how do people play like trash in the opening and later proceed to find the only good moves

@TheJeromeGambit said in #1:
> people play some random garbage opening that's proven to be bad by common theory, such as g6 Bg7 a6 c6 e6 and b5 (played after each other) Later in the game, they play like literal engines, finding the only winning/drawing continuation. HOW?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I think this is straight out of the book “Tiger’s Modern”?

They probably read it in a book, liked the middle game positions that arise from it, and they enjoy playing something offbeat. As an Alekhine player myself, I also like to play something that is a little atypical, hoping for some sort of home field advantage when my opponent who is all booked up in the Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, French, Caro, etc stumbles into my backyard after e4 Nf6. Is the Alekhine better than the Najdorf? Of course not. But I look forward to playing it and against the opponents I face, it is more than good enough.

The late British GM Tony Miles defeated the reigning World Champion Anatoly Karpov with the Black pieces employing a so-called "trash" opening 1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5. While you don't often see it at top levels like that, even in those circles it is still a tactic that can pay off.

www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068157

At lower levels it's more common.

One key point of such "incorrect" openings is that they are often not quite so bad as they seem. The opponent can think "Ah, a trash opening, I've won the game already" and play carelessly, or over-reach.

how do people play like trash in the opening and later proceed to find the only good moves? Maybe they just get lucky ;)

@Brian-E said in #23:
>
>
> One key point of such "incorrect" openings is that they are often not quite so bad as they seem. The opponent can think "Ah, a trash opening, I've won the game already" and play carelessly, or over-commit.

This is absolutely true. Take the Benoni for example. Engines HATE it. According to an engine, the Benoni is just an error. Funny enough if you play d4 c5, Stockfish will call c5 an inaccuracy. An inaccuracy on move 1! That being said, against a human opponent, it is perfectly viable. Tal actually really enjoyed the Benoni. Sure it might be known as the “Son or Sorrow”, but if it’s good enough for him, it is more than good enough for us mere mortals, despite any advances in theory in the last 30 years.

Probably, not good at openings. When playing against these type of players try to do as well as you can and get as high as possible of a lead you can against them in the starting so you have an advantage throughout the rest of the game. The opening is one of the most important part of the game since the rest of the game is based on it. If you're not good at opening, I suggest you do some opening puzzles to get better at it. Just go to the puzzles section and select the openings.

@TuneIntoTheMoves said in #21:
> I feel the same way when eating out. Everyone blames me for getting fat, but they don't realize it is really the cook's fault.
How does this relate to chess? I feel like this should be in one of the "Off-Topic Discussions."

@Emperor41739 said in #27:
> How does this relate to chess? I feel like this should be in one of the "Off-Topic Discussions."

I feel people who think their opponents are cheating are simply not as good as they think they should be and that the person is not guilty of cheating. If you look at rating points, you lose points when you lose regardless if the opponent was cheating or not.

I played on that to make a reality joke, that we maybe also go to restaurants and eat too much. Instead of losing, we gain. We gain pounds, and the only person to blame is ourself. Not the cook. Similarly, when we lose at chess, maybe we should blame ourself. I am not saying there is zero cheating, but I highly doubt it happens to the same frequency as the accusations without proof.

Hopefully, this has connected the dots and shows it is not an off topic comment. It brings a little levity to the "losers" which includes me. I like to deny I played poorly too.

Its like in the Blitz Event last year when Magnus Carlsen responded to 1.e4 , with pawn to g5, and Mamedov resigned, now I don't know whether that was kind of symbolic, or really just because he didn't want to be disrespected.
But my Question here is what about freedom of choice, I mean its chess, and the Rules don't prevent such moves, what happens if I want to play that way...
Can I not get a game because I like to use a uncommon strategy, what is unfair about it, in such cases there are no morals to me, why do people play the lottery, its legal....so any valid chess move is not about morals its about options, if the Opening was restricted to 1.e4 or d4, would that make sense? Who would play Chess if they were forced between e4 and d4?

@MrTaylor_Mate said in #28:
> [...] Who would play Chess if they were forced between e4 and d4?

Maybe about the same number of people who lapped up the game Othello when it first appeared in the early 1970s. It was exactly the same game as a much more ancient game called Reversi except that the starting position on the Othello board was just one particular possibility of various possible openings which Reversi had allowed. This wonderful "new" game was then marketed and sold to millions worldwide.

the engine sometimes takes a while to load up.