chess puzzles

Chess Puzzles

Share and you will gain!
Crazy name, real passions
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
kumpan 24 ( +1 | -1 )
Grob's Angriff or translated in English Grob's attack

In honorfull memory of Henry Grob - a great Swiss chessmaster - I'd like to start a minitourney with this opening (g2-g4). Who is interested to play? Please let me know.

Chessfriendly Yours
Daniel
kumpan 7 ( +1 | -1 )
The rules of this tourney are Players: 11
Rating range: 2150-2750
Time controls: 9d + 5d < 15d
sodiumattack 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Like Grob but... Unfortunately I am outside the rating range, and going to start a mini tournament with my team mates.
But I am interested in that opening, that I sometimes play. For any discussion about the Grob Attack, here I am!
anaxagoras 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Silly, we're already playing that mini-tournament.

It's so one-sided in favor of black; it should really only be for entertainment value.
adrianallen 48 ( +1 | -1 )
Grob's attack is not so one sided, it loses it advantages straight away and puts white king in a bit of danger, but if you don't open/defend sensibly against it you will lose.

One of my friends knows this opening well and can beat me most games playing it. I use to play it a little and enjoy it as an opening.

I don't think any of the well known openings are BAD, some arent fashionable or too well researched, but not bad. If you know Grobs attack really well and you are a good player tactically, you will win games playing it.
soikins 34 ( +1 | -1 )
g4 tournament I recently played in one.

383" target="_blank">www.gameknot.com/mt.pl?383

not 2150-2750, thought. So it wasn't so one sided. Maybe on a higher level it would be, although I'm not shure about that
soikins 3 ( +1 | -1 )
Damn. How do you post those links? :(
anaxagoras 36 ( +1 | -1 )
Winning with 1g4 requires that your opponent makes a mistake. Even obtaining a draw with 1g4 might require that your opponent makes a mistake! 1g4 is just a shade better than making no move at all, and it's arguable that white would be better off not to play 1g4 and just give the first move to black! lol ;-)
anaxagoras 13 ( +1 | -1 )
I suppose it depends on whether you're comfortable or happy with winning games *necessarily* because your opponent has screwed up.
sodiumattack 50 ( +1 | -1 )
1. g4... Since you're supposing that black has to play perfectly? :)
Grob's Attack is a great weapon, it leads to interesting and exciting lines. It is surely inferior, but black has to play really good to avoid the attack and the tactical themes that this opening offers.
Well, when someone would say that he knows how to play the "perfect chess game", chess will be finished, and no one would play the Grob Attack, the Sokolsky opening or others minor opening! ;)
anaxagoras 47 ( +1 | -1 )
sodiumattack, you're drawing things out to absurdity. Grob's attack is inferior enough so that it is not seen in master level play, except perhaps for the very rare goal of insane surprise. Even masters play imperfect chess, and white's chances among such players are still very, very dim. You must *expect* your opponent to play "really good" if you want to have any success at this game, so be realistic, please.
olympio 10 ( +1 | -1 )
sodiumattack just a note.. for all you know. the perfect chess game starts with 1. g4. u never know
adrianallen 27 ( +1 | -1 )
>>>I suppose it depends on whether you're comfortable or happy with winning games "necessarily* because your opponent has screwed up.

Hmm! surely that is the basis for pretty much all wins?? Im sure if I analyze all my wins there is a point where my opponent screwed up.

anaxagoras 36 ( +1 | -1 )
adrianallen, that depends on whether you will count the first move as a "screw up." If not, then there are many instances where Black wins against 1 g4 even though White does not screw up.

olympio, if you do not recognize our present knowledge that 1 g4 is an inferior opening, then I wonder whether you believe someone can know anything at all.
pebbles 57 ( +1 | -1 )
How to beat a grandmaster [Event "Budva"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[White "Skembris, Spyridon"]
[Black "Ivkov, Borislav"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "2415"]
[BlackElo "2510"]

1. g4!

Winning with 1.d4 requires that your opponent makes a mistake.

