I personally DON'T like the sicillian move!!!!!

Originally posted by Natural Science
Most chess theorists agree that all reputable lines in all major openings lead to some sort of advantage for White, however small it may be. So for White to come out of the opening with only equality, would mean he has gone wrong somewhere. Many experts do believe that Black does equalize eventually, and the game simplifies down to a draw. Others ...[text shortened]... e, but perfect play by Black would mean that that small edge is not significant enough for win.

Yes,it is true that most experts believe white should emerge out of the opening with a small advantage.But!How do they come to this conclusion?Simple,they look at top level games,played in top level tourneys and leagues.And what do they see?White scores better than black.But that's,in my opinion,where they go wrong.Did you ever stop to think why this is so?I believe it is because black doesn't even try to win!Keep in mind,we're talking top level tourneys here.It is the common policy of that kind of players to try to win as white and draw as black.And indeed,if you achieve this you will win many tourneys,but only because everyone else does it too.I'm strongly convinced that we would see a very different picture if everyone played for a win all the time,regardless of which color they're playing.We would see many new exciting ideas for the black side,all aimed to win,not just draw!
I believe that black can draw level in 10-15 moves (the opening) and fight to win.
BLACK IS OK!

Sir Lot.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
Yes,it is true that most experts believe white should emerge out of the opening with a small advantage.But!How do they come to this conclusion?Simple,they look at top level games,played in top level tourneys and leagues.And what do they see?White scores better than black.But that's,in my opinion,where they go wrong.Did you ever stop to think why this is ...[text shortened]... at black can draw level in 10-15 moves (the opening) and fight to win.
BLACK IS OK!

Sir Lot.

I actually read somewhere that the goal most grandmasters have in tournaments isn't necessarily to win with White and draw with Black, but to come away with a plus score with White and at least an equal score with Black. That actually makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.

And while you may be right that a lot of times Black players are content to draw and often don't make a serious attempt at winning (I see you read Adorjan's "Black is OK", too), you must remember that when playing against an opponent who rarely goes wrong, in order to try for a win you have to take certain calculated risks. And many times these risks could technically be considered mistakes, because there is a way for the opponenet to refute them, whether he finds it or not. Let's also not forget that White still has the advantage of going first. If two players of equal skill played with roughly the same level of aggressiveness, wouldn't White's first move advantage still benefit him?

Originally posted by Natural Science
I actually read somewhere that the goal most grandmasters have in tournaments isn't necessarily to win with White and draw with Black, but to come away with a plus score with White and at least an equal score with Black. That actually makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.

And while you may be right that a lot of times Black players ar ...[text shortened]... hly the same level of aggressiveness, wouldn't White's first move advantage still benefit him?

Yes,I read Adorjan's books(see my posts about this).I was very happy to find there's such a strong player also believing in black's winning chances.I don't see the difference between my 'win with white,draw with black' and your 'plus score with white,at least equal as black'.Please explain.
Yes,you have to take risks in order to win as black,it's no different as white for that matter.That's chess,you must risk losing if you wanna win.I can understand the top players not taking too many risks,they need good scores to make a living.But that's exactly my point!It is because they don't take risks as black that everyone is led to believe white is better.I will let Adorjan speak for play on the highest level,I'm not good enough to state opinions on that.I'll speak for play on my level,and I'm convinced that black is,indeed,OK! 🙂
About the advantage of going first,well,someone once said that white is in zugzwang 😉 Seriously,I don't think it's much of an advantage.White gets to throw the first punch,black defends and counterpunches.No problem 😀

Sir Lot.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
Yes,it is true that most experts believe white should emerge out of the opening with a small advantage.But!How do they come to this conclusion?Simple,they look at top level games,played in top level tourneys and leagues.And what do they see?White scores better than black.But that's,in my opinion,where they go wrong.Did you ever stop to think why this is ...[text shortened]... at black can draw level in 10-15 moves (the opening) and fight to win.
BLACK IS OK!

Sir Lot.

you say "White scores better than black.But that's,in my opinion,where they go wrong.Did you ever stop to think why this is so?I believe it is because black doesn't even try to win!"

think about it...why do you think they might only try to draw as black?!!
then you'll see you are completely missing the point!

white truly does have (a small) advantage! If Fritz is pitted against himself over and over, white wins more often!!! Your theory, while slightly interesting, is flawed.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
you say "White scores better than black.But that's,in my opinion,where they go wrong.Did you ever stop to think why this is so?I believe it is because black doesn't even try to win!"

think about it...why do you think they might only try to draw as black?!!
then you'll see you are completely missing the point!

white truly does have (a small) a ...[text shortened]... elf over and over, white wins more often!!! Your theory, while slightly interesting, is flawed.

I was talking about top level play and it's a fact that they don't play for a win as black.If they don't need to win,they will settle for a draw anytime.With a few exceptions like Morozevich and Shirov,they always play to win.
I'm not making this up,it are their own words.
I have thought about this,many times,and I don't see how I miss the point.Show me!
And please,let fritz out of this discussion.If you let fritz analyse 1.e4,e5 it gives a small plus for white.Hahaaa,very funny.
You say my theory is flawed.Ok,provide some proof then.

