27 ( +1 | -1 )
Hi. I'm playing two games right now using the Beginner's Opening. Feel free to check them out. I just started playing on the ICC and won my first game in 19 moves against a candidate master, time control game in 20 minutes. You can check-out Pafu on ICC to view the game.
34 ( +1 | -1 )
this subject has ben discussed.
122 ( +1 | -1 )
This subject has been discussed
Hello. I understand the subject of the Beginner's Opening has been discussed. I have read the discussions. However, I'm here to prove that people are wrong by simply playing and winning games using this opening. I have just claimed my second victim on the ICC, an expert in which I won in 27 moves. Feel free to look at these games under the ICC name of Pafu. I'm looking forward to beating many players on this forum with the Beginner's Opening, especially since my opponents will have lots of time to find good moves. It will only add credibility to my claims.
Because we know that great chess players are great at pattern recognition, the Beginner's Opening forces players to play in positions they are unfamiliar with and thus have little to no pattern recognition. It also forces people to use their own ideas instead of using ideas that Grandmasters over the years have already formulated.
My rating is 2300+ so I'm sure I'll have plenty of "master games" with good time controls when others on the ICC hear that I'm beating people with an unorthodox opening.
56 ( +1 | -1 )
I just finished playing a "chess machine" at a correspondence chess site. I won't reveal the name unless I get the "ok" from this sites leader.
I employed the beginners game as white. I managed to get a draw by three-fold repetition. Both sides ended with a Q and 4P. I do not know what the "rating" of this thing is but I can beat it.
While I don't share the beginnersgame creator's enthusiasm for his "discovery" I found the opening to be playable but passive. I'm now going to play a game as "black" against this "machine" Be back in a little while with the result.
135 ( +1 | -1 )
I have played against opponents who are aggresive as well as passive against the Beginner's Opening. In the first case my opponents have gotten what appears to be an overwhelming spacial advantage only to realize their positions are full of targets and everything falls apart (and this happens very rapidly). In the second case my opponents lack the space they need to get where they want to go and end-up too cramped to make any progress (this has proven to take slightly longer but only by 5-10 more moves on the average).
In several cases my opponents have exhibited horribly uncoordinated pieces, misplaced knights (on the edge of the board) and undeveloped pieces (even at the master level) where things come to an end in short order.
Every game I have played on the ICC I have won. Every game has lasted under 30 moves. Actually, the longest game came from the "weakest" player who lasted for 28 moves until he resigned.
Eric Schiller discusses this opening in his book, "Unorthodox Chess Openings" on
You said you don't share the creator's enthusaism for his "discovery" but I actually find it inspiring. My plan is to play this opening exclusively on the ICC, Instantchess, and GameKnot to demonstrate the incredible psychological impact it has on players as well as demonstrate the flexibility of the opening. It is too slippery and fluid to misjudge.
33 ( +1 | -1 )
"My rating is 2300+ so I'm sure I'll have plenty of "master games" with good time controls when others on the ICC hear that I'm beating people with an unorthodox opening."
You're sure? Are you going to play it OTB in tournaments vs. masters, or in correspondence against other masters? Somehow I doubt you'll find a 40/2 vs. a master on ICC.
42 ( +1 | -1 )
Finally finished the black game. Draw by 50 move rule. In both games the computer castled queen side and I castled King side.
I have "Unorthodox Openings" in Schillers game/line white ends up winning. Ibragimov-Stefanova Black played the beginners game opening.
I think you have to be a good defensive player and patient to use this opening. I'll give it a shot.
161 ( +1 | -1 )
I've already started playing two games on this forum where the person has 3 days per move. Feel free to follow them. I hope once I beat these two individuals, stronger players will take-up the challenge that Pafu wouldn't accept.
On the ICC, the sky is the limit because there are plenty of masters, IM's and GM's roaming around. Everytime I win a game, I shout to all the listeners how the Beginner's Opening has claimed another victim. I've not had any problems finding an opponent. These guys are insulted and hungry to put me in my place. It just hasn't happened yet.
A big complaint I have noticed on this forum against Pafu is that he refuses to play to prove his claims. I'm not even the inventor of the opening but I will play anyone at any time with it. Of course, I may not agree with Pafu's long-term analysis but I certainly will take the opening to the stem potion shown in Eric Shiller's, "Unorthodox Chess Openings" and Pafu's book to demonstrate it is flexible and strong from that point forward.