1... d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. h3 e5 4. d3 Ne7 5. Nf3 Ng6 6. Nc3 Nh4 7. Nxh4 Qxh4 8. e4 Bc5 9. Qe2 d4 10. Nb1 Nd7 11. Nd2 Bb4 12. a3 Bxd2+ 13. Bxd2 Nf8 14. O-O-O Ne6 15. Kb1 Bd7 16. Rhf1 h5 17. Bf3 hxg4 18. Bxg4 g5 19. Rg1 Nf4 20. Bxf4 gxf4 21. Qd2 Bxg4 22. Rxg4 Qe7 23. Qa5 b6 24. Qa6 Qc7 25. Rdg1 Ke7 26. Qc4 Raf8 27. Rg7 Rh6 28. R1g5 Qd6 29. Rf5 Rf6 30. Rh5 b5 31. Qb3 Rh6 32. Rf5 Rf6 33. Rh5 Rh6 34.
Rxh6 Qxh6 35. Qb4+ Qd6 36. Qa5 Kf6 37. Rg4 Qd7 38. f3 Rh8 39. h4 Rh7 40. Qe1 Qe6 41. Qg1 Ke7 42. Rg8 Rh6 43. Ra8 Rg6 44. Qe1 Kf6 45. b3 Qd6 46. Qa5 Qc5 47. Qd8+ Ke6 48. Qe8+ Kf6 49. Qh8+ Ke6 50. Rg8 Qxa3 51. Rxg6+ fxg6 52. Qg7 Qe7 53. Qxg6+ Qf6 54. Qe8+ Kd6 55. Qb8+ Ke6 56. Qg8+ Kd6 57. h5 Qh4 58. Qb8+ Kd7 59. Qxa7+ Ke6 60. Qc5 Qxh5 61. Qxc6+ Kf7 62. Qd7+ Kg8 63. Qe6+ Kh7 64. Kb2 Qxf3 65. Qxe5 Qe3 66. Qf5+ Kh6 67. e5 Qd2 68. Qf6+ Kh5 69. Qc6 Kg5 70. Qf6+ Kh5 71. Qh8+ Kg5 72. Qd8+ Kg6 73. Qd5 b4 74. Qe4+ Kg5 75. e6 Qc3+ 76. Kb1 f3 77. e7 f2 78. Qe3+ Kf6 79. e8=N+ 1-0

If it can be used against GMs rated 2510, it surely can be used against lesser mortals.
kumpan 31 ( +1 | -1 )
To open this tourney to a larger number of players I've restarted it by "unrated". So you can try this opening without any fear to loose rating points too..... ;-))

All available mates who have posted here in this thread have been invited to this tourney. I hope they will accept.

Chessfriendly Yours
Daniel
anaxagoras 21 ( +1 | -1 )
Obviously there's no fear of losing rating points in 1g4 mini-tourney, as everyone has an equal number of turns as white and black. My performance so far has been fair; certainly nothing to brag about.
mormel12 16 ( +1 | -1 )
soikins you tried to put a direct link to a minitournament you're in.
i never managed to get that done either.
i think it has something to do with recognision of your id, but i'm not sure.
greetings
nimzoredivivus 28 ( +1 | -1 )
Blunders I would have to say that every game I've won or
lost has been due to player error. Tartakower
summed it up nicely when he said, the winner is the
one who commits the next to the last blunder. And
I believe that is irrespective of which pawn or piece
one chooses to move first.
olympio 49 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras i never said that in light of current chess knowledge that g4 was not an inferior opening. of course it is. i was merely stating that it is presumptuous to assume that it is not the perfect opening move. with perfect play which would obviously be quite a bit different from the moves you would normally make after g4 it could indeed be the perfect moev. whether we have substantial knowledge or not now has nothing to do with the solution to a problem that has not yet been found.
soikins 101 ( +1 | -1 )
g4 Is Kasparov's favorite move, so why not use it on the first move already? Maybe chess theory isn't so developed yet to accpet g4 as a good move? When hypermodernists like Reti and Nomzowitch played moves like Nf3 followed by c4 and d3 (like in Reti opening) or b3 with e3 (Nimzowitch-Larsen attack) some said that those are inferior moves. But Nimzowitch was capable to develop a new chess thoery that proved that those moves are sufficient. Maybe in his own games he went too far in otrder to prove that he can play against the worlds best players by making a lot of "inferior" moves.
Anyway, I don't want to say that b3 or g4 are the best or moves to start a game, but they are good enough when a strong player, who has his own unique understanding of chess strategy uses them. I also want everybody to remember Sultan-Khan and his opening moves. But he kept winning despite them. There is a lot of different ways in chess yet to be researched. g4 (the whole concept of it) just might be one of them!
anaxagoras 63 ( +1 | -1 )
"it is presumptuous to assume that it is not the perfect opening move."

