Scavenging junkyard openings

[Kevin Pacey]

Every now and then I search through openings long discarded by chess theory, no matter how distrusted they may be, both for entertainment's sake and for the hope of finding something of value, at least to serve as a surprise weapon.

I'll give here an example of an investigation that ultimately proved fruitless, except that I concluded that at least some books have inaccurate analysis of an abandoned Owen's Defence line, which I tried to re-habilitate in vain. It's a good line for players of any strength to examine since it's tactical, i.e. there is little need for sophisticated and disputable positional evaluations. It seems like good material for chesstalk as well, since there are only a small number of critical lines. If anyone has specialist book(s) on the Owen's, feel free to comment.

After the initial moves 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3

one day I decided to re-check some old analysis on the sharp move

3...f5?!

which is thought to be absolutely losing for Black, by more than one refutation, after the critical

4.exf5! Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Bg7

when White is thought to have two winning continuations:

A) 7.Qf5 Nf6 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.gxh7



Here both ECO and MCO-15 quote Bruder-Vegener, corr 1982, which went 9...Bxh1 10.Qg6+ Kf8 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Nh3 when White was winning.

ECO quotes Bruder as giving the alternative 9...Bc1 10.Qg6+ Kf8 11.Qxg2 Bxb2 12.Ne2! with a winning attack on the g-file.

It seems to me that 9...Be4 and 9...d5 are only slight improvements, but simply 9...e6 doesn't appear to clearly lose for Black. There may be just a large edge for White, but Black may even have some compensation (after White picks up the g2-bishop starting with 10.Qg6+).

That leaves the other (true) refutation of 3...f5 that starts with

B) 7.gxh7+ Kf8



Here ECO gives 8.Ne2 Bxh1 9.Nf4 Nf6 10.Ng6+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ Nxh5 12.Bg6+ Kf8 13.Bxh5 e5 14.Ng6+ Kf7 15.Nxe5+ Ke6 16.Bg4+ Kd5 17.Bf4 Ke4 18.Be3 1-0 Lalev-Trifonov, Bulgaria 1985.

This game may not have been checked with a computer by the editors at all, as Fritz proposes more than one big improvement for Black along the way, starting with 8...Nf6.

ECO gives a less serious alternative in 8.hxg8Q+ Kxg8 9.Qg4 Bxh1 10.h4 Bd5! 11.h5 Be6 12.Qg2 Rxh5 13.Qxa8 Bd5 14.Qxa7 Nc6 15.Qa4 Rh1, with compensation, Shmit-Vitolinsh, USSR 1969.

Finally, there is the strongest move, possibly the only clear refutation of 3...f5, which ECO doesn't mention: 8.Nf3!



Now Black's following moves are absolutely forced, as a computer will show:

8...Nf6 9.Qg6 Bxf3 10.Rg1 Rxh7 11.Qg3 Be4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Qf3+

Black is now lost whether he plays 13...Nf6 allowing 14.Qxa8, or in case of 13...Kg8 14.Qxe4 when the exposure of Black's king ensures that he should lose.

If there is significant interest in the general topic of this thread, I may later post some ideas I have on the Latvian Gambit, where there may be more hope for Black, though again I don't have specialty books on that opening.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

If there is significant interest in the general topic of this thread, I may later post some ideas I have on the Latvian Gambit, where there may be more hope for Black, though again I don't have specialty books on that opening.

Probably it would better to dedicate a thread to every analyzed opening, and add more diagrams :D

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

Probably it would better to dedicate a thread to every analyzed opening, and add more diagrams :D

Yes, openings really ought to belong to their own threads, I did consider that. I'd probably wish to continue 'junkyard openings' as a series of any number of threads on other opening(s) of dubious reputation.

I had hoped I provided just enough diagrams, saving them for the most important decision-points. They do take some time to generate. Plus the example line I gave is more to whet the appetite, since Black is doomed. However if I continue this thread with more analysis (or on quieter line(s) of the Owens) then I'll try to have more diagrams.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

Every now and then I search through openings long discarded by chess theory...

In chess opening books, are there any lines given for 1. Nh3 or 1. Na3 ? (I didn't want to put the question mark directly after the move, lest that be construed as it being a bad move, lol).