In his book, "Winning with C4", GM Andrew Soltis writes that before 1970 the English opening barely was worthy of a few pages in an opening manual. By the 1990's the theory had multiplied 10-fold and of course we have the games of people like Petrosian, Karpov, Polgar, Uhlmann, Smyslov, Benko, Portisch, Christiansen, etc that make-up part of this increased theory. Pafu's opening is in the infancy stages and it is only a matter of time before the body of theory begins to fill-in the questions many players have about the opening.
37 ( +1 | -1 )
How can I look at the games you played? I'm interested in seeing them. Mine are on the ICC under the screenname Pafu. I'm not Pafu of course. I chose the name to convey the opening.
I would like to answer a question I read in a previous thread. Someone asked if there was a worse book than Pafu's on the market. Yes. Mike Basman's "The Killer Grob" is absolutely the worst!
28 ( +1 | -1 )
"Everytime I win a game, I shout to all the listeners how the Beginner's Opening has claimed another victim."
This puts your posts to certain perspective...
Lets discuss more after you have beaten 2300+ GK players with "Beginner's opening" :-)
42 ( +1 | -1 )
Those games you're playing on ICC are 20 minute games, which most would consider blitz games. And the games on GK are vs. 1200-1400 players, clearly far below your strength. I don't think I've ever seen a 40/2 on ICC that wasn't a relay of an OTB game. Just saying that if you want "master games" for the beginner's opening, you ought to beat strong players with long time controls (not G/20).
10 ( +1 | -1 )
Speaking of OTB
As a 2300+ player I assume you play in tournaments...? How about showing some OTB games vs say, FMs or even IMs and GMs?
292 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm not going to get upset like Pafu did, or get discouraged by your comments because after all, they provide healthy doubt. That's a good thing in my mind. Because here is the difference...while all the scoffers continue to scoff, I continue to win with the Beginner's Opening.
I just dropped a 2300+ player last night on the ICC (again in under 30 moves).
Go check it out. He got crushed. Another win last night was against a master and when I said, "Thanks for the game" he wrote back with obscenities. Something I didn't expect to see but I can understand his frustration. It was a simple case of being in unfamiliar territory and making horrible decisions.
Again I stress that when you take a master, IM or GM out of his pattern recognition, you get wonderful results. It isn't about memorized openings or opening theory, it is about pattern recognition in the middlegame.
All of these players have gotten great positions out of the opening. In fact, if you look at the ICC games I have played, you will see that I'm sitting there with my Beginner's Opening set-up while they have what looks like to be an insurmountable advantage.
However, when they reach the middlegame, they are forced to play positions they don't recognize and are uncomfortable with. Even though they have the position and what appears to be the playing strength to win the game, appearances fail and they lose.
Which brings me to my next point. How much of a person's playing strength can be attributed to opening knowledge and the study of theory? A argue that in most cases it accounts for most of a person's rating. The Beginner's Opening knocks this crutch out from under all players no matter how strong they are said to be.
At first you complained that Pafu wasn't playing a person but a computer. My games are with human players.
Then you complained that Pafu wasn't playing strong players. That the games in his book were not master-strength. I'm playing and BEATING 2200-2300 players right now.
The next complaint is that the time control is not slow enough. Hey, if this opening is so bad, why isn't it getting crushed right of the bat? Anyhow...I'll play ANYONE on this forum where you get 3-days for each move. Seriously, if a person can't come up with a good move after 3-days of looking they shouldn't be playing chess.
So, let me end this thread because I've introduced myself to all of you, I've let you know that I'm also on the ICC, you know my handle there and you are more than welcome to look at the games and contact me with your thoughts. There is one player I'm looking forward to playing OTB soon. It is IM Mike Brooks. His best rating was something like 2605 some time in the past which I'm sure is strong enough to satisfy anyone. He may be a little under that right now but I'm sure he'll do. He lives in Kansas City but that's not too bad of a trip for me if I know he'll be in the tournament.
61 ( +1 | -1 )
It is hard to take "Pafu" seriously when
a) He continually refers to himself in the third person; but more importantly
b) You take a look at those ridiculous chess pieces he's proposed (www.beginnersgame.com/page_25.pdf).
