18 Apr 11
Originally posted by EladarIt may be true that from position X - Kasparov can score 100%, I can score 65% and you can score 50% but that doesn't change the actual strength of the position.
Every move has its give and take. That's all I'm saying.
I really don't think which piece one moves at the very beginning of the game is going to make that much of a difference when it comes to wins and losses, especially for those of us who are not GM's.
There may be reasons for choosing to move the piece you choose to move, but that does not make the move inherently better than another move. That's all I'm saying here.
I strongly suggest you reconsider the notion that one move is not inherently better than another. Self deception tends to get punished in chess and I can't imagine it will help you in the long road to deny the objective merits of a move.
I have no problem with players opting for the GP approach, playing moves because they like the positions they get from them, but that is different from denying (to the degree we know) the objective strength of a position.
18 Apr 11
3 edits
"I didn't think the clock started until after the first move!"
No.
It's that moment in all tournaments when the TD stands up and announces.
"Start White's Clock."
Is when the game begins.
Fischer-Spassky Game 2 - Fischer lost on time as White without making a move.
(therefore Bobby Fischer was ambidextrous!!)
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by EladarAt some point and over the long run it is the position. Otherwise we would never stop playing for Scholar's mate.
[b]It may be true that from position X - Kasparov can score 100%, I can score 65% and you can score 50% but that doesn't change the actual strength of the position.
Is it the position that determines the score or is it the opponent?[/b]
Find a GM game where there is a resignation before mate. Play that position from the winning side against Rybka. Do it over and over and eventually you will develop the skill to win from the position regardless that it is Rybka.
As you develop as a player, the amount of "edge" you need to win a game becomes less and less, and thus your room for error in a position goes down.
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by nimzo5check mate wins the game!
At some point and over the long run it is the position. Otherwise we would never stop playing for Scholar's mate.
Find a GM game where there is a resignation before mate. Play that position from the winning side against Rybka. Do it over and over and eventually you will develop the skill to win from the position regardless that it is Rybka.
As you deve ...[text shortened]... ed to win a game becomes less and less, and thus your room for error in a position goes down.
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by nimzo5We stop playing Scholar's mate because our opponents get better! Thanks for a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
At some point and over the long run it is the position. Otherwise we would never stop playing for Scholar's mate.
Find a GM game where there is a resignation before mate. Play that position from the winning side against Rybka. Do it over and over and eventually you will develop the skill to win from the position regardless that it is Rybka.
As you deve ...[text shortened]... ed to win a game becomes less and less, and thus your room for error in a position goes down.
1.e4 will automatically lead to a winning position only after chess has been figured out and 1.e4 was the move that led to it.
18 Apr 11
Here are some interesting stats from RHP's game explorer: W-D-L %
Master Games:
1.e4 35-40-25
1.d4 34-43-22
1.c4 36-44-20
1.b3 39-27-34
1900+
1.e4 42-27-31
1.d4 34-28-38
1.c4 45-27-28
1.b3 54-25-21
There is a huge jump in performance for 1b3 once you only look at 1900's and above. 1.d4 remains about the same, but 1.c4 and 1.e4 both get a sizable jump once you include the lower end of the good players.
1.b3 seems to hold its own.
1.e3 seems to not do too hot.
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by EladarEladar-
We stop playing Scholar's mate because our opponents get better! Thanks for a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Your point was it doesn't matter what moves you make in the opening, I disagree. You stated that positions don't matter as much as who you are playing, which is true but overtime your opponents should average out to some level of objective reality of the quality of a position. You can say that your opponents got "better" but really the position was always suspect you just hadn't been caught out on it yet.
I don't claim that 1. e4 is winning, but to make fun of it by claiming it is in no way superior to 1. e3 is silly and possibly influencing more novice players who don't know better. Likewise with reccomending 1.b3 as an opening Repertoire, if you want to play it because you enjoy it, more power to you, but it doesn't represent good advice to tell someone else to do so.
18 Apr 11
1 edit
Your point was it doesn't matter what moves you make in the opening, I disagree.
No, my point is that there are more than just one good first move.
Likewise with reccomending 1.b3 as an opening Repertoire, if you want to play it because you enjoy it, more power to you, but it doesn't represent good advice to tell someone else to do so.
Look at the RHP stats.
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by EladarI have 17,000 games played with eco a01 (which is essentially 1.b3) by fide players.
Here are some interesting stats from RHP's game explorer: W-D-L %
Master Games:
1.e4 35-40-25
1.d4 34-43-22
1.c4 36-44-20
1.b3 39-27-34
1900+
1.e4 42-27-31
1.d4 34-28-38
1.c4 45-27-28
1.b3 54-25-21
There is a huge jump in performance for 1b3 once you only look at 1900's and above. 1.d4 remains about the same, but 1.c4 and 1.e4 ...[text shortened]... wer end of the good players.
1.b3 seems to hold its own.
1.e3 seems to not do too hot.
wins 37% 6395
draws 26% 4313
losses 37% 6394
That is about 4% worse than 1.e4 scores in my database. So not horrific, but not ideal either- which is about a typical assesment of 1.b3 - it's playable.
Then again I don't trust win stats much as I posted earlier in a different thread.