Only Chess
07 Sep 06
07 Sep 06
2 edits
So far I have played 237 games on RHP so it seemed a good time to analyse results
Overall W181 D34 L22 for a score of 83.4%
Kings Gambit (as white) P56 W46 D6 L4 scoring 87.5%
Benoni (as black) P9 W6 D3 L0 scoring 83.3%
French (as white) P14 W10 D3 L1 scoring 82.1%
Morra Gambit (as white) P27 W20 D4 L3 scoring 81.4%
Ruy Lopez (as black) P12 W8 D3 L1 scoring 79.2%
Other Q pawn (as black) P28 W21 D4 L3 scoring 78.6%
Kings Gambit (as black) P2 W1 D0 L1 scoring 50%
So K G for white wins hands down.
07 Sep 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireI don't know what kind of opponents you are playing right now but when you were posting those strange openings I remember your opponents weren't close to your rating.
So far I have played 237 games on RHP so it seemed a good time to analyse results
Overall W181 D34 L22 for a score of 83.4%
Kings Gambit (as white) P56 W46 D6 L4 scoring 87.5%
Benoni (as black) P9 W6 D3 L0 scoring 83.3%
French (as white) P14 W10 D3 L1 scoring 82.1%
Morra Gambit (as white) P27 W20 D4 L3 scoring 81.4%
Ruy Lopez (as black) P12 W8 ...[text shortened]... 6%
Kings Gambit (as black) P2 W1 D0 L1 scoring 50%
[b]So K G for white wins hands down.[/b]
That makes a big difference. You can beat lower rated opponents with almost any opening but not higher rated ones.
07 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireGames aren't necessarily won by opening. Your opponent could've blundered, or you had superior endgame play, etc. Unless you isolate those games won just by opening (a difficult task to do), your data won't be accurate.
So far I have played 237 games on RHP so it seemed a good time to analyse results
Overall W181 D34 L22 for a score of 83.4%
Kings Gambit (as white) P56 W46 D6 L4 scoring 87.5%
Benoni (as black) P9 W6 D3 L0 scoring 83.3%
French (as white) P14 W10 D3 L1 scoring 82.1%
Morra Gambit (as white) P27 W20 D4 L3 scoring 81.4%
Ruy Lopez (as black) P12 W8 ...[text shortened]... 6%
Kings Gambit (as black) P2 W1 D0 L1 scoring 50%
[b]So K G for white wins hands down.[/b]
Also, in order to have comparable data, the sample sizes should be similar. For example you have only 2 games with with King's gambit as black while you played 56 as white. You can't compare those sample sizes.
07 Sep 06
5 edits
Originally posted by RahimKOK 2 queries. Statistically you may need larger samples for some of these openings and it is true that some players were certainly weaker than others.
I don't know what kind of opponents you are playing right now but when you were posting those strange openings I remember your opponents weren't close to your rating.
That makes a big difference. You can beat lower rated opponents with almost any opening but not higher rated ones.
Originally posted by chesskid001
Games aren't necessarily ing's gambit as black while you played 56 as white. You can't compare those sample sizes.
I actually don't think the strength of my opponents is relevant for this as there is a mixture of strengths across all these openings. What I am trying to show is the comparative performance and on this basis the K G comes out best for white. My opposition is certainly getting stronger so I now expect to score a lower percentage but that should affect all openings.
At our level most games are decided by a blunder of some sort (just not so obvious as leaving a Q en prise) but again expect this to be equally across all openings so the differential stands.
I would like to see results from other players on their performance with different openings. I am beginning to feel the K G is great for white (and not so great for black) but we will see.
Samples don't need to be identical sizes to be meaningful. They just need to be large enough statistically which is why I left out my performance on the Caro Cann (only 3 games). I also did not count the Grob (g4) where I have a 93.3% score because these were not against typical opponents (they were all too weak, ie. all were graded below 1500). The sample for black in K G is too small I agree. Most of my opponents don't seem to play this.
Heres some additional score against weaker opponents (which is why I missed them off). For the Sicilian (as black) I used no reference material and fooled around a bit as I don't normally play c5 as black
Sicilian (as black) P17 W14 d1 L2 scoring 85.20%
Other Kings Pawn (both colours) P 39 W32 D5 L2 scoring 88.5%
07 Sep 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireI thought you choose your opening according to your opponents rating. So people do this.
OK 2 queries. Statistically you may need larger samples for some of these openings and it is true that some players were certainly weaker than others.
I actually don't think the strength of my opponents is relevant for this as there is a mixture of strengths across all these openings. What I am trying to show is the comparative performance and on this ...[text shortened]... ) P17 W14 d1 L2 scoring 85.20%
Other Kings Pawn (both colours) P 39 W32 D5 L2 scoring 88.5%
If they are playing a lower rated player they might go with 1.e4
but vs a higher one they would try say 1.c4.
But if you say that all the opponents were relatively the same strenght for different openings then fine.
07 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireI separate my games into folders after I finish, these are KG games, white against other defences, sicilian games, and vs. 1.d4 games (other openings will be put into an "other" folder, which I'm too lazy to have made. I started doing this once I got a subscription, and so my early games (about 20) are excluded from my results. They would really just skew things anyways since included are Ruy games (as white) QG games (as white) and other openings which I never play.
