It's excellent. I used to love playing it back in the day, when I played the Vienna as my preferred opening.
As for DeirdreSkye, yes, lots of people enjoy trolling but the way you do it, you don't make it look good. You don't do humour at all, do you. If you can't find anything better to do than make stupid comments, trying to put other people down, maybe you should end it all.
My e4-e5 Opening: The Obscure Glek
Sort:
Oct 11, 2018
0
#23
There is 10 years between two of the posts... wonder how it was unearthed.
🤔🤔🤔
pfren wrote:
Frankenstein- Dracula is not a good opeing choice for most people at OTB play, because
1. Black gets plenty of positional compensation for the exchange in the main line,
2. Black can kill all the fun (if he wishes) with 5...Be7, when white does not have anything to boast about.>>>
As Pfren says, I can remember struggling as white to win against lines where black plays for a draw. I used to do alright as white against booked-up players in the complex lines but white has to play very accurately. I usually used to make the exchange count. I probably still have some of my old game scores from the early 1990s.
I also played the Moeller Attack and the Max Lange. In practice I did better in the Max Lange than the Moeller. I tried to learn openings a couple of plies at a time, to gradually get the feel of them and I used to work out ways to bale out if I wasn't comfortable. Sometimes in the Moeller, I knew white was winning but couldn't see how to do it in a 90 minute league match. I think the reason was that in the Max Lange, the positional concepts may be easier for me to understand and the weird pawn formations were to my taste whereas black only had to deviate from one of the mainlines I knew in the Moeller and I wasn't good enough/didn't have the knowledge to win. And of course, people avoid the Max Lange because they think they might get a Fried Liver thing, although I think that 3. ...Nf6 in the Italian is probably slightly better for black than 3. ...Bc5. It challenges white to enter complex lines where in theory black is about equal.
In the end I decided that it was all too much to keep up with theory and so I switched away from 1. e4 after experimenting briefly with 1. e4 g3 systems. If I was going to end up playing the Ruy Lopez, I reasoned that I should specialise in something equally positional like 1. c4. Eventually I switched away from 1. c4, via 1. Nf3 for a season, to 1. d4, because wins as white after 1. c4 were taking 50 or 60 moves and draining my energy in tournaments. 1. d4 was better because there was a much higher proportion of wins in under 30 moves.
Oh wow.. Okay you really like the solid fianchetto style systems I see.. mm. This was good to find out.. I do something totally bizarre if I'm white with the four knights.. but this is a nice system for a "dull opening" .. I don't think the four knights is dull at all for white!
Nov 13, 2024
0
#28
Anyone have any links to courses or articles on the Glek system that are helpful? I've been trying it out, but feel I could use more baseline knowledge. I know its not theory heavy, but still want to know more about particular move order, and attacking ideas.
Nov 14, 2024
0
#29
If you're going to just flat out play g3 it's better to play it earlier... the main value of the glek is it allows you to transition from the four knights, which means you can use it in response to the petrov. But if you just want to play it as your mainline opening.... the Nc3 > g3 move order is just better. And that's called the Paulsen / Meisis, though it will transpose with the glek sometimes and plays very similarly. But by delaying Nf3 you can sometimes play Ne2 instead, the main idea in the glek is often to play Kh2 > f4 and launch a kingside attack, but you have to remaneuver the knight on f3 to do this, sometimes even just playing Nd2 > f4 > Nf3 - not really ideal.
Frankestein Dracula is not a stupid name, but the best among all openings