I think the Sicilian is definitely objectively the best if you are trying to win games as black, and I think as long as you choose one of the top 4-5 variations(Najdorf, Svesh, Dragon, Taimonov, Kan, etc..), that fit's your style the best, you should be fine. That said, I think I would feel alot more comfortable playing the Svesh or the Dragon over the Najdorf. But that's just me. Nice to see another player abandoning the AD though, it's pretty laughable.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Heh, but I think the Dragon is doing even worse theoretically. 😉
I think the Sicilian is definitely objectively the best if you are trying to win games as black, and I think as long as you choose one of the top 4-5 variations(Najdorf, Svesh, Dragon, Taimonov, Kan, etc..), that fit's your style the best, you should be fine. That said, I think I would feel alot more comfortable playing the Svesh or the Dragon over the Najd ...[text shortened]... t that's just me. Nice to see another player abandoning the AD though, it's pretty laughable.
Yeah, for some reason people see some games like Fischer-Larsen or Karpov-Korchnoi and think the Dragon is theoretically terrible. It's fine, and it's clearly one of the most uncompromising choices you can take. If I gave you a Sicilian pawn structure after about move 5 or 6 and told you to put your pieces on the most active squares possible, you'd intuitively place them like in the Dragon. It's easily the most fun too. 😀
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Yeah, there's no doubt. But you do have to put up with stupid Anti-Sicilians (I lost against one in a g/90 match the other day 🙁). There are a few lines that can really test black, but that's true in any opening really (maybe exclude the Ruy Lopez) and you probably won't even see the lines - even if you do you can still get decent play. I'm not sure why people think the Dragon is so unsound.
Yeah, for some reason people see some games like Fischer-Larsen or Karpov-Korchnoi and think the Dragon is theoretically terrible. It's fine, and it's clearly one of the most uncompromising choices you can take. If I gave you a Sicilian pawn structure after about move 5 or 6 and told you to put your pieces on the most active squares possible, you'd intuitively place them like in the Dragon. It's easily the most fun too. 😀
If I had to choose the MOST sound line objectively I'd probably say 1..e5 and then maybe the Najdorf - both are completely sound, no doubt about it. But it's not necessarily best to play the most sound openings. The Pirc - which isn't totally sound in all lines it seems, offers pretty good practical chances for black, and I'm pretty happy to have it as a backup to the Dragon. You really should just find an opening that you feel comfortable with.
BTW:I'd say both the Sicilian and 1...e5 are more sound than the French.
Originally posted by cmsMasterI'm curious, what about the French makes you consider it less sound than e5/c5? Do you have any variations I can look at or is it just a general feeling?
Yeah, there's no doubt. But you do have to put up with stupid Anti-Sicilians (I lost against one in a g/90 match the other day 🙁). There are a few lines that can really test black, but that's true in any opening really (maybe exclude the Ruy Lopez) and you probably won't even see the lines - even if you do you can still get decent play. I'm not sure wh ...[text shortened]... table with.
BTW:I'd say both the Sicilian and 1...e5 are more sound than the French.
Originally posted by exigentskyWell, basically it's based on my score against 1...c5 compared to 1...e6. (I score better on here against 1...e5 than anything, so I'll exclude that for now). The Najdorf creates a lot of problems for white, and I think that only the English attack and Freak Attack are solid choices against it (Freak attack at my level, top level it gets somewhat iffy, but it's been used). The French on the other hand seems to allow white a lot of options. Personally I'm doing fine with the Advanced variation, Sicilian Smaug seems to think that the Tarrasch offers white plenty of opportunity (I'm not so good with it though...) and most top players seem perfectly comfortable with 3.Nc3. However, players like Fischer struggled endlessly against the French - so it's got to be at least pretty good. 😉
I'm curious, what about the French makes you consider it less sound than e5/c5? Do you have any variations I can look at or is it just a general feeling?
One thing you have to remember with the French though, is that you'll be playing in a cramped position.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI don't think so--the fact that chess is (in all likelihood) objectively a draw doesn't mean that Black should be playing for a draw, but rather that from a purely "objective" standpoint, all first moves that still result in an objectively drawn position are equally valid. Hence, "what's the best first move?" is, objectively speaking, a meaningless question.
Based 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...😉
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Well yes, the Dragon is theoretically sound, but highly dangerous for both players. What the Dragon is really good for is avoiding draws!
Yeah, for some reason people see some games like Fischer-Larsen or Karpov-Korchnoi and think the Dragon is theoretically terrible. It's fine, and it's clearly one of the most uncompromising choices you can take. If I gave you a Sicilian pawn structure after about move 5 or 6 and told you to put your pieces on the most active squares possible, you'd intuitively place them like in the Dragon. It's easily the most fun too. 😀
Originally posted by ih8sensYou do Capa a mis-service. He was a far, far better endgame player than this. As far as I'm concerned, the best of all time and his endgames are worth study by any player. But he was not objectively a good opening or middlegame player. I would also say certainly not the best of all time given his lack of all-round ability, but in the top ten.
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).
Originally posted by buffalobillactually your right, and looking at his games, he wasn't a bad tactician either.
You do Capa a mis-service. He was a far, far better endgame player than this. As far as I'm concerned, the best of all time and his endgames are worth study by any player. But he was not objectively a good opening or middlegame player. I would also say certainly not the best of all time given his lack of all-round ability, but in the top ten.
There is actually a huge problem with engine games that I didn't consider enough. It seems that if you make a few engines play many games from one position, they all basically play the same way. Thus, it often ends up being the same error repeated each game; explaining the ridiculous scores in the Najdorf. I ran a few Rybka vs Fritz games in the French cxd4 variation and it was 85% for White after about 15 games. Black always had the wrong idea and just shuffled pieces aimlessly instead of playing f6. Once I set the engines on the right path, it was about 50-50. Again, GREAT CAUTION when looking at engine games to tell you something of value. 🙁
i don't like engine games. they do tend to fallow the same games but however why not just look at master games? obviously they know what their doing and you know for a fact their not just shuffling their pieces around. why not just get the hell beat out of yourself by a 1900 player and watch how he does it. then learn from that ;-)