Originally posted by bill718if black gets in ...c5 he or she has practically equalised and is good to go. Like the dude above said, its easy to play the CK compared to other defences like the dragon or the najdorf or even the 1...e5 openings, but then again it depends on your temperament for it can be a little passive which is not to everyones taste. I like it because i play the semi slav and the colle and it leads to similar positions because of the pawn structure.
I agree 100%. I've played over many of Karpov's Caro-Kann games, and they were a study in tactical and positional brillance. What these math wizards are not seeing is the Caro-Kann is a very solid, though slow developing opening that gives black good chances in the middle and end game, where most games are won or lost.
Originally posted by chaamjamalIt took me a while to read through it. There are four items that make me uncomfortable with the conclusions:
The paper cited below compares 1...c6 to 1...c5 after 1. e5. I was a shocked at the dismal performance of 1...c6. Your comments appreciated.
https://www.academia.edu/6217844/A_METHOD_FOR_COMPARING_CHESS_OPENINGS
1) The 22 ply limit is a forced horizon effect, designed to mimic the author's idea on a GM's vision. I think this is a flaw, as the limit favors tactical openings over strategic ones.
2) An opening book was used, in order to lead the engines down the path of particular openings. I could not find the details of this book, but I consider the use to be potentially questionable.
3) Since we can be confident that the computers did not exhaust every possible move at a 22 ply limit, some time control must have been used, but I can't find a reference to it. My concern here is similar to #1 above, except that #1 is about "depth", but my concern here is "width"- or perhaps I should say "breadth".
4) I also have concerns that only one engine was used (two variants, but the variation is based on use of hardware). Houdini 3 may have been the best at the time of the study, but the differences among top competitors is always slight, and they each excel in different aspects. I would have been more comfortable if multiple engines had been used, to provide some type of control and eliminate the engine programming as a bias.
It's a very interesting read, though!
Originally posted by MarinkatombI see where you're coming from, but I am with Wolfgang59 in that I do not think it is a proof.
Black can't have a forced win because however that win started, white can always start with a move that prevents it because white goes first.
In the absence of definitive proof, we could also argue the the starting position is a "strategic zugzwang" where white's first move, no matter what it is, involves a concession of some king that black can exploit- and I don't even want to think about knights moving back and forth, as it is a GP34 column waiting to happen.
I highly doubt that to be the case, but I can't disprove it at this point.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisIt seems to me yours is an emotional statement, i.e., you don't like the C-K not because you think it is an inferior defence for Black but for other reasons. Otherwise you would win against it - which is not the case😉
The CK is rubbish, the article is rubbish, the only good thing about the thread are the posts by caissa, GP SW PL et al.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisIf Jimi Hendrix were alive he would play the Caro Kann and it would rock and you would be sowwy that you said bad things against it.
The CK is rubbish, the article is rubbish, the only good thing about the thread are the posts by caissa, GP SW PL et al.
Originally posted by ptriple42Emotional my ass, I win far more than I lose against the CK.
It seems to me yours is an emotional statement, i.e., you don't like the C-K not because you think it is an inferior defence for Black but for other reasons. Otherwise you would win against it - which is not the case😉
GM Larry Christiansen played a game against the computer. He picked the Caro Kann. About 15 moves in he claimed correctly that white is simply lost strategically. He went on to say that computer have a huge lack at strategy.
So for such a opening how could a computer fair?
Hi Robbie.
Hendrix played the Caro Kann? No way.
Listen to the words of Purple Haze.
'Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
'Scuse me while I kiss this guy'.
He is describing a game of Chess.
The last line is officially ''Scuse me while I kiss the sky'.
But Jimi often sang the 'Kiss this guy' line.
To 'kiss the guy' is a saying you will hear down the Bethnal Green
Chess Club any night of the week and it actually means:
'....to put your opponent in check.'
Also Hendric was left-handed, the Caro Kann is a Queenside right-handed opening.
Hendrix played 1...e5 v 1. e4.
The Caro Kann is an opening one would normally associate with Boys Bands
or Justin Timberlake.
Originally posted by 1shooterThe engines both had identical parameters, each opening was assessed on 300 games (from memory). I'm sceptical about his method for two reasons.
Paper says it was all chess engines playing against engines.
Who knows what engines parameters ect.
