Only Chess
10 Aug 08
11 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!1) Posting rapid games as refutation of opening really is not serious 🙂
It really pisses me off that people bring up Karpov - Miles every time someone brings up unorthodox openings. It was one game. What type of problem does 1...a6?! or 1...g5? pose any White player? White can develop sensibly and get a nice edge, or can look for even more if he wishes. Why don't I post a nicer game in rebuttal?
[pgn]
[Event "It (active try as Black, Korch, and that that's the best way to pose problems.
2) Karpov - Miles game is good example to see how effective unorthodox openings may be in hands of skilled player.
3) Unortodoux openings mostly pose psychological problems - opponent may try to refute it by any cost or afraid & play too careful. Also (which is very important) player who uses unortodoux openings has larger experience in playing them than his opponents - this may compensate theoretical disadvantage.
4) Your approach does not take into account individual aspects - some people may like to play unorthodox openings and have good results with them (like Basman and Miles did) - some others like to play them selves solid openings and to play against unorthodox openings. So if someone like to play unorthodox openings and it brings him good results I dont see the reason why should someone try to stop him.
11 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Tell Karpov that! I bet that if there's one game in his career that still smarts (and wasn't against Kasparov) it was that one. You're right though - one game proves nothing. Lets look at some stats from chessbase 9 for players >2100:
It really pisses me off that people bring up Karpov - Miles every time someone brings up unorthodox openings. It was one game. What type of problem does 1...a6?! or 1...g5? pose any White player? White can develop sensibly and get a nice edge, or can look for even more if he wishes...
1. c4 ... black scores 45% and a performance 22 points below ELO.
1. c4 g5!? black has a 47% score and a performance rating 2 points above ELO (n=39)
Does this prove that 1..g5 is objectively superior to the classical responses? No. Does it provide good evidence that it's perfectly playable at a master level and may confer some advantage (if not objective then psychological)? I'd say so. Besides, dangling the possibility of losing to a "joke" opening over your opponents head is always a guilty pleasure.
Pretty soon computers will have it all wrapped up. They will operate at such a high level that humans have no real contribution to chess theory. Will humans still play chess? Sure, because they tacitly acknowledge that the enjoyment in the game comes from playing the man, not from playing the board.
Greenpawn: with those mediation skills you should work for the UN. At least you tried.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by Korch1) Posting Miles-Karpov as justification for playing stupid openings is not serious. 🙂
1) Posting rapid games as refutation of opening really is not serious 🙂
2) Karpov - Miles game is good example to see how effective unorthodox openings may be in hands of skilled player.
3) Unortodoux openings mostly pose psychological problems - opponent may try to refute it by any cost or afraid & play too careful. Also (which is very important) play ...[text shortened]... penings and it brings him good results I dont see the reason why should someone try to stop him.
2) Polgar - Kamsky is a good example to see what happens when you play a crappy opening against someone who's not an idiot.
3) Unorthodox Openings only pose problems to play who allow them to pose problems. Anyone with common sense will play sensibly and gain a better position.
4) I didn't try to stop him. In fact, I hope he played it and lost horribly, and then takes up something worth his time, for instance, anything but 1...g5.
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivan2908LOL, hes probably been reading this and laughing 😉
I had my duel today ! Thanks to all of you for your advice and discussion ! But my opponent (I do not why, didn't expect that), after years of only 1. c4 today somehow switched to 1. e4 ...??! 😲
12 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!1) Posting Miles-Karpov as justification for playing stupid openings is not serious.
1) Posting Miles-Karpov as justification for playing stupid openings is not serious. 🙂
2) Polgar - Kamsky is a good example to see what happens when you play a crappy opening against someone who's not an idiot.
3) Unorthodox Openings only pose problems to play who allow them to pose problems. Anyone with common sense will play sensibly and gain a be lost horribly, and then takes up something worth his time, for instance, anything but 1...g5.
Total nonsense - if you are able to beat World champion using this opening then only ignorant morons can consider this opening as stupid.
2) Polgar - Kamsky is a good example to see what happens when you play a crappy opening against someone who's not an idiot.
According to your "logic" Karpov (and many other strong players) are idiots.
Actually Polgar - Kamsky game was played in Monaco rapid/blind tournament. Karpov - Miles was played in game with classical time control
See the difference?
3) Unorthodox Openings only pose problems to play who allow them to pose problems. Anyone with common sense will play sensibly and gain a better position.
This statement does not match with facts and only shows your chess ignorance and lack of experience. You may also check out databases to see many many games which does not match with your statement.
4) I didn't try to stop him. In fact, I hope he played it and lost horribly, and then takes up something worth his time, for instance, anything but 1...g5.
I really hope he will get good results with it (if he will be brave enough to try it) - despite of chess bores like you.
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by KorchActually it does. Out of the 91 games that continued 1. e4 a6 2. d4 b5 3. Bd3 Bb7 4. Nf3 e6 5. 0-0, White wins an overwhelming 62%, draws 19%, and Black scores the meager remainder. Next time look at the facts. Don't bring up my "ignorance and lack of experience" into this Korch. You know very little about my actual OTB tournament experience. In the two games that I had to face 1...a6 in classical time controls (apparently this really matters to you), neither opponent made it to the second time control.
3) Unorthodox Openings only pose problems to play who allow them to pose problems. Anyone with common sense will play sensibly and gain a better position.
This statement does not match with facts and only shows your chess ignorance and lack of experience. You may also check out databases to see many many games which does not match with your statement.
12 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I`m tired to repeat (in many many previous threads - in Thread 70577 for example ) - Statistic without analysis of these games are only numbers.
Actually it does. Out of the 91 games that continued 1. e4 a6 2. d4 b5 3. Bd3 Bb7 4. Nf3 e6 5. 0-0, White wins an overwhelming 62%, draws 19%, and Black scores the meager remainder. Next time look at the facts. Don't bring up my "ignorance and lack of experience" into this Korch. You know very little about my actual OTB tournament experience. In the two gam ...[text shortened]... (apparently this really matters to you), neither opponent made it to the second time control.
12 Aug 08
2 edits
A reference to one game played by two people is irrelevant. What do you think would happen if Miles and Karpov played a 20 game match with Miles as Black only being allowed to play 1...a6 every game? It would be a bloodbath Korch.
Statistics are there for a reason. If I showed you 5 games where White won 3 and claimed he scored 60%, then it would be meaningless. Nearly 100 games is something completely different. At what magic number or winning percentage do you deem database statistics useful? Does White have to win all 91 games to make a point, or only the vast majority? Or are you too lazy to delve into the actual thought it takes to rationalize statistical data (especially when it contradicts what you're saying) and just want to dismiss it out of hand. For some reason, people who aren't intimately familiar with math (for instance lawyers) want to just dismiss everything as garbage. You're wrong.
I'm done wasting my time with you, I need to go to work. To be frank, I'm not completely sure why you haven't been kicked off the site yet.