So far I have played 237 games on RHP so it seemed a good time to analyse results
Overall W181 D34 L22 for a score of 83.4%
Kings Gambit (as white) P56 W46 D6 L4 scoring 87.5%
Benoni (as black) P9 W6 D3 L0 scoring 83.3%
French (as white) P14 W10 D3 L1 scoring 82.1%
Morra Gambit (as white) P27 W20 D4 L3 scoring 81.4%
Ruy Lopez (as black) P12 W8 ...[text shortened]... 6%
Kings Gambit (as black) P2 W1 D0 L1 scoring 50%
[b]So K G for white wins hands down.[/b]
So...(W-L-D)
With the KG
10-0-1 (This will soon become 10-2-1, which is likely to be followed with some wins, but as these games are unofficial I won't count them.)
With the Sicilian
9-3-1
Against 1.d4 (Benko if I can get it)
2-5-1 Extremely low. Don't ask me why. I do think I may have some wins coming against 1.d4 games, but I can't explain why my percentrges are so low! I think the main reason is that I don't as much theory against d4 as I do with say the KG or Sicilian.
EDIT: Note that all games are against all ratings - Many wins are against low rated players. Set piece games and training games are all excluded, and non tournament or clan games (No sieges yet finished) are also excluded. To explain the last point, all of those games were before my subscription was bought, and as I explained, I didn't exactly have a repertoire then (No KG games, no Benko games, and few Sicilian games would be included in those statistics.)
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
08 Sep 06
3 edits
I will do the RHP openings in a little bit, thought id do OTB openings and stats first. The players ratings were between 1700 and 2200.
Benko (black) P6 W4 D2 L0
KG (white) P6 W5 D1 L0
Pirc (white) P1 W1 D0 L0
1.d4 d5 lines (Black-transpositions) P3 W0 D0 L3
Siclian (Qb6 Black) P2 W0 D0 L2
Polish (black) P1 W0 D0 L1
Open Siclian P3 W1 D0 L3
Closed Siclian P5 W3 D1 L1
Trompowsky (black) P2 W2 D0 L0
Scandinavian (white) P1 W0 D1 L0
Dutch (black) P1 W0 D0 L1
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
08 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by chesskid001I tend to disagree the games are won by openings. If you get a position you are comfortable with then the chances of you blundering or picking the wrong plan are much reduced.
Games aren't necessarily won by opening. Your opponent could've blundered, or you had superior endgame play, etc. Unless you isolate those games won just by opening (a difficult task to do), your data won't be accurate.
Also, in order to have comparable data, the sample sizes should be similar. For example you have only 2 games with with King's gambit as black while you played 56 as white. You can't compare those sample sizes.
I was just playing on playchess the game went (im black) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5......I had intended to play c5 but picked up the d pawn, lack of coffee or something 🙂 Anyway the resulting game wasnt much fun. I didnt feel as though I understood the resulting positions very well and felt a little lost looking for a long term plan and how to go about putting that plan into action, consequently i ended up eating huge amounts of time in the opening. If I had of played c5 I would have breezed through the opening and into a middle game which I would have known the plan/common tactics/how to use the pieces/which pieces are good or bad etc. Openings can make a huge difference to your rating.
Looking at my otb list from last season, losing the 1.d4 d5 games doesnt surprise me since I dont really enjoy the resulting play. The open siclian losses too....I feel ok playing open siclians but sometimes feel that my theory isnt all it could be when entering them. Closed siclian positions seem to give me little trouble as white or black, im quite happy to play the Grand Prix as white and more than happy to meet a closed siclian from the black point of view. I tend to enjoy initiative and dont mind being material down (especially pawns) in return for active pieces, the results tend to reflect this.
08 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamOK not as many games as on RHP because OTB games tend to be less but the K G is still standing up well. I'd like to see comparative performances on RHP here and I am interested to see how the new OTB season starting next month for me pans out with the opening theory learnt here (watch this space in 12 months).
I will do the RHP openings in a little bit, thought id do OTB openings and stats first. The players ratings were between 1700 and 2200.
KG (white) P6 W5 D1 L0
The only point I was trying to make, which some people seem to love misinterpreting was not how great I was as my high percentages are certainly due to a lot of weaker players I would not meet OTB, is that comparatively the K G seems to get better results.
My black results are generally worse than white but that is to be expected. I don't face the K G often so its hard for me to assess my performance here as black (2 games is obviously not enough and the current tournament will only add a handful) . All I can say is I don't like playing against it.
08 Sep 06
4 edits
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugAnother win win K G
Your results are near meaningless as you have a tendency to play those far below your strength.
Game 2301176
far below my strength? Tell User 46473 that!
Also tellmy opponents in Game 2375895, Game 2364929 that they are all far below my strength. I could add many more.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugOf course if I was playing people closer to my strength I would expect an average score of 50%. Thats not the point. The point is the K G is coming out better. Its not about me being great.
From your stats :
182 Lost 22. If you were playing people more your strength, the figures would be closer together.Originally posted by Dragon Fire
[b] Tell User 46473 that!
Ah, yes I know of user 46473, no comment.[/b]
Now that my rating is up I expect my percentage of wins to be lower as my opposition is stronger.