# Chess: glee v Mosier comments

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264>\
**Category:** The Game Room\
**Created:** [December 6, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264 "2011-12-06T16:07:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 25

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264/25 "2011-12-08T02:04:19Z")

</div>

> [@Chess: glee v Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier/605116/9):
>
> As a minor hijack, all these various openings and defences makes me wonder whether the analysis available with modern computing power has been able to prove any longstanding openings/defenses as being suboptimal?

Well, this is considered suboptimal (by White):

1. f3 e5
2. g4 Qh4#

I don’t think you could call it a longstanding opening, though :).

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264)._