Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
- From: "Chess One" <OneChess@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:47:54 -0400
"help bot" <nomorechess@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f08ec220-5b04-4a2a-b78c-c8d6f510a2db@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
While I don't have one of those fancy do-dads
which compile hundreds of thousands of recent
master games, I think the following link tells a
tale in itself, despite its seemingly random
compilation of grandmaster, master and
perhaps even patzer games:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720
Now, according to this particular page, one
can see that ...c5 has the best results versus
1. e4, while ...c6 leads to an inordinate number
BEST?
While this is an interesting post, the word 'best' needs to be challenged,
since it needs qualifying. Evidently, a move offering more chances to win
can also offer more chances to lose - by virtue of it being less drawish.
I have 2 books [no one else in the world has even heard of them! and it is
completely unknown how they arrived in the highlands of Scotland] from the
program conceived by David Levy, Kevin O'Connell, and David Watt. Published
circa 1981 by Imprint Capablanca. There is a Sicialian title which I don't
have, mine being The English Opening, and The King's Indian.
An example, after the moves
1d4 Nf6
2 c4 c5
3 d5 e6
4Nc3 exd5
5cxd5 d6
the book suggest what the two main continuations are and also how frequently
played and with what result
6 *e4 77% 21+ 11= 9-
6 *Nf3 23% 10+ 5= 10-
then continues with sub-lines for each, showing frequency and result for
each line. The example I have just given is only interesting in that while
the Win/Draw ratios are about the same in both examples, chances of winning
is for *e4 21/41 or abt 1:2 whereas the *Nf3 line only wins at 1:25 while
also risking more loses
But here is a declaritive example in the same Mod Ben opening:
8 * Be2 57% 7+ 4= 5-
8 *Bg5 19% 2+ 2= 0-
While winning chances are the same ratio, about half, losing chances are
very different.
I will look around for other examples from these books to find a line which
strongly increases winning chances over any other line, but also strongly
increases losing chances.
Anyone have any requests for stats from lines in either opening, write in.
The games are drawn from master level and up. Dates of games seem all from
1980 [inc. lone Pine]. The title also provides a list of Players using the
opening, their opponents, and the result.
Phil Innes
of draws-- mainly taken from what would have
been Black's "win" column. Meanwhile, such
tries as ...e6 are summarily thumped for the
obvious reasons, while ...g6 scores rather
well for Black, affording relatively few draws.
This brings us to ...Nf6: 38.6% wins for
White-- not good. A smallish number of
draws is followed by an about-average
tally of wins for Black; the problem clearly
lies in White's big "wins" column. Only
...d5 scores "much worse", among those
moves with a reasonable number of games
by which to judge. These data fit with what
I read many years back and have been told
by one chess openings monger: that this
may be a very dangerous weapon at the
lower levels, but at the top, White does
quite well indeed.
A very long time ago, Indiana's top-
rated player was a fellow named Loren
Schmidt, and he always played this as
Black (and he always played the Benko
Gambit against 1. d4). The advantage is
that since ...Nf6 comes at you on move
one, it is nearly impossible to avoid. But
it still surprises me that so many players
had so much difficulty playing White
against him. If this opening were not
"foreign" to me, I might consider taking
it up myself for the simple reason that it
really is "impossible" to avoid (i.e. a
duck via 1. d4 runs into some other
killer opening).
-- help bot
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
- From: help bot
- Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
- Prev by Date: Re: Nottingham 1936 game scores
- Next by Date: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
- Previous by thread: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously)
- Next by thread: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|