No, it is not. To deny that we know g4 is not a perfect opening move is to deny that we know anything at all about chess theory.

Even amateurs know the three-fold goal of opening moves:

1. attack the center
2. open developing lines for the minor pieces
3. castle

1 g4 is a flagrant violation of these hard won principles. And that is *prima facie* evidence for dismissing 1g4 from our list of perfect opening moves. Until we discover some overwhelming virtue of 1g4, that prima facie evidence remains undisputed and must be heeded.
nimzoredivivus 164 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras... you are assuming that g4 doesn't in some way
contribute to controling the centre. It could be said
that g3 or b3 are faulty because they are a "flagrant
violation of these hard won principles", and yet they
are considered "normal" nowadays -- but 80 years
ago were considered bizarre, and 70 years before
that were considered normal. Who would have
thought to play the Cochraine Gambit in the 1970s
or 1980s? Now it is considered acceptable because
some GM took it out of mothballs and didn't lose
against a fellow big name GM. Miles beat Karpov
with the St George and suddenly it is considered not
so bad. Grob's Attack hasn't caught the eye of an
IMPORTANT GM yet -- therefore it is considered an
oddball opening. I'm waiting for the day when a
world class player decides to use it and gets a draw
or a win against another world class player -- then
EVERYONE will think the Grob is the cat's meow.
Chess is subject to fashion as much as is clothing.
At our level I really have to subscribe to the position
that all openings are playable. I have had pretty
good success with such "unsound" openings as the
Urusov Gambit, the Latvian Gambit, the Halloween
Gambit, and, yes, Grob's Attack. I regularly play the
Nimzowitsch Attack and Owen's Defense, both of
which aren't popular -- and Owen's is even supposed
to have been refuted, and have very nice positive
scores with them. If a person likes the positions
stemming from opening g4, then I think that person
should play g4 -- whether or not the greater chess
community thinks it sound. Principles were meant to
be broken. Didn't Nimzowitsch say that to Tarrasch?
anaxagoras 140 ( +1 | -1 )
nimzoredivius "If a person likes the positions
stemming from opening g4, then I think that person
should play g4"

...that much I agree with. Our question is whether 1 g4 is a candidate for what we consider perfect opening moves. I'll leave my argument for why I think it fails as a candidate untouched.

"you are assuming that g4 doesn't in some way
contribute to controling the centre. It could be said
that g3 or b3 are faulty because they are a "flagrant violation of these hard won principles", and yet they are considered "normal" nowadays"

No, that is not an assumption, it is a deduction. If the center squares are e4, e5, d4 and d5, then 1g4 is not a move that contributes to the control of those squares.

It may be argued that the king's bishop can be easily developed onto the long h1-a8 diagonal after 1g4, and so 1g4 contributes to center control after all. In fact, it is almost commonplace for white to play Bg2 shortly after 1g4.

The trouble is that 1g4 makes a convenient target for black's queen's bishop, and *destroys* white's hope of castling safely on the kingside. These weaknesses do not afflict 1g3 (or 1b3), which does contribute to center control, development, and the goal of castling.

"Chess is subject to fashion as much as is clothing."

This opinion prevents you from even *attempting* a rigorous analysis to support what you say. After all, if current chess theory is a mere product of fashion, then no one's judgement about the best openings is worth the hair on a dog's back.
anaxagoras 20 ( +1 | -1 )
"Chess is subject to fashion as much as is clothing."

I slightly misread this. I would agree that there are fashions in chess. What I would not agree with should be clear.
olympio 80 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras you still haven't given a convincing argument as to why g4 should be disregarded as a candidate for being proven to be the perfect opening move in the future. only why based on current knowledge it is not considered a perfect move now.

you're also wrong to think that our knowledge now is perfect and that by disregarding that knowledge our moves are automatically inferior.

do you know why chess theory is called chess theory and not chess knowledge? because it is not based on a force search of the entire game tree. it is based on our own principles of positional and tactical chess. according to current theory g4 is an inferior move.

therefore it's presumptuous to assume that g4 is not the perfect opening move. we have no idea what the perfect opening move is now. we just think that e4 is a likely candidate based on our current understanding.
anaxagoras 187 ( +1 | -1 )
"you still haven't given a convincing argument as to why g4 should be disregarded as a candidate for being proven to be the perfect opening move in the future. only why based on current knowledge it is not considered a perfect move now."