I actually have a reason for asking (besides feeling somewhat silly). I remember many times when I played friendly chess against friends, they would almost always say that they preferred being Black, because they just wanted to react to whatever the other person was doing. A person like that could play one of these moves and it's almost like playing as Black, because the Knight isn't going to do anything useful from the rim square and will have to be redeveloped later.

Sorry, Kevin, don't mean to dumb down your thread, I am legitimately curious. By the way, Owen's Defense was the first non-standard opening I tried out in tournament play. I did used to have a book on it, might even have been the first chess book I ever purchased.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

In chess opening books, are there any lines given for 1. Nh3 or 1. Na3 ? (I didn't want to put the question mark directly after the move, lest that be construed as it being a bad move, lol).

I actually have a reason for asking (besides feeling somewhat silly). I remember many times when I played friendly chess against friends, they would almost always say that they preferred being Black, because they just wanted to react to whatever the other person was doing. A person like that could play one of these moves and it's almost like playing as Black, because the Knight isn't going to do anything useful from the rim square and will have to be redeveloped later.

Sorry, Kevin, don't mean to dumb down your thread, I am legitimately curious. By the way, Owen's Defense was the first non-standard opening I tried out in tournament play. I did used to have a book on it, might even have been the first chess book I ever purchased.

From MCO-15 (under Miscellaneous Flank Openings):
"...Moves such as 1.h3, 1.h4, 1.Na3 (The Durkin), or 1.Nh3 (the Paris Gambit) require no opening analysis." :)

Actually, I used to own a book on unorthodox openings, by Schiller and Benjamin. It covered the good, the bad, and the ugly. There have undoubtedly been countless other such books or periodicals written over the years.

There are two first moves I've tried once in a blue moon, apparently far too modest for White at first sight, that can transpose to more recognisable openings later on, rather than being reversed openings. Namely, 1.e3 or 1.d3 can transpose to certain lines of the Bird's Opening, for example.

If people are fans of trying to obtain reversed openings as White at all costs then the waiting move 1.a3 (Anderssen's Opening) is a more flexible way to go than either 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3, in my opinion. However I prefer 1.e3 or 1.d3 to Anderssen's Opening.

Btw, what should White do in case of, say, 1.Na3 Na6 (?) :)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

By the way, Owen's Defense was the first non-standard opening I tried out in tournament play. I did used to have a book on it, might even have been the first chess book I ever purchased.

I used to own many more books than now, including any number on unorthodox openings. I'd find, like even for standard openings, individually those books might be of less theoretical value to me for long periods of time, as some continuation(s) a book didn't cover properly would pose unsolvable problem(s) in theory during such periods.

If I waited long enough, however, an improvement for 'my' side would be found by someone, making one or more of my books theoretically relevant again (usually sooner in the case of standard openings). As I became a stronger player I could analyze and evaluate 'theory' more confidently for myself. Then came the computer age for chess, with strong playing programs and databases, and opening research became easier, it seemed...

On the topic of the Owen's Defence again, one thing that might interest people is my observation that it's handy, both practically and theoretically, to be able to go into a Hippopotamus formation from time to time when playing this defence. However my feeling is that the Hippopotamus formation, i.e. both bishops fianchettoed, knights on e7 and d7 (after advancing the centre pawns one square each), should probably not be used if White can play (or has played) a Four Pawns Attack or Austrian Attack setup, i.e. with f2-f4 and Nf3 played in the opening. In case of the Austrian Attack setup the advance f4-f5 might prove to be very strong at some point, even early on, while a Four Pawns Attack setup secures a large amount of space, with Black having less chance than usual to free himself properly.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

If people are fans of trying to obtain reversed openings as White at all costs then the waiting move 1.a3 (Anderssen's Opening) is a more flexible way to go than either 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3, in my opinion. However I prefer 1.e3 or 1.d3 to Anderssen's Opening.

Yes. 1. a3 prevents black from playing Bb4 in the opening. A way to avoid the Winawer, not that I can think of a reason to prevent black from playing that.