I guess if you're under the delusion that you're reinventing chess, you might as well go all the way.
All that said, I will say one more thing: even if (and that's one of the biggest ifs I've ever thrown out there) this turns out to be a strong opening system, it will not be long before lines of best play are discovered--and by then any "surprise" value will be long gone.
111 ( +1 | -1 )
the passive system known as pafu's beginner's opening is an inferior system.
Hey, try playing the Gameknot Masters at 7 days/move. If you are 2300 strength then you should have no problem defending the system against someone like florinserban or another top correspondence master. But in reality I would be willing to bet that the opening wouldn't perform well, and as BLACK I am pretty sure that you would lose alot. I am not strong enough a player to demonstrate this against a master, but there are players here who can... atrifix is another master player, althouh his rating is currently under 2200, I think he is qualified to play master-level correspondence chess against it.
That is my opinion and if you can prove me wrong, then I will be amazed. If you can play four master-level correpondence players (2200 gameknot) and manage an even score (4 draws or 2 wins/2 losses, etc.) then I will respect the opening as a playable system.
133 ( +1 | -1 )
Please note - I am far from 2300 so my comments are based on comments I have heard from other 2200+ players...
"How much of a person's playing strength can be attributed to opening knowledge and the study of theory? A argue that in most cases it accounts for most of a person's rating."
The importance of tactics, endings and GENERAL positional understanding is pretty much universally known. I have heard "chess is all about openings" theory before, but _never_ from 2200+ player...
"The Beginner's Opening knocks this crutch out from under all players no matter how strong they are said to be."
What I have heard from strong players is,
If your tactics, endings and (general) positional understanding are good, you can play ANY position well!
Sure there are players who rely heavily on theory/opening studies and start playing really badly after running out of book moves or thematic Sicilian Najdorf plans. But they are never strong players, because they spend too much time for opening books and not enough time for more important stuff, like tactics and endings :-)
IMHO your games at ICC prove tactics (not openings!) is indeed most important part of chess. ALL your games are tactically PERFECT :-)
74 ( +1 | -1 )
Hi! I hope everyone is having a great weekend.
Let me quote from Raymond Keene, "The importance of the opening can hardly be overstated. It has been subject to more analysis than any other part of the game, and modern Grandmasters carry thousands of variations in thier heads..."
Peppe, I agree that if a person spends too much time in the opening it can cause a player to be lopsided. Once the opening runs out, they flounder in the middlegame and if they make it to an endgame, things get even worse.
But this simply proves my point! The beauty of the Beginner's game is to remove all the time spent on studying openings. The system is universal and can be learned in a very short time freeing-up the player to focus on tactics and endings.
99 ( +1 | -1 )
I play begginers game too, well used to... I've had mixed success with it, but generally it is a positive opening for me.
I also had my fair share of flak for playing such an opening, but it is best employed OTB / blitz or pub!, I've beaten a few 1800+ players with this. And beaten or near beaten high rated computers with it.
I also know where it breaks down and its minor flaws, the issue is mostly with the pawn structure, the opponent need only put the brakes on attacking to leave the Pafu player no option but to break his solid pawn structure eventually. Still a tough game though.
Most often players do not realise that the opening is quite so tough to break down, and assume your an idiot for not attacking as white, this is where players launch an attack on it prematurely usually to their demise.
Anyway ... SOMEBODY START A MINI TOURNEY WITH IT... should be very interesting, and give me a shout.
8 ( +1 | -1 )
I glad to hear you set this opening aside, it has some serious flaws.
15 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm afraid I'm stuck in a mini tourney right now so cant join in if somebody creates a tournament for this, but would love to play it unrated.
6 ( +1 | -1 )
I guess you haven't put it aside yet, well you will eventually.
6 ( +1 | -1 )
I guess you haven't put it aside yet, well you will eventually.
23 ( +1 | -1 )
Aye, I have indeed put it aside... but its a good opening to break out once in a while ... but really only for blitz / OTB... for its cheapo surprise value which more than often works!
Still sitting on the fence,
126 ( +1 | -1 )
Just my 2 cents about playing a 'system'
I think pafufan tried to feed a fresh blood into this old topic.