You're right that I cannot convince you that chess theory will not undergo a radical conceptual change sometime in the future. If someday chess theorists conclude that 1g4 is a perfect opening move, it will not be some new piece of knowledge added to what we currently know. Rather, it would require a radical conceptual change in chess theory itself. The trouble is that what such a change would be is *unintelligible* according to the chess theory we have and understand today, which will only be abandoned when it ceases to produce *practical* results. Do not make the mistake of thinking chess theory has to have some kind of metaphysical insight in order to be respectable: I judge it to be adequate *now* because it is very, very, very useful.

In other words, to prove to you that 1g4 would not be considered a perfect move by the standards of some future, radically changed chess theory is not a request I can make sense of.

"do you know why chess theory is called chess theory and not chess knowledge? because it is not based on a force search of the entire game tree. it is based on our own principles of positional and tactical chess. according to current theory g4 is an inferior move."

I really can't discuss with you whether any such distinction between 'knowledge' and 'theory' really holds up in the way you suggest. Such a discussion would be much too long. Let me suggest that you think about which would be more useful to you: a complete list of all the perfect lines in chess with further analyzed refutations of innacurate replies to the perfect moves, or, a robust theory of positional chess and tactics.
olympio 114 ( +1 | -1 )
the What do you consider the perfect move? In a mate in 20 position with very few forced moves and therefore a huge game tree that even a computer couldn't calculate it's way through in a reasonable amount of time you might make an extremely strong move, though the perfect move might be some absurd looking queen sacrifice. That's what I'm talking about when I refer to the perfect move.

And the fact that you shy from the idea because "a complete list of all the perfect lines in chess with further analyzed refutations of innacurate replies to the perfect moves" is impractical for you has no consequence on whether or not the move 1. g4 could be the opening move in that great list.

Our theory is geared towards helping human minds play the game. With resources perfectly suited for chess we wouldn't rely on positional concepts at all. Chess wouldn't even be a tactical game, it would be a vast database to memorize. The theory is just that and no more. It has no hope of proving in it's current form that g4 is an inferior opening move in the grand scheme of things.
nimzoredivivus 129 ( +1 | -1 )
the center anaxagoras, you wrote: "If the center squares are
e4, e5, d4 and d5, then 1g4 is not a move that
contributes to the control of those squares." It
seems you are saying that if a pawn move does not
directly occupy or control one of the central
squares, then it is not a candidate for the "perfect"
opening move. First of all, hypermodernism
demolished that viewpoint in the 1920s. One simply
needs to look to Reti and Nimzowitsch to realize that
the center only needs to be controlled. Even the
classical dogmatist Tarrasch conceded that point by
playing hypermodern openings himself! 1g4 can
contribute towards control of the center obliquely.
As for 1g4 presenting itself as a target, doesn't 1e4
do the same thing? In fact it has been argued that
1e4 is a poor opening move for precisely the reason
that it does give black a target! 1e4 is more forcing
than 1g4, but that doesn't mean it is perfect.

In the end each of us is entitled to his opinion. I am
not saying 1g4 is perfect, nor am I saying 1e4 is
perfect. Nor 1Nf3. In fact NO opening move is
perfect. Each one has advantages and
disadvantages. If world class players can win
playing 1b3 (which would seem to fall under your
definition of being less than perfect as it does
nothing with regard to the center), someday they
might chose 1g4. After all, 1b4 shows up on
occasion!
coyotefan 20 ( +1 | -1 )
1.g4 This was one of the favorites fo Claude Bloodgood, the man who had the highest rating in USCF for many years. He also used it in correspondence against many masters.

Claude wrote at least two books on the opening.
soikins 42 ( +1 | -1 )
In chess... ..the best discussions are taken by the board. There is no point to discuss first opening moves like -- "e4 and white wins." Or, "e4 is a bad move,it creates weakness! d4 is better, cause the pawn is protected!". Or "1. e4 e5 and white has a strategically won position." (exagaratted GM Sveshnikov). Anyway, if you want to discuss g4, do it with games, variations and so on. Play a tournament and prove that g4 is either sufficient or insufficent. Otherwise it's all theory and no quantitative data.
peppe_l 75 ( +1 | -1 )
If 1.g4 is a great move And stuff like Owen defense and Latvian gambit are great openings top GMs will adopt in the future (when chess theory develops enough to allow even 2700+ folks to understand these openings), I cant help wondering how amateur players always see something 2800+ Kasparov & other GMs can not see. Were Steinitz, Nimzowitch and Reti amateur players? No, they were not. But what do I know, maybe in 2020 all top GMs will play Pafus Beginners Game :> Perhaps my hopes of revolutionizing chess and becoming the second coming of Steinitz were not unrealistic after all...

