Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

In response to Michael Howe's comment, which reads in part, '.. . the
game apparently does not love me back.  I'm really quite awful at
orthdodox chess and oh how I wish it was otherwise.'  Well, this stuff is
unorthodox and is a good opening weapon to use against booked up players of
Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Defense, Queen's Gambit, etc.  But I am referring to
players who get by on memorizing lots of variations but do not necessarily
have good chess understanding.  And Michael, you may be happy to know that
Captain Evans, a chess amatuer, created the Evan's Gambit which took the
chess world by storm and is still being played today.  So, perhaps in a
year or two we can see the Howe Gambit or the deadly Howe Attack?  Time
shall tell.

I must confess my favorite lines in ortho-chess are the somewhat dubious gambits--the Evans, the Latvian, the Fried Liver Attack, to name three examples. Anyway, I wish your newsletter the best of luck.

Hello Mr. Trenholme.  I thought a while before choosing the Dunst.  Other
considerations were The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, the Colle, the Orangutang,
and believe it or not, even 1. e4.  But in the end I could not resist the
uncommon Dunst.  You say, that your own 'favorite lines in ortho-chess
are the somewhat dubious gambits--the Evans, the Latvian, the Fried Liver
Attack, to name three examples.'  If you want to send any of those to me
for possible inclusion in UON, please do so.  Others here please feel free
to send unorthodox chess games as well.  Thanks.

In regard the Dunst Opening (1. Nc3) which was discussed briefly in an
earlier comment, Tim Harding has written a short, but informative, article
about it at www.chesscafe.com.  Harding points out that players who want to
get their opponent 'out of the book' like to use it.  He also provides a
few nice White wins and mentions that the Dunst Opening has been a
favourite of the FIDE International Master, Zvonko Mestrovic [from
Sarajevo].  I will be writing a book review on Bill Wall's Dunst Opening
book for UON # 15.  Bill and I are currently writing a chess book about a
different opening system for both white and black.  That system pertains
to: The Hippopotamus, Krazy Kat, and Paris (Amar) openings.  These are
even more removed from mainstream than the Dunst.  But getting back to 1.
Nc3 ... I believe it to be an extremely solid opening.  You can, in many
games, get both your knights on your Kingside (where you castle in this
line), achieve a pawn lock that isolates the Queenside from the Kingside,
and allows for you (as white) to launch a major Kingside attack on
Black (who has castled Kingside in this scene).  Of course, that scenario can
be avoided [as was the case in my game here at CV], but white can still have a 
solid game... just not as much fun.  As a last note, Harding's article mentions a 
file of Dunst games that players can download and play through.

Chess Opening Statistics:
Sam Trenholme stated that he wanted me to lose my Dunst game because he
wanted to 'to prove that you have better winning chances when you play a
more mainstream opening.'  Well, Dunst Statistics already exist.  Here is
what I found at the below mentioned link.

The Dunst only has 38% wins, 37% Loss and 25% draws.  So it appears that
Sam Trenholme's comment is correct, in this case.... and in the case of
many other offbeat openings.

To see opening statisitics based on 500,000 match games since 1991,  
showing % Win White / % Win Black and / % Draws visit:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm

That site also lists whites's best openings, black's best defenses...
based on statistics.

My old copy of Knut Neven's Research Database (2,652,000 games) has 3316
games from 1990 to 2001 (inclusive) beginning with 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 and
lasting at least 10 moves.  White has 1294 wins, 864 draws and 1157 losses
- scoring slightly higher than 52 percent.  I used a ChessBase position
search: one third of those games actually started with the moves 1.e4 d5
2.Nc3

David: 
Thank you for looking into the Dunst stats.  However, your statistics
indicate 52% in favor of White, based on 3315 Dunst games with: White
having 1294 wins, 864 draws and 1157 losses.  But using the same method as
in the statistics table which I sited below, in which draws are counted, we
see 39% wins for white, not 52%.  Thus:

DUNST RESULTS
39% wins, 35% losses, 26% draws  (using David's numbers)
38% wins, 37% losses, 25% draws  (using the table sited in my previous
comment)

Very close results.

I am saying that (over 100 games) White can expect to score 52 points and
Black 48 points.  What I found interesting was the large number of games
that started with 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3, where White avoided the main lines of the
Center Counter (Scandinavian) Defence.

The problem with the Dunst Opening is 1... d5 followed by 2... d4, forcing white to move a piece twice. The problem with 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 is that White now can not do the Queen's gambit. These disadvantages may be offset by getting black out of his book, and playing a line where one knows the traps far better than the other player.

As a chess variants enthuiast, I also see the appeal of having an offbeat opening result in something that doesn't quite feel like chess. Ralph Betza once pointed out that if you want FIDE (modern western) chess to feel like a chess variant, play the Boden-Kieseritzky gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.O-O).

The way I see it, anything that is reasonable in the first ten moves of chess has already been analyzed and studied by someone. FIDE Chess is a very well-trodden area, where interesting novelties are hard to find. However, there are literally an infinite number of chess variants (Chess is probably more malleable than any other abstract game) and very few of the variants have been explored at all. As just one tiny example, the variant that I just published (shameless plug) shares many pattens with FIDE chess openings, but is a almost completely uncharted territory for people looking for new ground to explore.

Just my two cents.