I'm not strong enough to prove anything (average 1400 in GK), but here is my own experience with playing a 'system' or two. I'm testing London System as White and Modern Defense as Black. As pafufan said, having familiar patterns helps a lot.
Sometimes, I win just because the other player misses deadly Qa4+ fork in London System. However, I found that 1500-1600 players are very tough for me to play any cheap tricks against them. The usual benefit is that I can play my opening comfortably up to about 6-10 moves against a stronger player. After that is the middle game, and I just try my best, and eventually make blunder after blunder. I donít play the Biginnerís Game, but I assume the benefits are pretty similar in any kind of systems.
So, IMHO, Beginnerís Game could be a good thing if anyone find it fitting to his/her style. At least for some while, it will serve as training wheels. I donít believe that one or two persons are enough to prove the ultimate value of this opening. However, there is a learning curve to learn any Ďsystemí, and you can study tactics instead to improve your general performance.
34 ( +1 | -1 )
A mate of mine said GMs where using this opening on ICC. Also their queen was absent from the game ( to give lower rated players a chance ) Supposedly beating most players too.
Dunno if I can believe this though...??? Or if my mate got a bit confused with this system and the modern defense?
12 ( +1 | -1 )
If you can give queen odds and still win, it hardly matters whether you play Modern defense or Beginner's game :-)
27 ( +1 | -1 )
i'd find it pretty dull playing the same opening ALL the time.
you'd see different responses to it, but still.
i mean, it's nice to take one opening and study it well so you can play it with confidence. but i find the opening has potential for so much variety, and it's so fun to play different things (for me).
23 ( +1 | -1 )
I tried this opening once vs cyrano
He crushed me. Duh. Of course, I never studied the opening to any great extent, but I still believe that it is like any other opening-- with stregths and weaknessess, and you can do well with it if you have played it often, and your opponent has not.
18 ( +1 | -1 )
I'll play you anytime, with any color and beat you with the Beginner's Game. If it has some serious flaws, you should have problem showing ALL of us where they are.
19 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm Going to Challenge Baseline
I am formally challenging you to a game. I'll have no problem beating you with the Beginner's Game with both colors. If you don't play, then you are just showing everyone you are full of hot air.
9 ( +1 | -1 )
CHALLENGE TO BASELINE
CHANGE YOUR SETTING SO THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE OF THE BEGINNER'S GAME!
45 ( +1 | -1 )
Trash talking and boasting may be normal at Pogo or Yahoo, but here it is best to treat others with respect. Baseline is PROVEN chess player and has no obligation to accept your offer, especially after your rather unpolite remarks. If you want games with top GK players, I suggest you to (for example) give us your OTB/ICCF rating. Few tactically perfect games at ICC are irrelevant for obvious reasons I choose not to comment here.
69 ( +1 | -1 )
Here are the complaints about Pafu's opening:
1. "It has some serious flaws" -- Baseline
*** Let's play a game or two. Prove to me where these flaws are ***
2. Test the opening against strong players, like masters.
*** I've beaten 9 strong players on ICC, some of them over 2400. All of them in under 30 moves ***
3. The time-control is too slow.
*** I'm currently playing 6 games on GK right now where the players get between 3 and 9 days per move ***
Peppe, how about you and I play a game or two. I'll use the Beginner's Game with each color. You can have as many days as you need to for each move. Come on...it will be fun! You can show me how bad the opening is since NOONE to date has been able to.
29 ( +1 | -1 )
You made this comment, "Few tactically perfect games at ICC are irrelevant for obvious reasons I choose not to comment here."
Why not? We are all friends here. In fact, making the accusations you are alluding to would be much better than beating around the bush. Why not be a man and say what's on your mind?
3 ( +1 | -1 )
Tcherepanov, Andrei V
145 ( +1 | -1 )
I hope a master does play you here...
I am truly curious to see this opening tested out. pafufan you can hardly be surprised by the amount of criticism you are receiving. Chess openings have been scrutinized laboriously for well over a century and so far nobody has come out and proclmaied this system except for a fairly weak amateur player named Pafu and his own computer research! I am not saying that the opening is proven unsound, it isn't. But intuitively I would say that it is at best only as good as other off-beat openings like the elephant gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5?!) or other such stuff. Is the elephant gambit playable...of course. Is it worthy of Profesional master level chess? Absolutely not, it performs very poorly, so poorly in fact that few titled players ever even use it. And that is the idea most people have about the beginner's opening. Another problem I have with it is that BOTH players use it, it will certainly be a theoretically drawn position within the fist ten moves! Can you imagine a top-level tournament where everyone played this opening as both white and black and every game was drawn....yuck!!! The death of chess!
