Why does people play the bowdler?

im pretty sure research for a minute or two are capable to make people find out that bowdler attack arent theoretically appreciated at all, but somehow people still play it even at 2000 level/

i understand that its not losing for white by any means, but i just dont know the motivation to play the bowdler. there are far more better options out there.

same thing applies to mcdonnell, which is easily refuted after e4 c5 f4 d5 e5 Nh6. perhaps theyre thinking its the grand prix, but people should know that its not if theyve done their research.

I was wondering why strong players play silly openings... sometimes I feel they see my low rating and want some fun. Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?

@OctoPinky said in #2:
> Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?
..........
Well..... Magnus and Hikaru play all kinds of crazy I think Jobava and Rapport do also.

Hey, if they go through their moves without thinking and the f pawn is there......

Sidesteps opening theory maybe

It's because they don't study theory and just play it like the Italian

@OctoPinky said in #2:
> Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?

It wouldn't hurt to do so, actually.

@Cs1xlly

Whilst I agree on the subject of questioning or even reproaching unambitious play in the opening (even amongst amateurs), at least one of the examples you mention is hardly appropriate.
2.f4 is not refuted by 2...d5 which is not met by 3.e5. The line you quote is almost never found in serious play.

Similarly, 2.f4 is not an inaccurate attempt to reach the Grand Prix Attack, but a partly independent move which can lead to sharp and sometimes quite original positions.

GM McShane, amongst others, has employed this line several times with interesting results. Also, Sicilian expert GM Sveshnikov has analysed this option extensively and considers 2.f4 a valid alternative to 2.Nc3.

Elsewhere in the thread, I also see someone making a crude statement about the Wing Gambit. I will not even reply to that.

I just think that (following the example of many strong OTB players) a cautious approach towards supposedly "refuted" lines is probably advisable.

@Raptor-5 said in #6:
> It wouldn't hurt to do so, actually.

To my surprise, I just found they play it against same rating players.

To my further surprise, it doesn't hurt too much... even if it seems not to do any well, either. Maybe is a bet on finding some early mistake in opponent, otherwise playing with some bearable disadvantage.

@ThePurpleBenOni said in #7:
> Elsewhere in the thread, I also see someone making a crude statement about the Wing Gambit. I will not even reply to that.

If you are "not even replying", you could as well not even mentioning the subject.

As you choose to do it, please take the time to write the extra characters in the name of that "someone". Maybe it is just a cultural thing, but I find unpolite using "someone" to name a person which actually is here.

@ThePurpleBenOni said in #7:
> @Cs1xlly

> 2.f4 is not refuted by 2...d5 which is not met by 3.e5. The line you quote is almost never found in serious play.
> Similarly, 2.f4 is not an inaccurate attempt to reach the Grand Prix Attack, but a partly independent move which can lead to sharp and sometimes quite original positions.
> GM McShane, amongst others, has employed this line several times with interesting results. Also, Sicilian expert GM Sveshnikov has analysed this option extensively and considers 2.f4 a valid alternative to 2.Nc3.

i did not know that mcdonnell was so seriously analysed. i changed my mind that it is dangerous to think it is simply refuted by only knowing the inaccurate response from white
however, in lichess database the most common third move is 3.e5 (at least in 1800~2000 rapid), so its substantially kinda same from the bowdler attack for the amateur. no one whose playing it knows its bad