Sorry what is chess asked about the Ware Opening (1. a4. It has a name! Who knew?) in the notes and references the databases where the Ware Opening has a high win ratio with the white pieces.

I am moved by a desire to bloviate, my natural condition, and also wish to point out a few facts for newcomers to serious chess.

A4 is not an unknown move and is in fact often played by absolute beginners. This is where basic chess theory comes in handy. Good chess opening moves either occupy or control the center squares which are e4 and e5 and d4 and d5. A player either occupies those squares directly with a pawn or plays a move to indirectly control those squares (Nf3 or fianchettoing a bishop for example.)

So A4 is basically a patzer's move, thoroughly worthy of contempt. So why the high win ratio for white in the database. Two factors explain this. First, the number of games in the database with A4 are miniscule. I think chess.com lists 25 games beginning with A4. It is too small a sample to be meaningful. If you look at the comparative ratings of the players also, the winning players who made A4 tend to be hundreds of rating points higher than their opponents. I daresay I could beat a 600 rated player and play A4; it would be meaningless.

There is also the Tony Miles factor. In the 1970s, Miles played the St. George's opening (first move a6) against Anatoly Karpov, the world champion, and won! The story relates that they were playing in front of an audience. Karpov played e4. Miles played a6. The audience began to giggle. Karpov played d4. Miles played b5. The audience broke out in audible laughter. Karpov was so furious at Miles and his frivolous moves that he played overaggressive and angry moves--and lost in something like 18 moves. A game in the chess.com database featuring the Ware opening seems to be of this nature; a player beat someone rated hundreds of points above him in a miniature. The black player actually dropped his queen. You can't play foolishly against someone who plays some oddball move.

I know a chess master from Nebraska who traveled to New York City in his early twenties to perfect his game against the strong players there. He is one of the finest players I have ever known personally and plays absolutely beautiful chess. But he was only rated 1500 when he traveled to New York, even though he was a dangerous player than who could beat anyone he played.

After he returned to Omaha, he was much improved and he decided to travel to the World Open to win the C prize. He was not a sandbagger in a traditional sense; he simply had not played rated chess for a year or so. He had this brilliant (?) idea. He decided he would play a4 and h4 and if the opponent responded e5 and d5, he would play his rooks to a3 and h3 and let his opponent snatch them with their bishops. He would take back with the knights so now his knights were developed while his opponent had nothing developed. He figured he would beat his opponent with his bishops, knights and queen before his opponent could bring his rooks into effective action.

It worked terribly. He lost miserably. You cannot as a rule ignore good chess theory and win consistently. Even Miles never played the St. George's opening again to my knowledge--and certainly not against Karpov!

I also have experience with the Ware opening. Years ago, I was hanging out with an attractive young woman and played chess against her. Again and again, she played the Ware's opening! And she won.

All's fair in love and war.

The Old Killer Theorists Club

Super Admins

Coordinators