(Please note - my post was not targeted against anyone in particular and I hope my poor attempt of sarcasm will not offend anyone...)




nimzoredivivus 69 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l No offense taken. But note, Owen's defense has
been used off and on in the highest levels of chess.
Nimzowitsch had great respect for the Latvian
Gambit and Philidor's Defense. Steinitz played a
wacky gambit in the Vienna Game that no GM would
touch nowadays. GMs often choose openings that
are safe. Keep the draw in hand. Openings that are
risky are not played because the chance for losing is
greater. And losses don't get tournament wins and
that is how money is made. The only thing I'm
saying is that any given opening has advantages
and disadvantages -- some more than others. If
you like the positions resulting from an opening --
play it -- regardless of its reputation.
anaxagoras 142 ( +1 | -1 )
nimzoredivius wrote:
"It seems you are saying that if a pawn move does not directly occupy or control one of the central squares, then it is not a candidate for the "perfect"
opening move. First of all, hypermodernism
demolished that viewpoint in the 1920s. One simply
needs to look to Reti and Nimzowitsch to realize that the center only needs to be controlled."

Let me quote myself now, since I've already brought up your point:

"It may be argued that the king's bishop can be easily developed onto the long h1-a8 diagonal after 1g4, and so 1g4 contributes to center control after all. In fact, it is almost commonplace for white to play Bg2 shortly after 1g4.

The trouble is that 1g4 makes a convenient target for black's queen's bishop, and *destroys* white's hope of castling safely on the kingside. These weaknesses do not afflict 1g3 (or 1b3), which does contribute to center control, development, and the goal of castling."

And olympio wrote:
"Our theory is geared towards helping human minds play the game. With resources perfectly suited for chess we wouldn't rely on positional concepts at all."

You're still presenting the problem of the chicken and the egg. Are all the perfect lines of chess dependent on positional/tactical features for their perfection? Or is positional/tactical theory only useful because it maps onto those perfect lines? It's a line of inquiry that promises no definate answer, which is why I reccomend we revert to what's practical.
tonlesu 26 ( +1 | -1 )
Bloodgood Was not the highest rated in the uscf for years, in fact he was never the highest rated. One year he had the second highest rating (mid 90's) but that was quickly expunged from the record. He was manipulating the ratings inside his prison cell which is a good story all by itself.
peppe_l 172 ( +1 | -1 )
Nimzoredivivus "No offense taken. But note, Owen's defense has
been used off and on in the highest levels of chess.
Nimzowitsch had great respect for the Latvian
Gambit and Philidor's Defense. Steinitz played a
wacky gambit in the Vienna Game that no GM would touch nowadays. GMs often choose openings that are safe. Keep the draw in hand. Openings that are risky are not played because the chance for losing is greater. And losses don't get tournament wins and that is how money is made. The only thing I'm saying is that any given opening has advantages and disadvantages -- some more than others. If you like the positions resulting from an opening -- play it -- regardless of its reputation."

Certainly at amateur level almost any opening is good enough and in many cases playing something "unorthodox" brings better results than copying lines from top GMs. What is the point of playing theory-heavy variations that are way too complex for average non-master to understand? Sicilian Najdorf was a powerful weapon in the hands of Bobby Fischer, but in the hands of average hobby player it is nothing more than a paper tiger (interestingly some players fail to realize Fischer used to win Sicilian Najdorf games with BOTH colours...).

However, IMO you are wrong when you say top GMs play "safe" openings - lines like Sicilian Najdorf and Botvinnik Semi-Slav are far from safe. The reason they never play Latvian gambit is not because it is risky, but because it is dubious and top GMs assume their opponents know how to gain an advantage against it. At our level getting to familiar position that one likes to play often compensates small disadvantage, but not at top level.

nimzoredivivus 21 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l Notice I wrote that "GMs OFTEN choose openings
that are safe." That they don't always is a given.
My point is precisely yours: "...at amateur level
almost any opening is good enough...".
nimzoredivivus 81 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras You wrote: "The trouble is that 1g4 makes a
convenient target for black's queen's bishop, and
*destroys* white's hope of castling safely on the
kingside. These weaknesses do not afflict 1g3 (or
1b3), which does contribute to center control,
development, and the goal of castling." My reply is
that it depends on how you play 1g4. If you play it
as a gambit line, then you want to offer it as a
target. If you play it in the Basman fashion, then
you are using g4 as a bayonet thrust into black's
kingside. In the Grob's, white castling on the
queenside is often played. And sometimes he
doesn't castle at all. Here is a pretty little game by
Grob himself played by mail in 1970:

