Originally posted by RahimKAs you have problems with reading I need to repeat you again what I wrote in previous posts:
I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
3...Nc6 > 3...Bb4
But how do you prove this? Chess programs can't be trusted. They just don't understand.
You feel like looking through 3000 GM games?
People plays 3...Nc6 more often because: 1) 3.Nc3 is not so popular response to Petroff - most of strong players are playing 3.Nxe5, so most players does not feel obliged to prepare something special against 3.Nc3 2) 3....Nc6 lead to Four knights - well known opening in which most players have more experience and they know how to get equal position.
Originally posted by KorchGuideline eh?
I`m playing CC to improve my openings and I`m consulting DBs, but let me to quote opinion in which I agree:
"I think numbers can be very useful - if you know what lies behind the numbers!
[b]I don't mind playing an opening line that has only lost on GM level if I know these
losses came from endgame errors or something else that had nothing to do with
t ...[text shortened]... ration and analysis but they can surely
act as a guideline without any warranties given"[/b]
If Bb4 is equal to Nc6 then how come only 300 Gm games have been played compared to 3000.
Why does White score better against Bb4 then Nc6?
The numbers are telling you something. Now if you want to say that the GM's were wrong then that's a different story.
Those GM's have spent years and years studying chess and I will play what they play and that is what I recommend. Of course I check out a few games myself but with great numbers like those it easy to pick which is the better move.
Originally posted by Korch3...Nc6 well know opening and they know how to get an equal position.
As you have problems with reading I need to repeat you again what I wrote in previous posts:
[b]People plays 3...Nc6 more often because: 1) 3.Nc3 is not so popular response to Petroff - most of strong players are playing 3.Nxe5, so most players does not feel obliged to prepare something special against 3.Nc3 2) 3....Nc6 lead to Four knights - well known opening in which most players have more experience and they know how to get equal position.[/b]
Well if black knows how to get an equal position then why not play that. Why not play the safe and solid move?
Why play a move like 3...Bb4 and risk it?
We are talking about the Black side by the way.
Originally posted by RahimKWhere have I wrote that GM`s are wrong?
If Bb4 is equal to Nc6 then how come only 300 Gm games have been played compared to 3000.
Why does White score better against Bb4 then Nc6?
The numbers are telling you something. Now if you want to say that the GM's were wrong then that's a different story.
Those GM's have spent years and years studying chess and I will play what they play and th ...[text shortened]... Why play a move like 3...Bb4 and risk it?
We are talking about the Black side by the way.
If they are playing 3...Nc6 it does not means that they thinks 3...Bb4 as bad.
Why do you think that in each position is only one "the best" move?
All great chess innovators risked. If they did not do that then chess theory would not develop at all.
Originally posted by RahimKbecause 'solid' is for sissies. 🙂 you don't usually get much if you're not willing to risk anything.
Well if black knows how to get an equal position then why not play that. Why not play the safe and solid move?
Why play a move like 3...Bb4 and risk it?
We are talking about the Black side by the way.
I will quote another chess player perhaps better then I, and definetly better than Rahim:
Statistics can only give an indication. Opening theory is constantly evolving, evaluations change, and novelties are found. Also there is an extent to which a lot of players follow 'fashion' in their choice of opening lines.
Database statistics are very interesting. Generally, choosing the most popular choice is a sensible decision for "soundness". When there are several choices of similar popularity, it is a sensible decision to pick the move that gives the best win ratio. If your goal in the opening is soundness you should either avoid "the road less traveled" or you should switch your database off completely and analyze each move from basic principles, as you would have to do in an OTB game.
When the number of moves in a database gets thin, they are of very little use at all, and the stats themselves probably tell a story that has very little to do with the decision you are about to make - those stats might even be entirely misleading. At this stage you should be doing your own thinking and analysis, regardless of the stats.
Certain opening lines are favoured by great players, and the fact that they are great players may influence the stats making it appear as though it is the opening line that's great, rather than the player.
At GM level I'm sure many players will opt for soundness above all. But we are playing at RHP, and soundness here is a far less valuable attribute. I often prefer to play lines that are more interesting than sound, especially against weaker players. Something that may may lead to a winning advantages sooner rather than later.
I really see no point in playing 20-30 book moves to find myself level and/or agreeing to a draw. Give me a calculated risk any day.
As far as the debate in this thread. I think that Databases are very effective at pointing to "sound" moves. But popular lines are most often followed on the basis of precedent rather than any conscious choice or analysis by GM/IM's. The stats for certain moves certainly do reflect that, possibly out of all proportion to their soundness relative to the other choices that are available.
An analogy:
Most people prefer to holiday in Spain. Fewer people prefer to holiday in Mozambique. Most likely you will enjoy your holiday in Spain. It is a safe choice. But it does not mean that a holiday in Mozambique cannot be as enjoyable or even more enjoyable.
And if you are an adventurous sort, half the fun is finding out for yourself.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
A lot of great players have played 3...Bb4. For instance:-
Alekhine, Euwe, Pillsbury, Marshall, Spielmann, Vidmar, Szabo...
None of those will show up if you do a search for 2500 players, because they played before ELO ratings were invented. But they were amongst the very best players of their era and would be rated 2700 plus if they were playing today.
More recently, 3..Bb4 has been played by:-
Ivanchuk, Yusopov, Akopian, Rozentalis, Mamadyarov, Alterman, Piket, Dominguez...
All are rated over 2600.
On those grounds alone, 3..Bb4 must be a very reasonable alternative to the more popular 3..Nc6.
Whether one move is objectively stronger than the other is difficult to say, without doing an extensive analysis of all the critical positions arising from both moves. I think the main reason why Nc6 is more popular is that the positions are very familiar to every player who has studied the Four Knights Game and therefore it's easy for grandmasters to play on autopilot, without having to think for themselves at an early stage of the game.
Korch has kindly asked my opinion, for what it's worth via pm, and now requested I post it here.
Here it is, pasted directly from my messages box:
Thanks for your opinion. Could you post it in that thread?
>Hi Korch,
Great to hear from you, and thanks for asking my opinion... as you know, I play the Petroffs often. (Invariably, I play it most of the time, unless I feel like a Greco Counter Gambit (Latvian). I have read the thread with interest.)
I agree with you strongly.... statistics are only there because they're there, if you know what I mean. In correspondence chess, however, the vast majority of players would feel more secure with the 'four knights', and it is this reason, coupled with most player's inertia to play something 'different' that keeps these 'safe' moves uppermost. It certainly doesn't prove that any suggested alternative is inferior. Move theory evolves continuously. Indeed, I refer to two old books as you know from my profile, and it is this fact that helps give me the edge over those players who follow the latest trend unquestionably.
For example, in 1 PK4 PK4 2 NKB3 NKB3 3NxP PQ3 4 NKB3 NxP 5 PQ4 PQ4 6 BQ3 ...... black's reply BQ3 was refuted many, many years ago (correctly) by Alexander's 15th, 16th and 17th move combination. So what! It would never put me off; like yourself I try to remain creative. Following the previous thought patterns of a long-dead GM, who in turn influenced other GMs to play the same move is not helpful, sheep-like and negative. (Please excuse the descriptive notation... I think in it, old habit.)
Very best wishes in the 2007 championships.
ET
>Hello.
I would like to hear your opinion about discussion in Thread 70577 . How do you think - Can statistic itself (without analysis of particular opening lines) be enough to claim that opening line is bad ?
Best wishes,
Korch