46% score rate in the masters database for black, compared to overall 45.5% after 1. e4. Yeah, terribly defunct opening
Honestly, never let engines guide your choice of opening theory - unless you happen to have the brain of a god then you are not going to be capable of their way of seeing the game, and neither will your opponent (assuming they are not cheating).
You should always choose opening positions that you feel comfortable playing rather then because a computer gives it -0.1 to white. Now if it is saying -3 to white then yeah maybe you should be rethinking your life choices...
You should always choose opening positions that you feel comfortable playing rather then because a computer gives it -0.1 to white. Now if it is saying -3 to white then yeah maybe you should be rethinking your life choices...
@LegendaryQueen
How do engine works and why they are not able to judge perfectly any opening, like the Caro-Kann (that is in fact, a reasonable one).
I'm not a great chess player, but I think probably I can tell you something you didn't know about how engines work. Engines CANNOT calculate all the moves in a line: notice that after only 5 moves after the starting position there are 69.352.859.712.417 possibles positions and today's engines cannot analyze all of them in less then 15k years! So programmers made engines capable of selecting lines and avoid many of them. But how do they know which moves to cut off? Engines choose only the ones that bring to a good position, and they stop digging down with the other lines. So they continue to analyze the better lines, diggin down for 20, 30, 40 more moves, repeating the process of cutting off the worst lines. Example: after five moves of analyzing all the lines you've got a position in which you are up a queen, a position in which you are down a rook, and a position in which black and white have the same amount of material (and many others of course). So the engine doesn't cut off line 1, does cut off line 2 and doesn't cut off line 3; then it proceed analyzind deeper line 1 and 3 but cutting of all the worst positions. Here comes the fundamental question: how do engines judge position for selecting the best ones? They have criteria, based only on the position and not on further analizys (if they continued to analyze again and again they would spend too much time to find the better moves). So a basic criterion would be the material, the amount of piece that you have, but it's way too rudimental and brutal. And, that's the point, the criteria used by engines like Alphazero is not decided by the programmers: it's a criteria with tousand, millions of variables, that is created by the engine himself. And how do engines create that criteria? Programmers made engines run billions of games, some of them real and some of them are imaginary games, and they made them learn from all the combinations in those games.
///For curious:
The difference between Stockfish and Alphazero is that Stockfish has a non-mutating judging criteria, based on all the games it previously processed, and that criteria changes only when programmers make Stockfish analysing a consistent nuber of new games: that gives a stable and very efficient engine. Alphazero instead for every game it plays or processes, it instantly modifies its criteria (very little changes, kind of insignificant, but in long term make it better) and that's why "self-learning" Alphazero is a bit better than Stockfish.///
So this criterion is not: does black control the center?, is white up a piece, or is black's bishop efficient..., but is a total unhumanlly-immaginable criterion based only on thousands of "nonsense" variables. That's why Alphazero or Stockpish, or Fritz and so on don't know anything about human strategy and humans don't know and never will be able to know anything about engines strategies. For those reasons, engines are not able to tell us accurately which opening is good and which opening is bad, they just can make millions of comparisons, but never will be able to explain us the reasons.
Why the Caro-Kann is reasonable.
1. Alphazero gives white an advantage of 0.4 after 1st move e4, and an advantage od 0.5 after 1... c6, While Stockfish: 1. e4 +0.4, 1... c6 +0.4. So engines also don't consider it at all a blunder or inaccuracy. So again, not only we shall not trust 100% engines analisys, but also they seem to consider the Caro-Kann a reasonable line, so @LegendaryQueen there are no engines that say Caro-Kann is an incaccuracy.
2. Kind of all great grandmasters (Carlsen, Kasparov, Firouza, whoever you want...) have played it in tournaments, so I think we cannot say that is a bad line: between masters, the percentage of black winning games after c6 is 24%, and after e6 is also 24%, while the percentage of drawing after c6 is 42%, while after e6 is 40%. No human stats proove that CK is bad. I mean, @LegendaryQueen you shoud not say general (and quite brutal also) critics to reasonable opening.
@LegendaryQueen "I have literally studied all of the world champions, all of the best Grandmasters going back to the initial good ones. But more to this, I have a deeply intuitive nature of the differences in style." "My strength and understanding of chess are not of discussion here, but I can pretty much assure you, they are not in question."
I hope you said these things only because you wanted some points to your argument, but all of them were only incoherent and quite false too, as you know well: you're not a grandmaster, and neither an IM or a FM so please show respect to other players and stop being aggressive and try to listen more to others.
I want to remind all you guys (me included) that this is a forum, not a place to argue in. @LegendaryQueen it's a discussion not an argue.
@LegendaryQueen "The Caro-Kann is a bad opening. A very bad one!" "The Caro-Kann is quite literally and absolutely terrible."
"1.Nf3? It's okay though no problem. I do recommend though it's good to study the 1.Nf3 and so forth variations for some time and then switch back to 1.e4."
(Nf3 is considered the best line by Stockfish, as strong as e4, and by Alphazero too)
@LegendaryQueen Please be reasonable don't be provocateur on purpose, I'm sure you know that what you said wer only provocations.
Hoping this may be useful to someone, just wanted to clarify some things off, and reminding again this is a pacific and non-offensive discussion.
How do engine works and why they are not able to judge perfectly any opening, like the Caro-Kann (that is in fact, a reasonable one).
