@ColossusChess said in #39:
> Why would they ban me for only 2 accounts? I opened another one for marathon tournaments and generally playing when I'm tired.
I don't know if this is allowed according to the rules or not. I remember (but I'm not 100% sure) reading something in the rules about not having multiple accounts. Plus I read somewhere that someone is allowed to have 2 accounts. But if I were going to open a second account, I would first make sure 100% that I am not breaking the rules by doing so. That's why I was surprised when I saw how calmly you write about your other account. And I asked you in the form of a question, "Is this really allowed?"
@ColossusChess said in #39:
> Why would they ban me for only 2 accounts? I opened another one for marathon tournaments and generally playing when I'm tired.
If you play on an account only in very good shape, then the rating will be higher than it should be. For example, all my results were obtained when playing in completely different shapes. Even when I fall asleep during the game. If I were you, I would study the rules of the site better now. And when there is no 100% certainty that the rules are not violated, I would not commit such potential violations. Or, at least, I would not write about them to other people.
@Csathvik said in #27:
> Your also right about black being punished but mainly about his space advantage.
Exactly. Turns out the most practical openings for amateurs are the ones that lead to practical *positions* regardless of the theoretical overhead. Most trainers and titled players are recommending openings that are light on theory but leave the player behind a position with strategic difficulties that only masters and computers know how to resolve. The Caro-Kann is not an isolated example of this.
The Exchange Variation is not objectively as testing as the Advance or Classical Variations, but it's objectively strong *enough* and gives White a clear position with a viable plan, which is what really matters at amateur level. Amateurs are scoring an impressive 0.605 in the main line after 9.Ngf3. The theoretical moves to reach this position are also easy to explain and understand, which is why IM Kavutskiy from the Chess Dojo recommends it so highly.
This contrasts sharply with how White scores in the Short Variation, which is probably the objectively strongest try by White. After 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2! Nd7 6.O-O Ne7 7.Nbd2 h6 8.Nb3 g5! White is only scoring 0.490 (losing more often than he wins). Eventually White starts crushing it again: for example, if White knows 9.a4!! and Black complies with the mainline 9...Bg7 10.a5! then this goes up to 0.655. However, at this point we're dealing with games by 1900+ players who have probably studied the Dickens out of the Short Variation. The "mere mortals" are clearly floundering in the sophisticated maneuvering game that this system requires.
The mainline of the Tal Variation (4.h4 h5 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 Qa5+!) also features the unimpressive score of 0.450. Other subvariations of the Advance Variation either likewise underperform or suffer from issues treating with objective strength, or else fail to adhere to fundamental opening principles.
That's why I don't recommend the Advance to amateurs. But if you're doing well with it then I won't tell you to stop.
***
And since we already know someone is going to manically insist I made those numbers up, here is how I got them:
- I used the Lichess database.
- I filtered the database to feature only Rapid games to filter out dubious blitz shenanigans.
- I filtered the database to include only players with a rating of 1400 – 2199.
- Above this range, play too closely resembles master-level play to accurately represent the viability of opening systems at the amateur level.
- Below this range, players suffer too much from lack of tactical awareness for their statistics to be relevant. (No offense.)
- The formula for calculating score is < (1 + w − b) / 2 >, where <w> is the percentage of games won by White and <b> is the percentage of games won by Black. N.B. < ab.c% = 0.abc >. Scores are presented in standard decimal notation rather than percent notation.
inb4 he tries to claim the formula for score is made up:
s = w + (d / 2) White's score is equal to the percentage of games he wins plus half the percentage of games he draws.
d = 1 − (w + b) = 1 − w − b The percentage of games White draws is not always indicated by the Lichess UI, requiring us to calculate it indirectly. It is equal to the percentage of games that were played by White (100%) minus the percentage of games won by White or Black (w + b).
s = w + (1 − w − b) / 2 Substitute for <d>.
s = 2w / 2 + (1 − w − b) / 2 Multiply the first term by "1".
s = (2w + 1 − w − b) / 2 Combine fractions of like denominator.
s = (1 + w − b) / 2 Simplify the numerator.
QED
@forsoothplays said in #43:
> Exactly. Turns out the most practical openings for amateurs are the ones that lead to practical *positions* regardless of the theoretical overhead. Most trainers and titled players are recommending openings that are light on theory but leave the player behind a position with strategic difficulties that only masters and computers know how to resolve. The Caro-Kann is not an isolated example of this.
>
> The Exchange Variation is not objectively as testing as the Advance or Classical Variations, but it's objectively strong *enough* and gives White a clear position with a viable plan, which is what really matters at amateur level. Amateurs are scoring an impressive 0.605 in the main line after 9.Ngf3. The theoretical moves to reach this position are also easy to explain and understand, which is why IM Kavutskiy from the Chess Dojo recommends it so highly.
