Originally posted by buffalobillThere are three borderline class A/expert players at my club. They all crush it with ease 😕
I have a terrific success rate with the Petrov. Just don't play it against +2000s unless you really know it well.
Oddly enough, they also play lines against my french which are deemed inferior by John Watson in his book Play the French, but they still win 2/3.
Originally posted by z00t
Play everything this is a CC site so you can follow the first few book lines. I'm tired of people who only play one opening, learn how to play :-
- Sharp attacking lines
- Boring positional lines
- Win a pawn and then convert the win Capablanca style.
- Play mickey mouse openings like the (ahem avoid mentioning them)
As a beginner I've been advised to stick to one opening as to become better at chess in a logical way. By the way: what's Capablance style?
and what do you mean by mickey mouse openings?
Originally posted by Meneer DriesI don't know what mickey mouse openings are... but capablanca was a chess player that had a very interesting style.
Originally posted by z00t
[b]Play everything this is a CC site so you can follow the first few book lines. I'm tired of people who only play one opening, learn how to play :-
- Sharp attacking lines
- Boring positional lines
- Win a pawn and then convert the win Capablanca style.
- Play mickey mouse openings like the (ahem avoid mentioning ...[text shortened]... cal way. By the way: what's Capablance style?
and what do you mean by mickey mouse openings?
He'd try to get some material advantage (almost like a computer), and then trade pieces for the rest of the game until it was K v. K and P.
He's renowned for his very simple style, rarely blundering, but rarely dominating out of the opening or midgame. He'd go up a pawn and win off it. In fact, analysis has suggested that he may be the best chess player of all time (I personally disagree).
Originally posted by ih8sensI often play with the same strategy. Go up a pawn and trade into the endgame. Someone once accused me with the declarative, "You're not playing chess. This is boring as hell." I told him to do more endgame study.
I don't know what mickey mouse openings are... but capablanca was a chess player that had a very interesting style.
He'd try to get some material advantage (almost like a computer), and then trade pieces for the rest of the game until it was K v. K and P.
He's renowned for his very simple style, rarely blundering, but rarely dominating out of the openi ...[text shortened]... ysis has suggested that he may be the best chess player of all time (I personally disagree).
Capablanca was a world champion who said "In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame."
Mickey Mouse openings are those that are not favoured by top players but from a club players perspective these include the scholars mate/fools mate etc Newbies often move the queen around like its the only piece on the board.
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineI'm gonna try it in my non member tournament games. I'm normally the gambit a pawn and try to convert it into a piece later. .. tends to not work.
I often play with the same strategy. Go up a pawn and trade into the endgame. Someone once accused me with the declarative, "You're not playing chess. This is boring as hell." I told him to do more endgame study.
This goes back to my fianchetto theory. If you use your bishops to pressure the center, rather than control it, overpowering a single pawn sometimes becomes possible. I'm gonna do some research on it.
I was looking through Rybka's opening book on the Najdorf and it's very impressive. There are 33,500 engine games alone. Even by the 25th move, the main choices still have over a thousand games. What's a bit surprising is that the main line Najdorf scores quite poorly for Black.
For example:
1. e4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 2.
Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 3. d4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} cxd4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Nxd4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 5. Nc3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} a6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 6. Be3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e5 {[%emt 0:00:00]}
7. Nb3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Be7 8. f3 Be6 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5 12.
g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4 17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+
19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3 Ne5 22. h4
22. h4 scores 76% for White from a pool of 1,500 games. The saddest part is that these were all green variations. (green variations are those OKd by the engine author for engine play)
Of course, this is only one variation and there are some that score a bit better, for example g6 instead of a5. However, overall, the 9. ...O-O variations score pretty badly. 9. ...h5 though scores fairly well and is also a green variation. Who would have thought that the main line Najdorf is in trouble? lol
Objectively what is the best? I took a look at my database's statistics and the move that scores best is 1. ... h6 with 41.6%, then Nh6 with 43.7%, and then c5 with 52%, e5 languishes in 10th place on 55.7%. But if you ignore lines which have been played less than 50 times the Sicilian goes into first place. The basic problem with the King's pawn games is that they really have been analysed to death, in the case of the Italian game masters have been analysing it for over half a millenium. The basic difficulty in the king's pawn game is that the e-pawn has no natural protection, so both players e-pawns are vulnerable, this vulnerability of a central pawn is missing for black in the Sicilian. In practical terms black seems to do best with it - so objectively it is the best. However Korch has it right - you need to play what you most feel comfortable with. I'd add the caveat that you need to spend some time playing the king's pawn game because understanding, or at least being able to cope with, the king's pawn games is important to understanding the other defences, especially the Sicilians with an eventual e7-e5.