I'm not a great chess player, but I think probably I can tell you something you didn't know about how engines work. Engines CANNOT calculate all the moves in a line: notice that after only 5 moves after the starting position there are 69.352.859.712.417 possibles positions and today's engines cannot analyze all of them in less then 15k years! So programmers made engines capable of selecting lines and avoid many of them. But how do they know which moves to cut off? Engines choose only the ones that bring to a good position, and they stop digging down with the other lines. So they continue to analyze the better lines, diggin down for 20, 30, 40 more moves, repeating the process of cutting off the worst lines. Example: after five moves of analyzing all the lines you've got a position in which you are up a queen, a position in which you are down a rook, and a position in which black and white have the same amount of material (and many others of course). So the engine doesn't cut off line 1, does cut off line 2 and doesn't cut off line 3; then it proceed analyzind deeper line 1 and 3 but cutting of all the worst positions. Here comes the fundamental question: how do engines judge position for selecting the best ones? They have criteria, based only on the position and not on further analizys (if they continued to analyze again and again they would spend too much time to find the better moves). So a basic criterion would be the material, the amount of piece that you have, but it's way too rudimental and brutal. And, that's the point, the criteria used by engines like Alphazero is not decided by the programmers: it's a criteria with tousand, millions of variables, that is created by the engine himself. And how do engines create that criteria? Programmers made engines run billions of games, some of them real and some of them are imaginary games, and they made them learn from all the combinations in those games.
///For curious:
The difference between Stockfish and Alphazero is that Stockfish has a non-mutating judging criteria, based on all the games it previously processed, and that criteria changes only when programmers make Stockfish analysing a consistent nuber of new games: that gives a stable and very efficient engine. Alphazero instead for every game it plays or processes, it instantly modifies its criteria (very little changes, kind of insignificant, but in long term make it better) and that's why "self-learning" Alphazero is a bit better than Stockfish.///
So this criterion is not: does black control the center?, is white up a piece, or is black's bishop efficient..., but is a total unhumanlly-immaginable criterion based only on thousands of "nonsense" variables. That's why Alphazero or Stockpish, or Fritz and so on don't know anything about human strategy and humans don't know and never will be able to know anything about engines strategies. For those reasons, engines are not able to tell us accurately which opening is good and which opening is bad, they just can make millions of comparisons, but never will be able to explain us the reasons.
Why the Caro-Kann is reasonable.
1. Alphazero gives white an advantage of 0.4 after 1st move e4, and an advantage od 0.5 after 1... c6, While Stockfish: 1. e4 +0.4, 1... c6 +0.4. So engines also don't consider it at all a blunder or inaccuracy. So again, not only we shall not trust 100% engines analisys, but also they seem to consider the Caro-Kann a reasonable line, so @LegendaryQueen there are no engines that say Caro-Kann is an incaccuracy.
2. Kind of all great grandmasters (Carlsen, Kasparov, Firouza, whoever you want...) have played it in tournaments, so I think we cannot say that is a bad line: between masters, the percentage of black winning games after c6 is 24%, and after e6 is also 24%, while the percentage of drawing after c6 is 42%, while after e6 is 40%. No human stats proove that CK is bad. I mean, @LegendaryQueen you shoud not say general (and quite brutal also) critics to reasonable opening.
@LegendaryQueen "I have literally studied all of the world champions, all of the best Grandmasters going back to the initial good ones. But more to this, I have a deeply intuitive nature of the differences in style." "My strength and understanding of chess are not of discussion here, but I can pretty much assure you, they are not in question."
I hope you said these things only because you wanted some points to your argument, but all of them were only incoherent and quite false too, as you know well: you're not a grandmaster, and neither an IM or a FM so please show respect to other players and stop being aggressive and try to listen more to others.
I want to remind all you guys (me included) that this is a forum, not a place to argue in. @LegendaryQueen it's a discussion not an argue.
@LegendaryQueen "The Caro-Kann is a bad opening. A very bad one!" "The Caro-Kann is quite literally and absolutely terrible."
"1.Nf3? It's okay though no problem. I do recommend though it's good to study the 1.Nf3 and so forth variations for some time and then switch back to 1.e4."
(Nf3 is considered the best line by Stockfish, as strong as e4, and by Alphazero too)
@LegendaryQueen Please be reasonable don't be provocateur on purpose, I'm sure you know that what you said wer only provocations.
Hoping this may be useful to someone, just wanted to clarify some things off, and reminding again this is a pacific and non-offensive discussion.
I propose to rename the opening "the Gajjari." After googling extensively (roughly 22 seconds) I found that the way you spell carrot in kannada is Gajjari. If you shorten Carrot and Kannada, you get the Caro Kann.. This should remove the innacuracy from stockfish and make it a complete blunder, as it will not be able to understand why I wrote this.
I consider Caro-Kann a good opening overall because, to the best of our knowledge, Black is able to equalise in all its major lines. And I consider Caro-Kann a great opening specifically for myself because I find these methods of equalising - and often fighting for more - comparatively easy to learn and reliable. If you want to challenge my viewpoint, you can show a single line where you believe that White retains significant advantage. If you don't want to challenge my viewpoint, though, of course you can produce more lengthy elucubrations about the beauty and superiority of Alpha Zero.
The Caro-Kann is a pathetic and terrible opening. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
Of course I understand chess very well -- do you know anyone who has gone over every variation of about 10 Kasparov books?
Why do you exist in animosity? Why is attacks and slanders the main way you interact with other human beings?
Why do you exist in animosity? Why is attacks and slanders the main way you interact with other human beings?
And why is Post # 44 the top one eh?
Why do you embraced the Ugliest Aspects of human nature? Hated off-the-board, Soviet-Style Tactics, all of the rest of the B.S. and hate. It's not that hard to have a human community that is not based on hatred and animosity.
You wished for an answer -- you wanted to know, what is true in chess.
You have one but you hate the answer.
You have one but you hate the answer.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.