When playing odds, if I removed my rook I'd play my pawn to a3 and then start by making a regular first move. It was really spotting a rook at a1 in return for having first move and preventing black from quickly attacking the pawn at a2.

Of course, there is also the Winckleman-Reimer Gambit in the French Defence. It's probably losing but can be a lot of fun.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

The funny thing is that a lot of these 'unorthodox' openings aren't that bad! :) I have one of my desktop systems spend 2 months on engine vs engine games and analysis on the 'Birds opening'. I set up Rybka vs 70 other engines and run 2 games per engine at long time controls in various positions and then it takes about 3 weeks of constant time to run analysis on all the games. I have done this for 1.f4 d5 and 1.f4 e5. 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 (my answer to the Froms gambit). Rybka wins the vast majority of these games. With todays 'super computers' running analysis on various openings I believe that major changes to theory are bound to come out of this and many of these 'unorthodox' openings will be proven to be perfectly sound.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

Yes. 1. a3 prevents black from playing Bb4 in the opening. A way to avoid the Winawer, not that I can think of a reason to prevent black from playing that...

Of course, there is also the Winckleman-Reimer Gambit in the French Defence. It's probably losing but can be a lot of fun.

I gather you're still not revealing what you consider the proper way(s) to beat the Winawer :).

In case anyone doesn't know, the Winckleman-Reimer Gambit may arise by 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3. This might make a good topic for analysis in a fresh thread. You might wish to play the role of Opening Junkyard Scavenger for that one :).

The French Defence guru John Watson considers at least three moves to be attractive responses for Black: 6...b6, 6...Nd7 and 6...e5.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

I gather you're still not revealing what you consider the proper way(s) to beat the Winawer :).

In case anyone doesn't know, the Winckleman-Reimer Gambit may arise by 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3. This might make a good topic for analysis in a fresh thread. You might wish to play the role of Opening Junkyard Scavenger for that one :).

The French Defence guru John Watson considers at least three moves to be attractive responses for Black: 6...b6, 6...Nd7 and 6...e5.

I thought you knew how to defeat the Winawer. :) If you don't know of don't feel like grinding out the boring moves simply play the Tarrasch as white.

The WRG should be lost with best play by white. About 5 years ago a few of us played a public consultation game. Teams. We, The Gambiteers Guild, played black. The win for white was found after the fact, but the game ended as a draw. The game was carried on some web sites in some of the chess capitals of the world (read Europe). It went on for a few months. Myself and a friend in The Netherlands used to analyse in email. Usually we'd begin at around midnight or 1 AM Toronto time which I suppose would be 6 or 7 AM there. We used to analyse for an hour or two.

We were going to do a book on it but that never got off the ground. I think the analysis file prints out to around 100 pages without diagrams. You know us correspondence players are full of, well, analysis. :)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

The funny thing is that a lot of these 'unorthodox' openings aren't that bad! :) I have one of my desktop systems spend 2 months on engine vs engine games and analysis on the 'Birds opening'. I set up Rybka vs 70 other engines and run 2 games per engine at long time controls in various positions and then it takes about 3 weeks of constant time to run analysis on all the games. I have done this for 1.f4 d5 and 1.f4 e5. 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 (my answer to the Froms gambit). Rybka wins the vast majority of these games. With todays 'super computers' running analysis on various openings I believe that major changes to theory are bound to come out of this and many of these 'unorthodox' openings will be proven to be perfectly sound.

That sounds like quite an experiment. My 5 year old computer couldn't come anywhere close to that kind of an experiment.

Maybe I should sell some of that Catalyst Paper and buy a new computer.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

The funny thing is that a lot of these 'unorthodox' openings aren't that bad! :) I have one of my desktop systems spend 2 months on engine vs engine games and analysis on the 'Birds opening'. I set up Rybka vs 70 other engines and run 2 games per engine at long time controls in various positions and then it takes about 3 weeks of constant time to run analysis on all the games. I have done this for 1.f4 d5 and 1.f4 e5. 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 (my answer to the Froms gambit). Rybka wins the vast majority of these games. With todays 'super computers' running analysis on various openings I believe that major changes to theory are bound to come out of this and many of these 'unorthodox' openings will be proven to be perfectly sound.