>
> This contrasts sharply with how White scores in the Short Variation, which is probably the objectively strongest try by White. After 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2! Nd7 6.O-O Ne7 7.Nbd2 h6 8.Nb3 g5! White is only scoring 0.490 (losing more often than he wins). Eventually White starts crushing it again: for example, if White knows 9.a4!! and Black complies with the mainline 9...Bg7 10.a5! then this goes up to 0.655. However, at this point we're dealing with games by 1900+ players who have probably studied the Dickens out of the Short Variation. The "mere mortals" are clearly floundering in the sophisticated maneuvering game that this system requires.
>
> The mainline of the Tal Variation (4.h4 h5 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 Qa5+!) also features the unimpressive score of 0.450. Other subvariations of the Advance Variation either likewise underperform or suffer from issues treating with objective strength, or else fail to adhere to fundamental opening principles.
>
> That's why I don't recommend the Advance to amateurs. But if you're doing well with it then I won't tell you to stop.
>
> ***
>
> And since we already know someone is going to manically insist I made those numbers up, here is how I got them:
>
> - I used the Lichess database.
> - I filtered the database to feature only Rapid games to filter out dubious blitz shenanigans.
> - I filtered the database to include only players with a rating of 1400 – 2199.
> - Above this range, play too closely resembles master-level play to accurately represent the viability of opening systems at the amateur level.
> - Below this range, players suffer too much from lack of tactical awareness for their statistics to be relevant. (No offense.)
> - The formula for calculating score is < (1 + w − b) / 2 >, where <w> is the percentage of games won by White and <b> is the percentage of games won by Black. N.B. < ab.c% = 0.abc >. Scores are presented in standard decimal notation rather than percent notation.
That's a really interesting perspective. I get what you're saying about how some of the theoretically stronger variations can be a bit too complex. The Caro-Kann Exchange does seem like a solid, straightforward option. I’ve definitely found that when I try the more aggressive setups like the Advance, I tend to get lost in the theory. I'll be sure to keep this in mind next time I play
Here is a blog where the influence is analysed per rating range and for different time controls
https://lichess.org/@/LKama/blog/the-shape-of-time-how-openings-evolve-from-blitz-to-classical/mip3t7dm
And here is a blog showing the change in popularity of various variations in the Caro-Kann
https://lichess.org/@/FourtyTwoFields/blog/historic-trends-in-the-caro-kann/Dz7F4VBX
I like accelerated panov. I have pretty good results with it compared to my other openings. CK players tend to be positional, and it forces them into an open game.
Example:
https://lichess.org/J7MYS1naRCgT
@tpr said in #45:
> Here is a blog where the influence is analysed per rating range and for different time controls
> lichess.org/@/LKama/blog/the-shape-of-time-how-openings-evolve-from-blitz-to-classical/mip3t7dm
>
> And here is a blog showing the change in popularity of various variations in the Caro-Kann
> lichess.org/@/FourtyTwoFields/blog/historic-trends-in-the-caro-kann/Dz7F4VBX
There you go! Now you even confirmed the enormous actual power of Caro-Kann, which I explained to you. The graph from your link 1 shows it beautifully. In the entire range of the study, Caro-Kann is better than the average for blacks, and in most rating ranges, it is much, much better than the Caro-Kann of its other competitors on average. And not a single other debut in the graph examples has such actual power. And Caro-Kann only at the level of about 2300 on Lichess in the study becomes only slightly better than the average for blacks. And in all lower ratings, it is better, or much better, or very much better than the average (for blacks). Which I 100% expected.
@tpr said in #45:
> Here is a blog where the influence is analysed per rating range and for different time controls
> lichess.org/@/LKama/blog/the-shape-of-time-how-openings-evolve-from-blitz-to-classical/mip3t7dm
>
> And here is a blog showing the change in popularity of various variations in the Caro-Kann
> lichess.org/@/FourtyTwoFields/blog/historic-trends-in-the-caro-kann/Dz7F4VBX
Correction (minor, not affecting its essence at all) of my comment above. Not all the others considered in the graphs in the study, but all, except for one other opening (they show much worse actual results for black). The Sicilian Defense is almost the same (in terms of success for black) as the Caro-Kann in this study. But all the others considered in the graphs - they turned out to be much weaker for black. And about the success of the Sicilian Defense, I also fully expected it. According to the statistics, to which I initially referred, this is exactly how it should have turned out. The Sicilian Defense in those statistics is very close to the Caro-Kann in terms of success for black (and also much better than average). Everything turned out as expected for me here.
@greysensei said in #46:
> I like accelerated panov. I have pretty good results with it compared to my other openings. CK players tend to be positional, and it forces them into an open game.
For example. I (black) have -0.08 rating points per game on average in this variant (according to my statistics analysis). My result with black is better than average. It is not a terrible variant for me at all, but better than average for me. According to the results of 84 games of mine here in this variant it turns out that way. The sample is statistically more or less sufficient for me to draw such a conclusion.
Sinquefield 2025:
1 e4 e5: 13 games
1 e4 c5: 7 games
1 e4 e6: 4 games
1 e4 c6: 1 game
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.