Single Comment

I guess the point I was making was that a chess player is generally better off playing a mainstream opening, especially in over the board play. This may be because 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 :-)

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