@Cruxo sorry, really have no brain, total failure. Seems another transposition. Why don't they sort by move order and make cross border positions optional.
@Neustart thx, are those schmidts related?
It's a matter of style
@Sarg0n im too stupid, great article
@tpr if it is easier for white and black must play very accurately to avoid problems, then I claim that white has an advantage in that position. Not a winning advantage, but still a significant advantage.
If Stockfish plays this against Stockfish, I guess it might probably end in a draw, but I would expect that white is pressing for the win and black would have a hard time.
The hypermodern ideas don't work out in every instance. The Marshall Defense didn't really survive the test of time. There are better openings for black.
If Stockfish plays this against Stockfish, I guess it might probably end in a draw, but I would expect that white is pressing for the win and black would have a hard time.
The hypermodern ideas don't work out in every instance. The Marshall Defense didn't really survive the test of time. There are better openings for black.
#36
A position can only be winning, losing or draw. As long as the position stays draw there is no significant advantage. While pressing for a win based on an illusory advantage, white may well go wrong, overextend and lose.
The hypermodern ideas survived the test of time: despite their name these ideas are 100 years old.
Of course Queen's Gambit is safer and more solid than Marshall Defence, Grünfeld, King's Indian Defence, Nimzovich Indian Defence. Less risk to lose, more draws. A stronger player will take the higher risk to lose to gain greater odss to win as black. The Marshall Defence just takes the ideas of the Grünfeld one step further, retreating the knight to b6 or even f6 instead of trading at c3.
A position can only be winning, losing or draw. As long as the position stays draw there is no significant advantage. While pressing for a win based on an illusory advantage, white may well go wrong, overextend and lose.
The hypermodern ideas survived the test of time: despite their name these ideas are 100 years old.
Of course Queen's Gambit is safer and more solid than Marshall Defence, Grünfeld, King's Indian Defence, Nimzovich Indian Defence. Less risk to lose, more draws. A stronger player will take the higher risk to lose to gain greater odss to win as black. The Marshall Defence just takes the ideas of the Grünfeld one step further, retreating the knight to b6 or even f6 instead of trading at c3.
@tpr
#37 is trying to defend an idea, looking at a position only from the result of a single game. If you look broader you get this:
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4
2... Nf6 3,820 games 64.8 % 15.7 % 19.5 %
Source: 365chess.com Big Database
The win of a GM with this opening against me says nothing about the opening. We all know this. What you're doing is defending an idea for the sake of the idea even if everybody including yourself knows what's going on really on the chessboard. This arguing is a sport in itself having nothing to do with the opening. Have fun!
#37 is trying to defend an idea, looking at a position only from the result of a single game. If you look broader you get this:
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4
2... Nf6 3,820 games 64.8 % 15.7 % 19.5 %
Source: 365chess.com Big Database
The win of a GM with this opening against me says nothing about the opening. We all know this. What you're doing is defending an idea for the sake of the idea even if everybody including yourself knows what's going on really on the chessboard. This arguing is a sport in itself having nothing to do with the opening. Have fun!
Quote:
> A position can only be winning, losing or draw. As long as the position stays draw there is no significant advantage.
A significant advantage leads to statistically measurable better results for the side with the advantage. Whether you take top GM games or top chess engine matches.
> A position can only be winning, losing or draw. As long as the position stays draw there is no significant advantage.
A significant advantage leads to statistically measurable better results for the side with the advantage. Whether you take top GM games or top chess engine matches.
#38
Win percentages on 2200 level and below say nothing.
To find the truth you do not need to look broader but rather look narrower at top grandmaster games, engine games and correspondence games.
If 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 is feasible, then 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is feasible just as well.
After 1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 cxd5 Nxd5 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 people play 5...Nxc3 just as well as 5...Nb6
Win percentages on 2200 level and below say nothing.
To find the truth you do not need to look broader but rather look narrower at top grandmaster games, engine games and correspondence games.
If 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 is feasible, then 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is feasible just as well.
After 1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 cxd5 Nxd5 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 people play 5...Nxc3 just as well as 5...Nb6
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.