Well, I hope you get your chance to prove the beginner's opening in practical play in correspondence or OTB. Why not go to the World OPen in Philadelphia and take first prize with it? It is the first week of july in philadelphia and the first prize is $14,000. I'll see you there.
63 ( +1 | -1 )
Hasn't been tested in OTB play.
Koshy,V (2315) - Pavanasam,A (2260) [A00]
Calcutta Calcutta (6), 1992
I have found only one game in Chessbase that followed the beginner's opening between two 2200+ players. White played very passively and dwindled into a draw. I can find NO EXAMPLES as black.
Koshy(2315) - Pavanasam(2260) 1/2-1/2
A00 Calcutta 1992
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nd2 e5 5.b3 Bd6 6.Bb2 Qe7 7.a3 h6 8.e3 Bf5 9.Ne2 0-0 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.e4 dxe4 12.dxe4 Be6 13.Nc1 Rad8 14.Nd3 Nc5 15.Qe2 Bg4 16.f3 Nxd3 17.cxd3 Bc5+ 18.Kh1 Bc8 19.b4 Bd4 20.Bxd4 Rxd4 21.Nb3 Rd6 22.Rfd1 Rfd8 23.Qc2 Ne8 24.Qc5 b6 25.Qc3 Nc7 26.a4 f6 27.f4 exf4 28.gxf4 f5 29.Rd2 fxe4 30.dxe4 Rxd2 31.Nxd2 Qd6 32.Nf1 Qxf4 33.Qxc6 Bg4 34.Rc1 Ne8 35.Qc3 Kh8 36.Qe3 Qf8 37.Rb1 Rd1 38.Qb3 Rxb1 39.Qxb1 Bf3 40.a5 Nd6 41.axb6 axb6 42.Ng3 Bxg2+ 43.Kxg2 Nc4 44.Qe1 Qf4 45.Qe2 b5 46.Nf5 g6 47.Ng3 h5 48.Qf2 Ne3+ 49.Kg1 Qxf2+ 50.Kxf2 Nc2 51.Ne2 Nxb4 52.Nd4 Nd3+ 53.Ke2 Nc5 54.Nxb5 1/2-1/2
118 ( +1 | -1 )
"Peppe, how about you and I play a game or two. I'll use the Beginner's Game with each color. You can have as many days as you need to for each move. Come on...it will be fun! You can show me how bad the opening is since NOONE to date has been able to."
Based on quality of your games at ICC you can give me pawn odds and still win easily, so I cannot see how a game between us proves Beginner's game is good. The way I see it you win (mainly) because of impressive tactical skills, not because of magnificent opening. The value of Beginner's game has to be tested in games between two players of approximately _equal_ in strength. So, I am looking forward seeing your OTB games vs other 2500+ USCF players!
Because of game limit I cannot start new games, sorry. In general I am always willing to play stronger opponents - BUT _never_ to prove a point etc (see previous chapter). However, if we can reach a point where we can play simply to enjoy a game of chess, I am more than willing to accept your challenge.
"Why not? We are all friends here. In fact, making the accusations you are alluding to would be much better than beating around the bush. Why not be a man and say what's on your mind?"
215 ( +1 | -1 )
I can understand why people are reacting the way they are. And you know what? They have every reason to react this way! I made the mistake of snapping at Baseline and I'm sorry I did that. I've never even met the guy or had any conversation with him. Like many people, I have to keep my passion in check when others around me don't share the same enthusiasm. For this, I'm truly sorry.
And Peppe, you are right. Chess isn't about proving a point. It should always be about the enjoyment of the game.
Pafu is excited about this opening and he did something that I couldn't do...he wrote an entire book! So, my hat is off to him for that much.
