Here's an example of an overly primitive and completely twisted chess perspective:

Gambit wrote on 07/21/09 at 20:42:56:

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/21/09 at 16:11:15:


Yep, liking the new name!

Funny thread.

Apparently I was being a coward on those few times I've trotted out the Pirc/Modern with the full intention of playing for the full point. In fact, against 2200+ competition I score better percentage-wise than with the French. It has nothing to do with being afraid of some vaunted gambit, but rather attempting to force the opponent to play for himself from an earlier stage, which makes for better winning chances in tournament play, arguably.

I'll play however I need to play if it produces wins. Cowardice or otherwise.

Gambit wrote on 07/21/09 at 06:17:58:


Rather more likely that he doesnt like the black side of the Ruy or Scotch. If after 1.e4 e5 it was mandatory for white to sack a pawn, I predict that 1...e5 would skyrocket in popularity.

The assertion is correct. Someone who plays 1...g6 most likely is afraid of meeting the King's Gambit, the Goering Gambit, the Danish Gambit, etc. The 1...e5 player would be more prepared to meet the 150 Attack for one simple reason.

You see, the open-position player has to have knowledge of playing against closed positions. However, in my experience, once 1...g6 players have their position opened up, they do not know what to do. Likewise, most people do not know what to do once that precious Bg7 is exchanged. And I speak from experience.

But are you not discussing cowardice? Isn’t what constitutes being a coward a matter for philosophical subjectivism?....you are never going to get a sensible answer that can be agreed up?..
HTH

I've already tried- I think Black's position isn't lost (8...Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 a6, or 9.e4 Nge7 10.Rb5 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd8) but I would not want to defend those positions in a slow game, Black has to find "only moves" to stay alive and White has numerous attacking possibilities.  But I still use it as a surprise weapon in rapidplay and a regular weapon at blitz and casual games- most opponents duck out with harmless replies like 4.g3 (including one amusing instance of 4.g3 Nxe5 5.Nc3 Nxf3#).  That's probably the closest you'll get to genuine "cowardice".

But it all depends on how serious the theoretical flaw is.  For instance I wheeled out the Portuguese/Jadoul Gambit twice at a recent tournament (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4) and even 3.Nf3 Bg4, despite knowing that both are theoretically dubious.  The difference is that the theoretical flaw would be much harder to remember, or stumble into OTB.

At my level I don't use computers to get "ready answers", particularly as I wouldn't be able to remember all of the analysis.  I use them as a tool to assist analysis.