play.  When you play a main line, your opponent responds
main line.  Book Knowledge 1 vs. Book Knowledge 2.  I once played against
a young kid's Queen's Gambit.  After 10 moves I thought, my gosh, this
kid is great.  Every move perfect 'book.'  But then we left the book and
the kid couldn't play the position at all.  I wiped him out, and knew if I
had played an off-beat opening I'd have had him from move 1 or 2. 

With e-mail games uncommon openings lose much of their luster because the
opponent can research them and study the off-beat positions in great depth
(not like over-the-board).

Sam wrote: 'The problem with the Dunst Opening [1.Nc3] is 1... d5
followed by 2... d4, forcing white to move a piece twice. 
GKG Response: And yet this is the line I love in the Dunst.  And I will
move that knight yet a third time.  Great.  I get 2 knights in front of my
castled king.  We get a great opening imbalance.  You say white moved his
knight twice... I say it doesn't matter in the Dunst.  Dunst players want
this.

Sam wrote: The problem with 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 is that White now can not do
the Queen's gambit.
GKG: But White does not want to do a Qeeen's Gambit.  So we could, using
the same reasoning say, 'The problem with 1. e4 is that White can't do a
Queen's Gambit.  It is a moot point.

Sam wrote: These disadvantages may be offset by getting black out of his
book, and playing a line where one knows the traps far better than the
other player.
GKG response: I see no disadvantages in playing the Dunst as white. But
agree with the out of the book part.

Sam wrote: Ralph Betza once pointed out that if you want FIDE (modern
western) chess to feel like a chess variant, play the Boden-Kieseritzky
gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.O-O).
GKG: But there is strong chance this won't work.  Here is why.  After 1.
e4 you need black to play e5.  But in tournaments and matches we often see
1. ... c5 (Sicilian).  And, if we don't see that we can see French
Defense, Pirc/Modern, Caro Kahn, Scandinavian Defense, Owen's Defense,
etc.  But with a Dunst, you get your 1. Nc3 in and could care less what
black does. You, as white, are where you want to be instantly... of
course, there is a long battle ahead.

Sam wrote: The way I see it, anything that is reasonable in the first ten
moves of chess has already been analyzed and studied by someone. FIDE
Chess is a very well-trodden area, where interesting novelties are hard to
find.
GKG response.  Agreed.  However, most humans do not walk around with all
this knowledge.  So, in over the board play you can take many by surprise.
 One man's Dunst is another man's novelty, so to speak.  Or 1. g4 (Grob)
has likely never been seen by many tournament players just starting out.

Sam wrote: However, there are literally an infinite number of chess
variants (Chess is probably more malleable than any other abstract game)
and very few of the variants have been explored at all. As just one tiny
example, the variant that I just published (shameless plug) shares many
pattens with FIDE chess openings, but is a almost completely uncharted
territory for people looking for new ground to explore.
GKG response: Agreed.