- Sam

Sam Trenholme wrote, in part: ' . . . modern chess matches are under
shorter time controls than older chess games, making it so that one is
better off having a great deal of memorized opening lines so as to use
less time in the first moves of a chess game. Or it could be that one gets
a better position playing a mainstream line.' -ST
GKG Reply: This opening memorization is a sword that cuts both ways in
over-the-board play.  When you play a main line, your opponent responds
main line.  Book Knowledge 1 vs. Book Knowledge 2.  I once played against
a young kid's Queen's Gambit.  After 10 moves I thought, my gosh, this
kid is great.  Every move perfect 'book.'  But then we left the book and
the kid couldn't play the position at all.  I wiped him out, and knew if I
had played an off-beat opening I'd have had him from move 1 or 2. 

With e-mail games uncommon openings lose much of their luster because the
opponent can research them and study the off-beat positions in great depth
(not like over-the-board).

Sam wrote: 'The problem with the Dunst Opening [1.Nc3] is 1... d5
followed by 2... d4, forcing white to move a piece twice. 
GKG Response: And yet this is the line I love in the Dunst.  And I will
move that knight yet a third time.  Great.  I get 2 knights in front of my
castled king.  We get a great opening imbalance.  You say white moved his
knight twice... I say it doesn't matter in the Dunst.  Dunst players want
this.

Sam wrote: The problem with 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 is that White now can not do
the Queen's gambit.
GKG: But White does not want to do a Qeeen's Gambit.  So we could, using
the same reasoning say, 'The problem with 1. e4 is that White can't do a
Queen's Gambit.  It is a moot point.

Sam wrote: These disadvantages may be offset by getting black out of his
book, and playing a line where one knows the traps far better than the
other player.
GKG response: I see no disadvantages in playing the Dunst as white. But
agree with the out of the book part.

Sam wrote: Ralph Betza once pointed out that if you want FIDE (modern
western) chess to feel like a chess variant, play the Boden-Kieseritzky
gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.O-O).
GKG: But there is strong chance this won't work.  Here is why.  After 1.
e4 you need black to play e5.  But in tournaments and matches we often see
1. ... c5 (Sicilian).  And, if we don't see that we can see French
Defense, Pirc/Modern, Caro Kahn, Scandinavian Defense, Owen's Defense,
etc.  But with a Dunst, you get your 1. Nc3 in and could care less what
black does. You, as white, are where you want to be instantly... of
course, there is a long battle ahead.

Sam wrote: The way I see it, anything that is reasonable in the first ten
moves of chess has already been analyzed and studied by someone. FIDE
Chess is a very well-trodden area, where interesting novelties are hard to
find.
GKG response.  Agreed.  However, most humans do not walk around with all
this knowledge.  So, in over the board play you can take many by surprise.
 One man's Dunst is another man's novelty, so to speak.  Or 1. g4 (Grob)
has likely never been seen by many tournament players just starting out.

Sam wrote: However, there are literally an infinite number of chess
variants (Chess is probably more malleable than any other abstract game)
and very few of the variants have been explored at all. As just one tiny
example, the variant that I just published (shameless plug) shares many
pattens with FIDE chess openings, but is a almost completely uncharted
territory for people looking for new ground to explore.
GKG response: Agreed.

Sam wrote: You're the first person I have known to like the Dunst; I have
always read that it is weak.
GKG response: There are lots of Dunst players.  Bill Wall is one of them
and his book lists games of many Dunst players.  Revern Tim Sawyer (author
of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit books) also plays the Dunst frequently.  

Sam wrote:  I researched it a little since Zillions likes opening with the
Dunst....
GKG response: I was very skeptical of this comment; But I looked into it
before responding and you are correct. Out of 11 games Zillions, to my
surprise, played 1. Nc3 4 times, 1. Nf3 6 times, and 1. d4 once.  Not one
1. e4 or 1. c4.  Unbelievable.  I was expecting to see all e4, d4, and c4
openings.  Maybe an 1. f4.  But on a related note... I play my Dunst as
follows: 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 ...; Zillions plays his Dunst: 
1. Nc3 d5 2. d4....  That second move aspect makes a tremendous difference
in the game.  In my case I allow (encourage) black to play 2 ... dxe4 or 2.
... d4 (driving the knight to e2).  Zillion's method blocks black's
d-pawn, preserving the Knight on c3.  I'll have to see if that line is in
Wall's book, I imagine it is.  I know that, presently, I don't care for the Zillion's
variation at all.... but maybe if I look into it I will find
something good.  I'll check it out.

In Bill Wall's '1. Nc3 Dunst Opening' (c) 1995 by Chess Enterprises,
there is no mention of 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 as played by Zillions.  After 1.
Nc3 d5, then 2. e4 is the most common continuation.  So, what is Zillions
playing?  After 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bg5 we would have the beginnings of
a Richter-Veresov Attack.  But, I tried 2. ... Nf6 against Zillions and saw
the unexpected 3. Qd3 !?  Very strange.  So, my conclusion here is that
Zillions is not playing a Dunst, nor a transposed Richter-Veresov Attack. 
It is, as far as I can tell, playing an un-named opening.... a novelty. 


Note: The 1. Nc3 opening has many names.  The name Dunst is from New York
Master, Ted Dunst (1907 - 1985) who analyzed and played 1. Nc3 with much
success.  Dirk Van Geet, an International Master also plays 1. Nc3 and so
the opening is also known as Van Geet's Opening. And there are other
names too. As for 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4, perhaps we should call that the
Zillion's Dunst?