Sir Lot.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
I was talking about top level play and it's a fact that they don't play for a win as black.If they don't need to win,they will settle for a draw anytime.With a few exceptions like Morozevich and Shirov,they always play to win.
I'm not making this up,it are their own words.
I have thought about this,many times,and I don't see how I miss the point.S ...[text shortened]... or white.Hahaaa,very funny.
You say my theory is flawed.Ok,provide some proof then.

Sir Lot.

I know they do that at top level chess! I was not disputing that!
I was asking you to think about WHY they would play that way as BLACK?! reread my post and you'll get my point

Originally posted by hypermo2001
I know they do that at top level chess! I was not disputing that!
I was asking you to think about WHY they would play that way as BLACK?! reread my post and you'll get my point

Ok,I got your point.And I already stated the opposite.So I say that you are completely missing the point.We clearly have opposite views on the matter.You go mainstream,I go against it.

One thing I would like to add though,besides the whole matter.If you can't be bothered explaining what you mean,why join the discussion?
I stated my views with clear explanations,all you did is say that I'm wrong,and not even that clear.That's not how we discuss things here in little Belgium.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
Ok,I got your point.And I already stated the opposite.So I say that you are completely missing the point.We clearly have opposite views on the matter.You go mainstream,I go against it.

One thing I would like to add though,besides the whole matter.If you can't be bothered explaining what you mean,why join the discussion?
I stated my views with clear ...[text shortened]... hat I'm wrong,and not even that clear.That's not how we discuss things here in little Belgium.

I CAN explain my ideas...I just thought it would be a good learning/logical/academic exercise for you to get it on your own by READING.
it's the teacher in me!

Originally posted by hypermo2001
I CAN explain my ideas...I just thought it would be a good learning/logical/academic exercise for you to get it on your own by READING.
it's the teacher in me!

I'm was not saying you can't,I was asking you to do it.That's how it's done,you explain your ideas,as I did.But ok,for once I'll go with your teaching thing.I assume you mean that they don't play for a win because white is better and not vice versa as I stated?Well,I don't agree,obviously.I already explained myself in my previous posts.
Now,if you would be so kind to explain your views and try to get some of your logical thinking in my head we could continue our discussion.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
I'm was not saying you can't,I was asking you to do it.That's how it's done,you explain your ideas,as I did.But ok,for once I'll go with your teaching thing.I assume you mean that they don't play for a win because white is better and not vice versa as I stated?Well,I don't agree,obviously.I already explained myself in my previous posts.
Now,if yo ...[text shortened]... views and try to get some of your logical thinking in my head we could continue our discussion.

ok...my point is simple. You often hear of masters who will play for the win as white and play for a draw as black. Why do we NEVER hear of the opposite: "play for a win as black and play for a draw as white"??
The answer is obvious; we are not in a situation of perfect equality between the two sides. The side in which they play only for a draw is the side which is slightly at a disadvantage i.e. black is at a slight disadvantage or WHITE has a slight advantage!

Originally posted by hypermo2001
ok...my point is simple. You often hear of masters who will play for the win as white and play for a draw as black. Why do we NEVER hear of the opposite: "play for a win as black and play for a draw as white"??
The answer is obvious; we are not in a situation of perfect equality between the two sides. The side in which they play only for a draw is ...[text shortened]... ightly at a disadvantage i.e. black is at a slight disadvantage or WHITE has a slight advantage!

Yes,that is the general idea.Almost everyone believes this to be true.We are led to believe so,as I like to think.There are top players,however,that do play for a win as black,already mentioned are Adorjan,Morozevich and Shirov,I'm sure there are others.So it's not like we NEVER hear of black trying to win.Of course,nobody plays for a draw as white,unless it's enough to win a tourney or something,it would be ridiculous,just as it is ridiculous to play for a draw as black,IMO.The problem I have with your line of thought is that you do not consider any proof on the board.You just go by what the 'experts' say and do."They don't play for a win because they have a disadvantage".I think different,I look at the board and I see no proof of this.You talk about logical thinking,but it seems to me like you didn't think at all,but followed others,better players,views.
Consider this,if white does have a slight advantage but black can overcome this when he plays well,this we already agreed upon,right(perfect game is drawn)?Well,then where is the advantage?
Black is OK! 🙂

Sir Lot.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
Yes,that is the general idea.Almost everyone believes this to be true.We are led to believe so,as I like to think.There are top players,however,that do play for a win as black,already mentioned are Adorjan,Morozevich and Shirov,I'm sure there are others.So it's not like we NEVER hear of black trying to win.Of course,nobody plays for a draw as white,unl ...[text shortened]... upon,right(perfect game is drawn)?Well,then where is the advantage?
Black is OK! 🙂

Sir Lot.

well...I guess you need to reconsider my other evidence. Fritz against itself will win more with white. Case closed.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
well...I guess you need to reconsider my other evidence. Fritz against itself will win more with white. Case closed.

why would this be convincing? Programs have been developed based on the same belief.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
well...I guess you need to reconsider my other evidence. Fritz against itself will win more with white. Case closed.

LOL

Originally posted by Mephisto2
why would this be convincing? Programs have been developed based on the same belief.

hey, if you are going to argue in circles we'll get no where.

I don't believe that belief is reflected if we pit it against itself.

You can argue that there is a little green man behind you which always vanishes when you look for it and I won't be able to talk you out of it.

We need to have a few axioms.