Until super computers do the work, humans will still have to use the smell test when it comes to deciding what are truly rotten openings.

I trust the Nimzovich Defence (1.e4 Nc6) well enough that I don't mind playing it in the most important of games, although I don't consider it theoretically fully reliable yet because published theory on this largely positional opening is against it, and not enough strong players have analysed and played it.

The Larsen's Opening, or the Bird's Opening, are at one level of trust less than that for me (if only because I like White Openings that have confirmed chances for an edge). I've played each of them about three times less with White than I have the Nimzovich Defence with Black. Yet they are the first moves that so far have the best performance ratings for me in my games with White! It seems that disorienting my opponents even slightly, even at national master level, matters a lot. However if were to milk that cow for all it's worth, I fear the lads would slowly adapt.

On the topic of the Bird's Opening, a way I like to play it is with a Leningrad Dutch Reversed setup. However White has to be careful. In my Databases White tends to get destroyed, even at GM level, if he plays 1.f4 d5 2.g3, when Black replies 2...h5!, and so it seems 2.Nf3 is the prudent man's way to go.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

On the topic of the Bird's Opening, a way I like to play it is with a Leningrad Dutch Reversed setup. However White has to be careful. In my Databases White tends to get destroyed, even at GM level, if he plays 1.f4 d5 2.g3, when Black replies 2...h5!, and so it seems 2.Nf3 is the prudent man's way to go.

My opponent played this against me once. As I recall, he played 1. f4 many times in that Olympiad with success. This was how I handled it. I meant to give it a try sometime as white but never got to it. Back then I was playing the King's Gambit as white but it got too hard to beat the computer programs as the new ones came out. That's when I stopped playing that gambit.

[Event "EM/OL14/G3/B5"]
[Site "ICCF Email"]
[Date "2000.09.25"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Soderberg, Kaj (FIN)"]
[Black "Ruben, Gary (CAN)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A03"]
[WhiteElo "2434"]
[BlackElo "2234"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
[EventType "team (corr)"]

1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8. Qe1 b6
9. h3 Qc7 10. Na3 Ba6 11. g4 e6 12. Bd2 Rad8 13. Rd1 Nd7 14. Qh4 Qd6 15. f5
exf5 16. gxf5 Nde5 17. Bh6 Nxf3+ 18. Rxf3 f6 19. fxg6 hxg6 20. Nc2 Ne7 21. Rdf1
Bxh6 22. Qxh6 Rf7 23. b4 Rdf8 24. Rf4 Rg7 25. Ne3 Bc8 26. bxc5 bxc5 27. Rh4 g5
28. Qh8+ 1/2-1/2

[Patrick Kirby]

Re: Scavenging junkyard openings

The funny thing is that a lot of these 'unorthodox' openings aren't that bad! :) I have one of my desktop systems spend 2 months on engine vs engine games and analysis on the 'Birds opening'. I set up Rybka vs 70 other engines and run 2 games per engine at long time controls in various positions and then it takes about 3 weeks of constant time to run analysis on all the games. I have done this for 1.f4 d5 and 1.f4 e5. 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 (my answer to the Froms gambit). Rybka wins the vast majority of these games. With todays 'super computers' running analysis on various openings I believe that major changes to theory are bound to come out of this and many of these 'unorthodox' openings will be proven to be perfectly sound.

I would argue that the opposite is more likely to be the case. Maybe not for the Bird's opening, which is not unsound but just fairly unambitious.. but openings like the Latvian or the King's Gambit are not likely to stand up to computer analysis. I believe that even the Two Knight's Defense is in a crisis right now according to modern theory.

[Erik Malmsten]

out-of-book openings

I believe that even the Two Knight's Defense is in a crisis right now according to modern theory.

This opening is quite popular with kids in chess classes. What's the bust?

I often try to play interesting moves to go to positions I've never gone to before. But after I play in tournaments I look at my games in databases and am disappointed that usually the first ten moves have been played before. I like to play out of book early. Can a computer generate a list of openings say up to the first six moves, that haven't been played in master chess and aren't loss of material or mate?