It looks like the guy is a chess player but more important this looks like some sort of college work.
Chess engines can do some cool things. However I am pretty sure you can't use once in a tournament or game yourself. Kann players normally go for the endgame slow and methodical. Chess engines are very well adapt at this. Humans not so much.
He assumes perfect play and then assigns victory/draw/defeat probabilities. The problem is that with perfect play openings are either refuted or drawn. Chess is deterministic in that sense, with "perfect" play there is no probability there is only a certain outcome. So there's already a contradiction in what he's doing.
The other problem is more basic, since the engines don't play perfectly all he can do is measure the probability that an engine will drift into a lost position from a given opening. This doesn't tell you about the intrinsic value of the opening so much as the engines ability to play it. So he's measuring the wrong thing.
Since he did 300 runs and got near 50% for all the openings the only conclusion you can draw is that none of the openings are refuted, which we already knew. As a guide as to what to do against another human this stuff is not helpful.
Originally posted by greenpawn34LOL, no way Jimi would have played 1...e5, too symmetrical, jimi would have picked up the c pawn, placed it upon c6 and them set the chessboard on fire with some lighter fluid in a sacrificial offering to caissa! Only Madonna fans play the Sicilian!
Hi Robbie.
Hendrix played the Caro Kann? No way.
Listen to the words of Purple Haze.
'Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
'Scuse me while I kiss this guy'.
He is describing a game of Chess.
The last line is officially ''Scuse me while I kiss the sky'.
But Jimi of ...[text shortened]...
The Caro Kann is an opening one would normally associate with Boys Bands
or Justin Timberlake.
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt is feasible that whatever move white plays first
Black can't have a forced win because however that win started, white can always start with a move that prevents it because white goes first.
there is a forced win for black from that position.
Your argument (if it were true) could also be used to
show there is no forced win for white - since after white's
first move black can always start with a move that prevents it
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYeah, what he said!
The engines both had identical parameters, each opening was assessed on 300 games (from memory). I'm sceptical about his method for two reasons.
He assumes perfect play and then assigns victory/draw/defeat probabilities. The problem is that with perfect play openings are either refuted or drawn. Chess is deterministic in that sense, with "perfect" ...[text shortened]... h we already knew. As a guide as to what to do against another human this stuff is not helpful.
Originally posted by greenpawn34My impression and experience with Caro Kann players has been very different. They always seem to be seasoned, fundamentally strong players who have the attitude of " Screw the latest theory. I am strong, fundamentally sound, and patient, and I will grind you down. Go ahead and thrash around a bit and make noise, because in the end you have no hope."
The Caro Kann is an opening one would normally associate with Boys Bands
or Justin Timberlake.[/b]
I have never played the Caro Kann, but I respect the heck out of the ones who do, because the only ones I know are better than me 🙁
I was going to make a Purple Haze reference, but of course you beat me to it.
Hi Paul,
Basically what you are saying is the better chess player will win
no matter what sound opening is played and that is correct.
When I have met it OTB I usually beat the player lower rated then me
and score low when I faced higher graded players. (surprise-surprise)
(Though in the latter case I do have a few wins on my cv. one!)
Just checked OTB DB. 19 wins. D1. L5 (all five better than me including an
IM and 2 games v my mate Jonathan Grant, one a few weeks before he won
the Scottish Title and one a few weeks after winning the Scottish Title.)
The Cann is an equalising opening and comes into own it's when White tries
to blast it off the board or take a chance because he is White.
If the White player does not want to tango and Black needs a win then
the Cann (IMO) is a tough opening to win from, you need the imbalance.
After 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3. Nc3
Black has no good waiting move, he really has to play 3...dxe4 giving up the
centre and releasing the tension. Yes it's OK for Black (theorectically) but
if you play to win (apparently looking at a recent thread we all do.) and all
other things being equal then you banking on your opponent having the same attitude.
Here is my 2nd loss v Jonathan a few weeks after he won the Scottish.
Everything is going along fine till I decide to sac the exchange for an
attack that was never going to work. Well not against this lad.
But I walk away with my head high, I played it how I wanted to play it,
going for the win, I enjoyed the work out, I saw a fantasy win and went for it.
It's what I do and I'll keep on doing it, it's the only way to play the game.
G.Chandler - J.Grant, Bells v Edin West, 2006