Originally posted by chaamjamal The paper cited below compares 1...c6 to 1...c5 after 1. e5. I was a shocked at the dismal performance of 1...c6. Your comments appreciated.
Originally posted by chaamjamal The paper cited below compares 1...c6 to 1...c5 after 1. e5. I was a shocked at the dismal performance of 1...c6. Your comments appreciated.
I am concerned by this statement: That is to say, perfect chess games end in draw except for a
certain probability, likely to be small, that white will win
because it makes the first move. Black has no chance of
winning a perfect game.
I am unaware of any proof that Black does not have a forced win.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 I am concerned by this statement: That is to say, perfect chess games end in draw except for a
certain probability, likely to be small, that white will win
because it makes the first move. Black has no chance of
winning a perfect game.
I am unaware of any proof that Black does not have a forced win.
Anyone?
Black can't have a forced win because however that win started, white can always start with a move that prevents it because white goes first.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb Black can't have a forced win because however that win started, white can always start with a move that prevents it because white goes first.
That's not a solid proof, is it? The possibility that such move for white does not exist, is ignored. As far as I know, no proofs about the result of perfect play exist.
However, based on experience, most will indeed agree that white can at least achieve a draw. I think the main issue remains whether white can force a win, or black can force the draw.
Originally posted by chaamjamal The paper cited below compares 1...c6 to 1...c5 after 1. e5. I was a shocked at the dismal performance of 1...c6. Your comments appreciated.
One could ask former world champion Anatoly Karpov who employed it consistently with great success and get an entirely different perspective. Chess opening by statistics are essentially useless. Caro Khan is awesome for beating up hackers in the endgame.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie One could ask former world champion Anatoly Karpov who employed it consistently with great success and get an entirely different perspective. Chess opening by statistics are essentially useless. Caro Khan is awesome for beating up hackers in the endgame.
The games of Tigran (El Tigre) Petrosian are worth examination.
Originally posted by caissad4 The games of Tigran (El Tigre) Petrosian are worth examination.
Indeed, Anand has also used it with quite good success. The fact of the matter is this, White gets virtually a minuscule initiative which eventually dissipates to nothing, he or she must accept a modest structure and play tactically with the pieces as Fischer did against Petrosian or positionally try to push d4-d5 and accept and IQP. I like it better than the French, French can get stodgy for me.
"You're not a GM? Good. You can ignore all those stats. "
Your games will be decided by blunders big and small and will come from any opening.
Stats on openings should never be taken seriously they can lead you
up the garden path and round and round in circles.
Let us look at the stats of the three players players mentioned.
Petrosian, Anand and Karpov on the Black side of the Caro Kann.
Petrosian W.17 D.57 L.11 (not very impressive. 6 more wins than losses.)
Anand W.20 D.38 L.14 (neither is that. Six more wins than losses.)
Karpov W.78 D.133 L.62 (62 losses with it!)
All three have more draws than wins.
What about them v the Caro Kann.
Petrosian W.1 D.2 L.0 (what can you make from that?)
Anand W.40 D.7 L.7
Karpov W.23 D.13 L.6
I'd say going by them stats Anand & Karpov played better v the Car Kann
than they did playing with the Black pieces.
Fischer on the White side.
W. 31 D.14 L.7 (That is impressive - more wins than the draws and losses added together.)
Two of the 7 Fishcer losses came from Keres in 1959.
So maybe Keres is the Caro Kann expert we are looking for .
Keres W.6 D.3 L.2 (he played it as Black 11 times.)
Aside from all the mathematical mumbo-jumbo,the guy who wrote that pile of horse**** is most likely not a chess player. I'd like to know how many games he examined to make his declaration
The Caro-Kann was my tournament work-horse against 1.e4 for over 30 years. It is an easy defence to learn since it is more of a system than an opening per se. Black plays the same thematic ideas against most White set-ups. It is a great system for club players who need a solid,reliable defense to the KP,but have neither the time,or inclination,to swot up loads of theory in the Spanish,Sicilian,French,etc.
Paper says it was all chess engines playing against engines.
Who knows what engines parameters ect.
It looks like the guy is a chess player but more important this looks like some sort of college work.
Chess engines can do some cool things. However I am pretty sure you can't use once in a tournament or game yourself. Kann players normally go for the endgame slow and methodical. Chess engines are very well adapt at this. Humans not so much.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie One could ask former world champion Anatoly Karpov who employed it consistently with great success and get an entirely different perspective. Chess opening by statistics are essentially useless. Caro Khan is awesome for beating up hackers in the endgame.
I agree 100%. I've played over many of Karpov's Caro-Kann games, and they were a study in tactical and positional brillance. What these math wizards are not seeing is the Caro-Kann is a very solid, though slow developing opening that gives black good chances in the middle and end game, where most games are won or lost.
06 Mar '14 06:39
Is the Caro-Kann really "just rubbish"?
Back to Top