The Rybka book may be composed of engine games, but the variations were selected by a very strong human. GMs play the same variations and similar trends appear (such as h5 scoring better than O-O), but there just aren't as many GM games to judge from. In any case, thousands of engine games are pretty reliable in highly tactical openings like the Sicilian. They may not predict how you or I do with the opening, but they aren't too far off from the true evaluation of the position. The same cannot be said about engine reliability in more positional openings like the French or Caro-Kann. (Rybka insists on playing 7... Qb6 in the French variation I mentioned before. It thinks trading the Knight for the pawns is a good deal and yet in actual games, it almost always loses as Black.)
BTW: The CK scores better than any other opening in engine games and Super-GM games. Maybe I haven't considered it thoroughly enough. Could the CK be the best move after all? (In the sense that whatever White does, Black can get a comfortable game, not in the sense that Black will win many games.)
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell, I don't think a variation that scores better is necessarily better on an objective level. It may score just because the appropriate response hasn't been found yet. Sometimes a line can score horribly and then all of the sudden score very well with a new move. I think discovering the best move involves more than looking at a database. However, I still want to TRY to find the best move.
Objectively what is the best? I took a look at my database's statistics and the move that scores best is 1. ... h6 with 41.6%, then Nh6 with 43.7%, and then c5 with 52%, e5 languishes in 10th place on 55.7%. But if you ignore lines which have been played less than 50 times the Sicilian goes into first place. The basic problem with the King's pawn game ...[text shortened]... tant to understanding the other defences, especially the Sicilians with an eventual e7-e5.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerBased on your logic, the best response to 1.e4 gives you the best drawing chances. Seeing as there are billions of black responses that are losing, this question is still just as valid...😉
Since chess is almost certainly a forced draw with "best" play, it logically follows that there is no "objectively best" defense to 1 e4. But if there is, it's 1...e5. 🙂
Originally posted by zebanoYou missed a tactic at the beginning. 17.b3 lost the momentum...
I have played one serious 1. d4 game which went well Game 3286062 but I accepted the draw to reduce gameload.
17.Nxe6 ..Qxe6 (or 18.Bg6+)
18.b3 N(any)
19.Qxc7
Black can win his pawn back after 18..Na5 19..Nxb3 but that is a poisoned pawn if ever i saw one. 18..Nxe3 is possible too i suppose, but it doesn't look worth it to me...
Originally posted by exigentskyI know what you are saying, but really what do you mean on an objective level - objectively any given position is won, lost or drawn and any move either maintains that state of affairs or changes the result for the worse. Since we haven't solved chess yet it's difficult to claim that one indicator of which move is better than another, since one "drawing move" can generate more problems for an opponent than another move that doesn't change the result. Within the constraint that it shouldn't change the result you can find any number of reasons to say one move is better than another.
Well, I don't think a variation that scores better is necessarily better on an objective level. It may score just because the appropriate response hasn't been found yet. Sometimes a line can score horribly and then all of the sudden score very well with a new move. I think discovering the best move involves more than looking at a database. However, I still want to TRY to find the best move.
Suppose chess was solved with tablebases, an engine would play perfectly in the sense that it would never lose but since one drawing move is as good as another it could be relatively easy to draw against which isn't what you are looking for in an engine. If chess isn't a draw and white's opening advantage is enough to win with perfect play then it would always win as white and defend pityfully as black since one losing move is as good as another. You'd have to find some criterion for selecting moves which are more likely to win so you'd need an algorithm to assess what is going to be harder for a human, which is essentially a subjective thing.
I think that you are right in general about databases, it is possible to follow a move that scores 70% and then find that the move that your opponent makes scores 30%.