who has any thoughts on the “crooked” openings such as 1.a4, 1.b4, 1.f4, 1.g4, 1.h4?
maybe they were used against you or you yourself like to start the game like that.
waiting for your thoughts on this topic.
In openings, you develop your pieces, secure your King, and fight for the center. Only f4 and possibly b4 could make some sense.
1.g4? and White is already worse, for example: 1...d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 c6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3 Nf6 6.Qxb7 Nbd7.
I agree that it is specifically in this variation that White is worse, but they left the beaten track and in the future Black may well be at a loss and not find the right continuation.
My opinion: They are *objectively* worse than standard openings but in certain circumstances may be good *practical* options - i.e. in order to play psychological games on your opponent, or to force a well prepared player out of their preparation, or if White is happy to give up their small opening edge in order to take a playable position that is off the beaten track in terms of opening theory.
e.g. Tony Miles famously employed 1. ... a6 to defeat Karpov with Black when Karpov was at the peak of his powers - clearly not the best move, but a powerful psychological shock that disrupted the then world champion and led to a famous victory. And in this year's FIDE world cup rapidplay tiebreaks, Duda beat Xiong with 1. a3 .
So IMO they're fine to play, as long as you are honest with yourself about why you are playing them and are not kidding yourself that they are objectively strong.
Very well said
@piscatorox I've played the Bird's my entire teenage years, just to avoid learning theory. This method was used to get to a playable middle game without devoting (wasting) my life to the volumes of theory.
Returning to the game, after a 20 year hiatus, I learned the London (and Colle) as yet another safe, not theory heavy opening. After regaining the feel of the game, I studied the mainstream openings and have found no improvement in my results/play. These offbeat opening, while slightly inferior, are playable, and by understanding the middle game positions better, can be better than the theoretical discussion that leads to boring games.
Just remember the "unsound" openings before the hypermodern era. These defenses that ignored the center "hoping" that white would overextend. Review the games of AlphaZero and maybe reexamine what chess rules must be obeyed.
I believe white can play any of the 20 possible first moves without harm. 1 g4 d5 2 h3! is quite playable as Michael Basman has demonstrated. 1 h4 is playable as Janos Kadash has shown.
I think even for black most first moves are playable. If you doubt that, thenplay the white side of 1 e4 b5 or 1 d4 g5 against Stockfish.
It is better to play a bad opening well than to play a good opening badly.
The famous 1 e4 a6 Karpov - Miles was not only psychological: it also forced Karpov to think for himself right away, pulling him out of his comfort zone.
