I have to apologize. I was wrong in one case. John Nunn actually has written a book called "Dawn of the Codebreakers", as a Google search for this term reveals:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dawn+of+the+Codebreakers%22
Tata. How truth is made.
@NHL_20 said in #8:
> Some corrections:
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Is the Advance Variation "one of the most agressive responses"? It depends. The lines with an early g4, h4 are agressive, but the lines (after Bf5) with Be2 and O-O are not too sharp positions.
>
>
>
> Correct, 3...Bf5 can be considered the main line, though 3...c5 is also a very good move. But i wonder, are there any valid development moves in chess that do _not_ aim to control the center of the board? Also, how does Bf5 restrict whites pawn structure? By preventing f4-f5? Sounds a bit bizarre.
>
>
> I am not sure what the AI means with this. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 is a good line, the description of a "bold and agressive response that aims to seize the initiative and create tactical opportunities" doesnt fit.
>
> Actually, I have never heard of any c5 "Counter Gambit" in the Caro Kann, or in any other chess opening. So I did a regex search in the Scid ECO file. It lists 45 "Countergambits". The only one which starts with c5 is "D00c – Queen's Pawn, Mason, Steinitz Countergambit". This has the moves 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5.
>
>
> This is not a sub variation of the Advance Caro Kann (e4 c6 d4 d5 e4), but of Caro Kann (e4 c6 d4 d5). It is when white plays 3.exd5. Black usually answers cxd5. Also, it is not a solid response for _black_, but for _white_. The black player can not choose the Exchange Variation, white can.
>
>
> Like above, this is not a sub variation of the Advance Caro Kann. But of the Exchange Caro Kann. It is the line 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4. It is more or less true that it is an agressive attempt to take over the initiative. But again, for _white_, not for _black_. The black player can not choose the Panov.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
> "creating pawn structures" sounds a bit blurry. It seems to hide that ChatGPT does not know much about pawn structures. Would be interesting to see the answer to the question: "How should one move their pawns in chess? What kind of pawn weaknesses are there in chess? Give examples how to make use of pawn weaknesses in the opponents pawn structure."
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
> The sentence ends abrupt here, which ChatGPT does quite often.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
> Wrong. The Sveshnikov is characterized by the _weakness_ on d5. The whole Sicilian complex is characterized by blacks attempt to achieve the d5 push. Actually this is a main strategy in nearly every black opening where black has not yet a pawn on d5 (in which case playing e5 is usually a main strategy).
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Didnt know that John Nunn has written a book named "Dawn of the Codebreakers".
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> I stopped reading at "Who are the most important chess hypermodernists?".
>
> Admittedly, ChatGPT is able to build correct sentences without grammatical errors, which even make very much sense most of the time.
>
> On a closer look, one can see, that 50% of the content is well known knowledge which a Google search will reveal in the first few results. The other 50% is self repeating bla bla. For example a lot of sentences say, in different words: "I am not sure, look for yourself, decide on your own".
>
> ChatGPT does what it is supposed to do: Reflect the available knowledge in the world. It doesnt invent anything new. At least not in these answers.
>
> That is not a critic. On just has to be aware what ChatGPT is: A next generation search engine, which can give impressive answers, but also can contain factual errors. One should always double check instead of blindly relying on it. There is a reason that ChatGPT answers are banned on for example Stack Overflow.
The Arkell / Khenkin line with c5 is very popular nowadays ... I’m studying it a lot at the moment ... maybe check the YouTube video at the bottom.
E4 c6
D4 d5
E5 c5
@Resodet said in #10:
> Seems like ChatGPT absolutely forgot about 1. ... e5, which may be the best opening against 1. e4.
That's exactly what I thought.
It's easily the most common response, and leads to openings where if white isn't careful black can get traps such as the Stafford gambit.
@Kingscrusher-YouTube #12
Ok, so this is the Arkell-Khenkin Defense. (Or the Botvinnik-Carls Defense)
My point is, can this be called a countergambit? Do people call ...c5 in the French a countergambit?
The term countergambit is used imprecisely in chess literature. For example, The "Steinitz Countergambit" which I mentioned, is not really a countergambit, while for example the Falkenbeer Countergambit, (e4 e5 f4 d5) is.
I guess that ChatGPT uses this term imprecisely, exactly because of this.
@Resodet #10
For the same reason, it maybe also does not mention 1...e5 as a good answer to 1.e4. Its language model is irritated by the similarity between the name of the opening "Open Game" (e4 e5) and the more general concept of "The open games" (opposed to "The half open games" and "the closed games". It maybe thinks that "Open game" always refers to the broader concept, so it does not consider it to be a chess opening.
I don't have a ChatGPT account, can someone give its answer to
> In chess, what is the difference between "Open Game" and "Open Games" ?
?
@NHL_20 said in #14:
> @Kingscrusher-YouTube #12
>
> Ok, so this is the Arkell-Khenkin Defense. (Or the Botvinnik-Carls Defense)
>
> My point is, can this be called a countergambit? Do people call ...c5 in the French a countergambit?
>
> The term countergambit is used imprecisely in chess literature. For example, The "Steinitz Countergambit" which I mentioned, is not really a countergambit, while for example the Falkenbeer Countergambit, (e4 e5 f4 d5) is.
>
> I guess that ChatGPT uses this term imprecisely, exactly because of this.
>
> @Resodet #10
>
> For the same reason, it maybe also does not mention 1...e5 as a good answer to 1.e4. Its language model is irritated by the similarity between the name of the opening "Open Game" (e4 e5) and the more general concept of "The open games" (opposed to "The half open games" and "the closed games". It maybe thinks that "Open game" always refers to the broader concept, so it does not consider it to be a chess opening.
>
> I don't have a ChatGPT account, can someone give its answer to
>
>
> ?
It is a Gambit in my view. I found it quite interesting it made that kind of deduction.
Here is a Google I did which also thinks it is arguably a gambit
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Win_with_the_Caro-Kann.pdf
Regarding c5 in French ... usually e6 means c5 isn’t a gambit because f8 bishop can recapture
Ok, but is it a countergambit? Got my point?
@NHL_20 said in #16:
> Ok, but is it a countergambit? Got my point?
Ahh I see ...
I’m thinking queens gambit has Albin ‘counter gambit’ which is a gambit to counter technically a named gambit ...
I see .. good point. The term seems inaccurate if qualified by ‘counter’
@Kingscrusher-YouTube
BTW, may I ask, did ChatGPT ask for your phone number when you registered? It does so for me, and i would prefer not to do that.
@NHL_20 said in #18:
> @Kingscrusher-YouTube
>
> BTW, may I ask, did ChatGPT ask for your phone number when you registered? It does so for me, and i would prefer not to do that.
Yes it does to send a text message code
I am still too scared to give it away, but thanks.