Grob, H - Steinbrucher, M
1.g4 e5 2.d3 h6 3.h4 d5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Be2 a6 6.Nd2
Nc6 7.Nf1 Bc5 8.Ng3 Be6 9.f4 exf4 10.exf4 Be7
11.c3 d4 12.c4 b5 13.b3 Bd6 14.Bf3 Bd7 15.Nh3
Qe7+ 16.Kf2 O-O 17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 Nh7 19.Bd2
Rae8 20.g6 Nf6 21.Ng5 fxg6 22.Bd5+ Nxd5 23.Rh8+
Kxh8 24.Qh1+ Bh3 25.Qxh3+ Kg8 26.Qh7#

Wouldn't mind a win like that myself.
wizard_of_odd 101 ( +1 | -1 )
Just for Grins 'n Giggles I am by no means an expert, but here is my first ever Grob Attack against a human being (I practiced a few games against my computer to get the basic idea), played only a few minutes ago on InstantChess.Com at 15/15 time controls:

[White "Wizard_of_Odd"]
[Black "John Doe"]
[WhiteElo "1300"]
[BlackElo "1510"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackIFlag "US"]
[WhiteIFlag "US"]

1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 e6 3.c4 d4
4.e3 c6 5.b4 d3 6.Be4 Nf6
7.Nc3 Bxb4 8.Bb2 Na6 9.Qf3 Nc5
10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qxc6+ Kf8
12.Qxa8 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Nce4 14.g5
Nxc3 15.gxf6 gxf6 16.Qxa7 Ne4
17.Rb1 Nc3 18.Rb8 Ne2 19.Nxe2
e5 20.Qa8 dxe2 21.Rxc8 Kg7
22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Qxd8 Kh6 24.Rg1
e4 25.Qxf6+ Kh5 26.Qg5# 1-0

The Grob won this one. Very quirky, but kind of fun to play, if you're playing for fun. I know, I know--this game won't go down in the "best chess" books. ;) I'm guessing my "friend" here dislikes fast time controls even more than I do. Then again that's supposed to be his "fast play" rating...

By the way, Peppe, your "poor attempt" at sarcasm seems to suggest that Grob himself was an amateur. I was understanding that he was supposed to be pretty good--was I wrong?

*Wiz*
peppe_l 6 ( +1 | -1 )
wizard_of_odd Pretty good compared to 2700+ GMs I was talking about? :-)

spurtus 58 ( +1 | -1 )
I personally see no reason why the Grob can ever be suggested to be an unsound opening in any manner at all. After all, it surely transposes into something... doesnt it?

I think I have played it before, it all centres around some pawn exchange with fianchettoed bishop?... where white lures black to take the G pawn?... cant remember exactly, maybe thats b4?

I'm sure that if its ambitions are not realised and thwarted then it will play as well as any other.


But can anybody confirm or tell me what is the thinking behind the game of the Grob? and how is it tackled?


Regards,

spurtus
kasparovfan 41 ( +1 | -1 )
Re: Grob's attack adrianallen writes: "I don't think any of the well known openings are BAD, some arent fashionable or too well researched, but not bad. If you know Grobs attack really well and you are a good player tactically, you will win games playing it."

I think that's true. According to Kasparov, every known theoretical opening is 100% correct. If an opening is not correct, to me that would mean that the other side has a forced win.
peppe_l 38 ( +1 | -1 )
Wait a sec Are you sure Kasparov meant "every known theoretical opening" = every opening that has a name?

Then I guess Caveman Defense 1...f6 2...Kf7 is correct according to Kasparov.

Or was he referring to Sicilian, French, QGD, KID etc...

"If an opening is not correct, to me that would mean that the other side has a forced win."

Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand & co might have different opinion here :-)






soikins 12 ( +1 | -1 )
Grob Today is the 100th birthday of Henry Grob!
A minute of silence in his honour. And good luck in the memorial tournament!
bjordan 18 ( +1 | -1 )
How to win with the Grob! Did anyone notice that in the Skembris game posted by Pebbles, black lost immediately after overlooking a very simple mate in three? 78...dxe3! bummer.