60 ( +1 | -1 ) Rule breaking openingsI want to try this sort of thing out for surprise value if solid openings of this type exist?.... but can anybody assist me with good openings that break the common tactical rules we are taught... for example,
'dont bring your queen out too early' 'dont move a minor piece twice in the first n moves' 'dont bring your rook out via its own file' 'dont play your knight to the side of the board' etc etc...
I know a few openings that fit into these categories, but I'm looking for something really solid and/or surprising.
18 ( +1 | -1 ) Latvian GambitCan lead to some wild lines. One need not (and I suppose should not generally) play it at odds with the rules of thumb you cite, but it can get pretty crazy pretty fast.
55 ( +1 | -1 ) The Tarrasch variation of the French defence is a good example. White develops his QN b1-d2-f3 in order to cover d4, instead of the more natural development of the KN to f3 in one move (the KN is developed to e2 instead). But it is a not a violation of opening principals, as the square d4 could not be sufficiently protected otherwise. Rather what you are looking for is examples of openings where a more important rule justifies the violation of another, in this case, "control the center!"
Don't fall into the trap of thinking there are exceptions in Chess; there are none, there is always a reason for any purported "violation."
But alas its not really playable???, I tried it against my computer last night, and it always seems to play... 4. Nxd4, which is the best move of course. So this would be an example I think of a 'rule' breaking opening, but its not solid enough. But surprise value is great if youve not seen this before... especially if you dont see the mate on move 7. :)
97 ( +1 | -1 ) In line with what anaxagoras said, there are no violations of principles in chess because there are no hard-and-fast principles to begin with. The opening "rules" you cited are merely generalizations of what has been shown to work through experience. Similarly, ideas which seem to violate these principles exist in modern practice because some player has sat down an analyzed a position concretely to determine that a particular idea works. The Najdorf Poisoned Pawn and the French Poisoned Pawn allow the player to grab a pawn early with his queen because analysis shows he doesn't get clobbered in turn if he executes good defense. The Keres Attack works because analysis shows that the classical counterattack to a flank attack is inadequate. 5. Na4 in the Exchange Grunfeld is purely a pragmatic move. All sound enough, but I don't think they would fit into anybody's definition of solid.
9 ( +1 | -1 ) i suggestthe king charles opening or fried fox. or the fred. i'll play you with them if you fancy.
27 ( +1 | -1 ) Latvian Gambit1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 certainly gets out the queen early. Even better 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 the Centre-Counter Defense. An interesting line in Alekheine's Defense is the extremely hypermodern (though possibly dubious) 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ng8 3. d4 Nc6 4. d5 Nb8 looks like fun for anyone who likes Hypermodern openings.
50 ( +1 | -1 ) some more opening lines where the queen comes out early: 1) a strange King's Gambit Declined goes 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7 2) a weird variation of c3 Sicilian is 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5 I don't know much about this. Looks like black prevents an upcoming recapture on d4 by the c-pawn. If 3.d4, then 3...cxd and then maybe the Queen would need to recapture. So, there is probably a better move than 3.d4? I'd like to learn the right way for white to play against 2...Qa5, since I prefer playing c3 against Sicilians.
16 ( +1 | -1 ) St. George's DefenseThis is not particularly good, but it quickly gets people out of their opening books, and I have played enough games as black to be comfortable with it!
1. e4 a6 2. d4 b5 ...
135 ( +1 | -1 ) 1.. g4 maybei try this opning now here are some games of it look there as far as there are on now