Now...back to constructive comments:
I think the Beginner's Game has to be played by someone who is constantly scanning the board for mistakes their opponents have made. If someone re-routes a Knight and it leaves a weakness, the Pafu player HAS to immediately sieze the opportunity because there is no room and no time for anything else. The Pafu opening works best for players who eat, sleep and drink tactics. Peppe hit this right on the head!
Another good point, and probably the best point so far is, "What happens if BOTH players play the Beginner's Game?" This, I thought was going to happen in one of my ICC games to to be honest, I had no idea what I was going to do! I'm going to look at Pafu's book to see if there are any games where he tested this.
But let me please take a few more words to show you how I approach things. I had an aunt who was always saying, "The Bible says this...and the Bible says that..." Noone ever challenged her because 1) They didn't really want to hurt her feelings and 2) They didn't want to show their ignorance. So one day I said, "Where in the Bible does it say this?" She couldn't tell me. You see, she had simply been repeating what she had heard others say and had no first-hand knowledge of the material herself.
So when someone says, "The Beginner's Opening is bad..." I say, "Show me how!" Because they are either just repeating what others have said, or they truly know how it is bad. And if I'm going to play this opening, I want to know.
Baseline, I'm sorry for being an a**. I was out of line.
82 ( +1 | -1 )
Hi. Superblunder wrote, "Is it worthy of Profesional master level chess? Absolutely not, it performs very poorly, so poorly in fact that few titled players ever even use it."
Because an opening doesn't appear in high-level chess, doesn't mean it is because the opening is bad.
For a long time the Center-Counter defense was laughed at and you would have never seen it in World Class play. That changed when Anand used it against Kasparov (PCA World Championship [game 14 ] 1995).
Bent Larsen's stunning defeat of World Champion Karpov at Montreal '79 with the Center-Counter defense showed that something "unsound" and "unorthodox" could be of serious value.
What it takes is someone who is willing to play and develop the opening into its fullness.
19 ( +1 | -1 )
I am not supposed to comment
...on ongoing games, but I will say that Caldazar seems to be doing just fine in his games against you... :) In my most humble opinion and what do I know anyway??? Ok, that is enough.
8 ( +1 | -1 )
Why is it always the provs with no biography who go on and on with their ranting crusades?
14 ( +1 | -1 )
Would you like to play a couple of games with me? I'll give you as much time as you like and I'll play the Beginner's Opening.
206 ( +1 | -1 )
Since we are back
To constructive comments...
"But this simply proves my point! The beauty of the Beginner's game is to remove all the time spent on studying openings. The system is universal and can be learned in a very short time freeing-up the player to focus on tactics and endings."
When it comes to importance of tactics and endings, I cannot agree more. Believe me I have experience of losing good positions because of tactical errors and failing to win superior endings :-) Now, I cannot comment on Beginner's game at GM level, so I leave it up to you to prove its worth against really strong players. If we look at Beginner's game to me it looks like "modified" Reti Opening or Hedgehog structure, especially after c4/c5 - both difficult systems requiring advanced positional understanding (I still cannot understand the KNIGHTS - in several lines I cannot see how they are well placed compared to better known openings). Yes I agree one has to be tactically alert and ready to exploit weaknesses, but one also has to know how to handle defense, counterattacks, even hypermodern strategies - all very difficult concepts, especially for beginners (or amateurs) who are supposed to play this system! This all against opponents who are given the leeway of choosing their favourite setups without any or VERY little interference - meaning "uncharted waters" theory is only half true at best. Yes there are lots of plans to choose from, Reti/Hedgehog-style position with c4, KIA-style position with e4, or f4 (Larsen, anyone? :-))) etc etc etc. But how many amateur players have such a diverse understanding of different strategic plans (especially since none of these schemes works in every game)? IMHO playing Beginner's game WELL requires much more than Mr Pafu claims.
Yes Beginner' s game encourages opponents to over-extend. Yes Beginner's game has some psychological value. But...
Is it simply better to play 1.e4, look up some main lines from annotated master games and go for active piece play? :-)
Just my two cents.
139 ( +1 | -1 )
A patzer's interjection, but I would like to commend everyone for bringing the tone back down to a civilized level. One of the reasons I came, and stayed, at GK was the focus on constructive discourse over trash talk.
That said, can we agree that there is perhaps some common ground? What about:
1) There is such a thing as a "new" opening. They don't come along that often these days, but look at the pedigree of something like the Benko and you'll agree.
