user-1:   [FEN ""]
  [Date "1997"]
  [White "GM Kogan"]
  [Black "IM Watzkin"]
  [StartPly "8"]

  1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Na3 a6 4. Nxc4 b5 5. Na5 c5 6. b4 cxb4 7. Qc2 

The first four moves are common, but then ... 5. Na5 c5 6. b4 cxb4 7. Qc2 
Why would a strong GM purposely go in to an opening that is so bad that it is already lost? After move 7 Stockfish evaluates the position as -1 or something like that.

user4362: The reason is probably that GM Kogan didn't have the opportunity to consult Stockfish during this game …
If you play unorthodox moves to pose unorthodox problems, sometimes you stumble yourself. And it's not like he played completely stupid moves. He sacrificed a flank pawn and has now a majority in the centre and b2 for his bishop. The knight on a5 at least hinders the normal development Bb7.
Humans don't play like computers. Of course he played risky and aggressive chess, but whether his opponent can punish him for it, is still entirely unclear at this point in the game.
If you take a look at Tal's games you might find that ideas don't have to be sound to be dangerous.

user14224: haha well, I was in inspired mode and played one of the MOST creative games of my career that brought me many compliments from genius creative GM as Benko (that watched the game LIVE) and few others too :-)  Not everybody can appreciate 'creative chess' or rather concrete chess with concrete ideas that created big problems and search for HARMONY (for a pawn gambit!)disturbing opponent's normal DVP, while fighting for big center etc and Josh was also shocked and even after the game didn't really appreciated what happened.. (he was 'too conservative' as a player and I could already feel he will never become a GM...) in one point I was with big edge close to winning, but did the old sin to enjoy the position too much and made a blunder... Greetings from Spain! Arthur www.olalachess.com 

-1: <pre><code>  [FEN ""]
  [Date "1997"]
  [White "GM Kogan"]
  [Black "IM Watzkin"]
  [StartPly "8"]

  1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Na3 a6 4. Nxc4 b5 5. Na5 c5 6. b4 cxb4 7. Qc2 
</code></pre>

<p>The first four moves are common, but then ... 5. Na5 c5 6. b4 cxb4 7. Qc2 </p>

<p>Why would a strong GM purposely go in to an opening that is so bad that it is already lost? After move 7 Stockfish evaluates the position as -1 or something like that.</p>
 4362: <p>The reason is probably that GM Kogan didn't have the opportunity to consult Stockfish during this game …</p>

<p>If you play unorthodox moves to pose unorthodox problems, sometimes you stumble yourself. And it's not like he played completely stupid moves. He sacrificed a flank pawn and has now a majority in the centre and b2 for his bishop. The knight on a5 at least hinders the normal development Bb7.</p>

<p>Humans don't play like computers. Of course he played risky and aggressive chess, but whether his opponent can punish him for it, is still entirely unclear at this point in the game.</p>

<p>If you take a look at Tal's games you might find that ideas don't have to be sound to be dangerous.</p>
 14224: <p>haha well, I was in inspired mode and played one of the MOST creative games of my career that brought me many compliments from genius creative GM as Benko (that watched the game LIVE) and few others too :-)  Not everybody can appreciate 'creative chess' or rather concrete chess with concrete ideas that created big problems and search for HARMONY (for a pawn gambit!)disturbing opponent's normal DVP, while fighting for big center etc and Josh was also shocked and even after the game didn't really appreciated what happened.. (he was 'too conservative' as a player and I could already feel he will never become a GM...) in one point I was with big edge close to winning, but did the old sin to enjoy the position too much and made a blunder... Greetings from Spain! Arthur www.olalachess.com </p>
