1. d4 d5 2.Bg5

What is this retarded opening? I looked everywhere and can't find reference to it. It really shocked me, mainly because I couldn't find an adequate defense to it, I felt kind of caged in. I was looking for a response to this, but couldn't find it, help.

Originally posted by mateulose
What is this retarded opening? I looked everywhere and can't find reference to it. It really shocked me, mainly because I couldn't find an adequate defense to it, I felt kind of caged in. I was looking for a response to this, but couldn't find it, help.

Well, I just lost that game, I wish these RETARDS would work as hard at me at chess, but instead they dicide to be LAZY, not study their openings, and they beat me who deserves to beat them because I work harder at chess. That's god for ya, reward the lazy, punish the hard workers. I looked everywhere in the database and I couldn't find anything to do about 2.Bg5, typical.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Nothing retarded in that move. Your post is an indication of that (I couldn't find an adequate defense).

Just play standard moves like Nf6 or c6 and you will transpose into known territory. If you don't like that, then f6 is good too. So is h6.

Originally posted by mateulose
-Nf6 saddles you up with doubled up pawns on the kingside.

-c6 also weakens your kingside, you have a pawn in the place of where a knight should be.

-You cannot play the natural e6 cuz you lose your queen

-Ignoring the bishop just makes things worse

There is no defense to it, I minus well just resign the minute I see that move. I spent a whole ...[text shortened]... r in the opening, all that matters is seting up tactics ASAP, Adolf Andersson 1800's style.

Bah, I give up, seriously, I can't find much of a defense to this. In a last ditch attempt to figure this out, I inserted the moves into my Chessmaster game, it called it, "The Levitsky Attack" (roflmao, who the heck is Levitsky?), and the game recommended I play f6 to chase the bishop out, and play further kingside pawn advances, during this whole time, I am left puzzled to where exactly black should castle, as the kingside is destroyed.

I give up on chess, once again, I am seriously never going to improve if all I come across are moves like Qh5 and Bg5, Bc4 and whatever weird tactical cheapo (cheapo is a term they use for trying to win tactifully in the opening). I guess it's time, perhabs, to find a book written in the 1800's that deals with such stuff. Anyone knows where I can find an 1800's chess book?

mateleuse, why do you want a N on c6 in a double queen's pawn opening? If you have studied a lot of mainline theory, you should realise that Black needs to keep the potential for the c pawn to move to either break (with c5) or reinforce d5 if the ...e5 break is being aimed for.

Just need to play on normal opening principles against any move you don't understand. 2...c6 is fine - nice Slav, and potentially White has a weaker b2 square than normal 🙂 As Mephisto says, 2...Nf6 is also good as there is no way White wants to give up the 2 B's in an open game.

It's called the Levitsky Attack.

Here you can see some games that it was played in:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=317324&move=2.5&moves=d4.d5.Bg5&nodes=10703.75972.317324

It seems that you would rather play moves after memorizing popular ones, and you put a lot of emphasis on opening "theory." The first theory of opening moves is to make good moves, not memorize something and play it back without understanding it. Now when somebody plays a move you haven't memorized, you are lost and don't have a clue what to do.

I would suggest you first understand why certain opening moves are good, and others bad. At our level, memorizing openings from books is mostly a waste of time, although it's good to know about traps. Remember that Jose Capablanca rarely studied openings. He just made good moves. It might help if you were to pretend you were in the middle game right away, so you don't get bogged down with the concern over whether you have correctly memorized a list of moves that grandmasters have played frequently.

does no one else play chess just for fun any more? without fussing about openings and all the theory behind everything? 😕

Originally posted by mateulose

I give up on chess, once again, I am seriously never going to improve if all I come across are moves like Qh5 and Bg5, Bc4 and whatever weird tactical cheapo (cheapo is a term they use for trying to win tactifully in the opening).

Agreed, Darius07. Chess is a lot more fun when you think about your moves and try to make good ones rather than worry whether you are following some theory you'll never understand anyway.

Thinking should occur from move 1, not beginning with move 20.

Originally posted by dpressnell
Agreed, Darius07. Chess is a lot more fun when you think about your moves and try to make good ones rather than worry whether you are following some theory you'll never understand anyway.

Thinking should occur from move 1, not beginning with move 20.

Oops, sorry, I thought you meant f6, instead of c6. Well, in my game I dicided to ignore the bishop and play Nc6, a move that turned out to absolutely blow. I thought for 10 mins, and didn't know what to play, had no clue, panicked, and just moved cuz I had to. White's bishops and queen then became very active, and literally killed me by themselves.

As for the open g file, thinking like a Caro Kann Botvinnik, that is not for me. In my experiences, I always tend to lose in weakened pawn structure positions were I am forced to attack, mainly because the king is a resiliant peice, and always seems to escape me by a hair in such situations. I used to be an attacker/agressive type player, but game after game of them literally leaving their king WIDE OPEN and me not being able to finish him off, or spending ages not finding a way to finish him off, and that's even considering sacrefices, they get the upper hand then beat me.

I studied tactical books to help me in this regard, but it doesn't work, do you know why? Because with tactical books, there is a winning solution guaranteed in the given position, which I find quite easily, but in a real chess game, it may look like you have a tactic with their open king, but often, one is simply not there.

Originally posted by dpressnell
Agreed, Darius07. Chess is a lot more fun when you think about your moves and try to make good ones rather than worry whether you are following some theory you'll never understand anyway.

Thinking should occur from move 1, not beginning with move 20.

Well, I tried two approaches to dealing with weird openings, which make up 95% of my games.

-Ignore it, just develop as normal.

This doesn't work, it just simply doesn't work. For example of I play c5 and they respond strangely, just treating it like another regular Sicilian game, when it isn't, doesn't correspond to the given situation and simply losses.

-Treat it like a middlegame at move 2

Well, this doesn't work either. It's hard to treat the game like a middlegame in this situation, because creating openings out of art doesn't help. For example, you may move a peice/pawn, for a short term advantage given the weird opening situation, but later on, this move has bad repercusions that you simply cannot erase, which is why there is opening theory to begin with.

So, as you can see, weird openings are a huge paradox for me, because based on the results, I simply cannot find the best moves it seems, which you would think is a balancing act anyways because my opponent technicly moved terrible on move 2, but somehow it isn't. Also to consider, the player in question likely played that weird opening 100's of times, because it's what he plays, so what chances do I have?!