2) The discussion about Pafu's system is seriously hampered by the off-the-wall claims made by its originator. Maybe these were necessary for him to get some attention, but let's be blunt--on their face, they're a little loony.
3) The system is manifestly conservative, making little attempt to challenge the opponent's setup. Adopted by white, this could be seen as throwing away the first-mover advantage.
4) Because of its conservative nature, it does not create its own complications but awaits tactical opportunity.
5) The proof is in the pudding: only a record of games between players of comparable strength will determine its worth.
So why is there no thematic mini-tournament? A tourney, coupled with a dedicated forum thread or threads, will go a long way toward settling any questions--one way or another. We should remember that the forums are just an adjunct to what really matters: the field of battle.
26 ( +1 | -1 )
You wrote, "...on ongoing games, but I will say that Caldazar seems to be doing just fine in his games against you... :)"
Well, I have to respectfully disagree. I'm winning the game with White and I like my game as Black the way it stands right now :).
71 ( +1 | -1 )
I have 60 games in progress now, I play in the GK tournaments, chess league and team matches. You can find me there if you are a serious player and plan to stick around. Otherwise why should I invest my valuable time on a unrated braggart who has been here a couple of weeks. The fact that you offer nothing substantial other than I beat some strong players at ICC causes me to pause and wonder. Michael Basman could make the same statements about his "Creepy Crawly Formation" 1.a3 e5 2.h3 d5! I suspose under your logic it would be just as valid as the Beginners Opening or the Ruy Lopez for that matter, Well I think the creapy crawly has some serious flaws as well.
28 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm resigning all of my games (even the ones where I have a clear win). It has come to my attention that in at least two of my games, my opponents have used computers to help them. This is unacceptable! If I wanted to play computers, I would go to the ICC and click blue dots all day long.
48 ( +1 | -1 )
If this guy was for real he would have been able to tell us about his opening it's tragedies etc. his whole argument is I beat some strong players at ICC and I'll beat you. Well fritz beats me nearly every time at ICC time limits and fritz is unable to explain its strategy! How many times have we welcomed new people into our little (sometimes dysfunctional) family only them create controversy and depart hurling insults in their wake?
127 ( +1 | -1 )
Eh?... even as a ex-beginners game player myself, I think Pafufan, should persist in playing his games, if he has simply entered this site to prove this system, then he has failed immediately.... and leaves empty handed... thats not chess, and thats the spirit of the game here.
I would recommend that PafuFan at least establishes his rating here perhaps under a new identity, plays some top players where he has not 'premeditated' the ole 'computer use' argument, and essentially takes them by surprise, I'd like to see these games.
How exactly did it come to PafuFans 'attention' that he was playing a computer?
Its a shame, I genuinely would like to hear more dialog, see more games on this system with concrete, how to beat it/how to win with it arguments rather than bravado discussion and accusations.... as I still believe (rightly or wrongly) there is potentially some mileage in this system if some flaws where ironed out.
I myself have my own lines in this opening that makes for a rock hard game, but I'm only as good as I am and it doesnt simply allow me to beat much higher rated players. In short these players are better than me, and the opening doesn't overcome this.
112 ( +1 | -1 )
how to find high level expamples
The Beginner's Opening has a long history. The oldest games I saw were played by a Mr Mongredien between 1860 1870 in London. For obvious reasons it's also called Hippopotamus. Keene alleged in his book "The Modern Defence" that Tartakower was the inventor of that name.
Two of the most famous games with this opening have been played by Spassky (Black) in his first match for the Wordchampionship against Petrosjan. The first or these game was really exciting. However both ended in a draw.
Today the Hippopotamus is thought to be solid enough when the opponent chooses to play with a small center (Pawns e4, d4 and Knights on c3, f3).
In the 1990-ties Tony Miles brought this defence to a certain amount of popularity. He used reach it via 1.c4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.a3 g6 and he found followers, i.e. GM Kengis and GM Bischoff. A well sorted, big database should spill out quite a lot of high level games for the above mentioned position and for the position after 1.c4 b6 2.d5 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 g6 as well.
At last I'd like to say that in my opinion it's rather pointless to use the Hippopotamus with White, since the extra tempo is quite useless.