"I play the exchange variation, and then put my light squared bishop on d3, and then move my pawn to c2 to let queen come out avoid pin and then bishop goes f4, knight goes d2, support any f3 knight."
No offence ChristmasHums but given your ratings I'm not going to place too much reliance upon that suggestion
@Inventor_1 said in #30:
> And another example (the above were 100% sufficient arguments, and what follows is not them, but just an example). A little over a year ago I registered on Lichess for the first time and started playing here. And before that I had not played a single game of chess with people for about 11.5 years (I had completely different interests at that time)! And only sometimes (not at least one game every year) I played with a computer (not at all like playing against people, you need to play against a computer, that's why I only played anti-computer options). And I have not played in official tournaments for about 19 years now. Before coming to Lichess, I had not played with people from my level of play during this entire period (but only with much weaker people and a computer). So. I am now playing at about the same level at which I played in childhood and youth, when I had the official title of candidate for master of sports in chess (in my country, not international). And I played at a level close to this one when I returned to games after that huge break in games for many, many years, coming to Lichess. Yes, I forgot a lot, I had to remember a lot. But there was no colossal drop in the level of play over many, many years of not playing with people. Because I play Caro-Kann and the like, which does not require constantly keeping in mind a huge pile of theoretical variations. How many ranks would the quality of play drop for fans of precise theoretical variations, playing a bunch of possible openings after, for example, e5 response to e4? That's it! They would have forgotten more than 80% of the theory over such a period without games and would have become completely helpless! Their level would have dropped by several ranks over these many years of not playing with people! Their drop in level would have been many times greater than mine! Caro-Kann and the like are especially good not for their objective strength, but for their usefulness in practice. If a person is going to become a professional chess player, to try to enter the TOP-20 of the world chess rating someday, then he needs to study a lot and choose objectively the strongest openings. But what do we have to do with it? Nothing! Caro-Kann and the like allow you to spend much less effort to achieve a good level of chess results. And then maintaining the level for many years - also requires much less effort.
You are just a 2000 player in real life...
As I wrote already the overall statistics don't matter. At your level the Caro-Kann scores already below 50%, on Lichess
and OTB: 47%
@forsoothplays said in #24:
> @Csathvik I know your forum has been derailed, but I chimed in to say that any serious, mainline opening is scoring fantastically well against the Caro-Kann at the amateur level—except the advance variation. (The white side of 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5!? is a headache.) I recommend the Classical Variation, Exchange Variation, or Panov-Botvinnik. Once amateurs do some study in how to beat the Caro in these lines, usually they start having a good time.
>
> Which is also why I do *not* recommend the Caro-Kann for beginners/amateurs as a defense to 1.e4: it isn't actually the magical ez-pz defense that everyone wants it to be. Black is getting punished the moment he faces booked-up opposition.
Objective reality disagrees with you, which is evident from the statistics. According to Lichess statistics, the answer c6 to e4:
- among all chess players on Lichess - in first place in terms of success for black (and black even beat white in the total result of all games!!!);
- among professional chess players (starting from masters of sports in chess and up to the very top) - in third place in terms of success for black.
Everyone can see for themselves:
https://lichess.org/analysis#1
Among both of those chess players, it is more successful for black than, for example, e5. Which many, many people play. And than almost all other moves.
And you write about such a move that any serious, basic variation plays fantastically well against it? Ha! Objective reality absolutely disagrees with you, the statistics completely contradict your words. All 3 variations you named do not cause any problems for black at all. Which is evident from Lichess's statistics. And in my games too, I have absolutely no problems with them. Variations are just like variations. White's position is slightly better when exiting the opening with both sides playing correctly, as it should be, and that's it. Moreover, I play at a much higher level (against the corresponding opponents) than you. There are no problems with these variations at this level of play. Variations are just like variations. But the variation you named as a strong one - it always seemed a bit crazy to me. I don't play it, I consider it a bit crazy. I play much better (in my opinion).
@ColossusChess said in #32:
> You are just a 2000 player in real life...
>
> As I wrote already the overall statistics don't matter. At your level the Caro-Kann scores already below 50%, on Lichess
> and OTB: 47%
No. In real life, I haven't been a player for many years. Many years ago, I threw away (because it was useless to me) my official title of candidate master of sports in chess (my country's, not international; now in my country it is awarded upon reaching a FIDE rating of 2100, and in my time for achieving the standard of candidate master of sports in chess, not according to ratings; and it had to be confirmed once every 3 years; now I don't know how often it needs to be confirmed). But if I were to play in real life now and get an official rating, then I would definitely not be aiming for a 2000 FIDE rating, but for about a 2100 FIDE rating. I draw the following conclusion based on:
- based on the ratings in my opponents' profiles on Lichess, it turns out to be about the same, on average;
- I am now playing at about the same level as I did in my childhood and youth, when I had (I received this title at the age of 15, it was 25 years ago) the official title of candidate master of sports in chess (in my country, not international; now in my country it is awarded upon reaching a FIDE rating of 2100, and in my time for fulfilling the standard of candidate master of sports in chess, not according to ratings; and it had to be confirmed once every 3 years; now I don’t know how often it needs to be confirmed).
@ColossusChess said in #32:
> You are just a 2000 player in real life...
>
> As I wrote already the overall statistics don't matter. At your level the Caro-Kann scores already below 50%, on Lichess
> and OTB: 47%
And you write somehow crookedly about “only”. For example, we open my “rapid” page and see my rating on Lichess in rapid 2318. We see that the site tells me: “you play stronger than 99.4% of rapid players on the site”. Doesn’t really go with your “only”, does it? That’s it! By the way, your own rating in rapid is only 51 points higher (2371). And I play classic better than rapid, but I’m too lazy to play it. I think that with a high probability my rating in classic would be higher than yours if I started playing it (but I’m too lazy). For my style of play, the more time, the stronger I am relative to the average other players. And for you, it’s the opposite (even just based on your and my ratings, everyone on Lichess gets it this way, the pattern is clearly visible for me and more or less visible for you). And I reached approximately this level 25 years ago, when I was 15 years old. And at approximately this level I stopped playing chess. I was doing more important things. And, for example, some people from my childhood who had the same title of candidate for master of sports in chess at the same time as me continued playing chess. And they became masters and grandmasters. But they live on average - no better than me (objectively, my standard of living is much higher than average, they do too, but we are not super-high, for now). If I had continued playing chess then - I would have been a chess grandmaster long ago (I had everything for this; I would not have gotten to the TOP, but would have simply become a grandmaster). But I would hardly have lived better than I live now.
@ColossusChess said in #32:
> You are just a 2000 player in real life...
>
> As I wrote already the overall statistics don't matter. At your level the Caro-Kann scores already below 50%, on Lichess
> and OTB: 47%
How old are you? I looked at your ratings on Lichess. If you are 12 years old or younger, and your ratings are like that, then there is some point in focusing on becoming a professional chess player. I am not talking about the TOP level, but about being a professional chess player in general (for example, reaching at least a modest level of 2500 FIDE rating at the peak, so that you can earn money with chess not “just for food”, but at least a little more). Then your focus on TOP chess players in the discussed issue, although wrong, is at least understandable (that you focus on it for yourself). If you are older, then no. And in any case, this issue is being discussed for all chess players in general, and not about TOP chess players, not about just professional chess players, not about strong chess fans like me and you. But about everyone. Everyone.
@Inventor_1 said in #35:
> And you write somehow crookedly about “only”. For example, we open my “rapid” page and see my rating on Lichess in rapid 2318. We see that the site tells me: “you play stronger than 99.4% of rapid players on the site”. Doesn’t really go with your “only”, does it? That’s it! By the way, your own rating in rapid is only 51 points higher (2371). And I play classic better than rapid, but I’m too lazy to play it. I think that with a high probability my rating in classic would be higher than yours if I started playing it (but I’m too lazy).
Sure...
My rapid rating is (or was) 2500+ https://lichess.org/@/mrbasso
But this has nothing to do with the topic.
While the thread starter might pray for a draw since he is 1700 your average opponents for example have no reason to.
@ColossusChess said in #37:
> Sure...
> My rapid rating is (or was) 2500+ @mrbasso
>
> But this has nothing to do with the topic.
> While the thread starter might pray for a draw since he is 1700 your average opponents for example have no reason to.
I opened your profile (from which you write all messages), in it your rating in rapid is 2371. And the fact that you wrote a link to your second profile (in which your rating in rapid is 2517 with a question mark)... Did you do this (several accounts) according to the site rules? Won't the moderators ban you for this? And why is your rating in rapid so different in your two accounts (2371 and 2517?)? Within the normal deviation, but still a big difference. In any case, and for the 2517 rating in rapid option of yours, everything I said above remains valid. And about 12 years and everything else. And in any case, I once again draw your attention to the fact that this is not about TOP chess players. And not about professional chess players. And not about strong chess amateurs, like me and you. But about all chess players in general. And for them, it is the statistics for all chess players that are indicative. And as for her - as I said initially. That's all.
Why would they ban me for only 2 accounts? I opened another one for marathon tournaments and generally playing when I'm tired.
@ColossusChess said in #37:
> Sure...
> My rapid rating is (or was) 2500+ @mrbasso
>
> But this has nothing to do with the topic.
> While the thread starter might pray for a draw since he is 1700 your average opponents for example have no reason to.
About praying for a draw for him - that was a joke (and with me no prayers would have helped him, the difference in the level of play is too huge). Isn't it clear? But, as they say, "there is a grain of joke in every joke." He asked the question in such a way that it was almost like "how can I refute, even destroy, this thing in the simplest and fastest way (because I have problems with it, but give me a refutation of it)". That even begged for such a joke. Especially considering that I have long known that according to Lichess statistics, blacks beat whites in Caro-Kann in all games (and the move c6 is the most successful response for blacks to e4). And so even with blacks in Caro-Kann, I have minimally negative results. It turned out to be about -0.1 rating point per game on average. I increase my rating with whites on average, and slightly decrease my rating with blacks on average. As it should be for black. My very good attitude towards Caro-Kann is primarily not because of its objective strength or not. But because Caro-Kann completely closed the question of what to play on e4 in response for me 28 years ago. I saved a huge amount of time and effort on studying and maintaining the theory of openings in my head. I have already seen a lot of so-called "refutations" of Caro-Kann on the Internet (mostly completely ridiculous videos). Here the person asked the question in such a way that he wanted to receive another such "refutation". He just asked for such a joke.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.