1e4!

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]Your point was it doesn't matter what moves you make in the opening, I disagree.

No, my point is that there are more than just one good first move.


Likewise with reccomending 1.b3 as an opening Repertoire, if you want to play it because you enjoy it, more power to you, but it doesn't represent good advice to tell someone else to do so.

Look at the RHP stats.[/b]

Considering I dont play 1.e4 often- I would have agreed with you had you stated it that way.

There are many reasons besides win % why a novice should not play 1.b3 unless improving their play is not high on their list.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I have 17,000 games played with eco a01 (which is essentially 1.b3) by fide players.

wins 37% 6395
draws 26% 4313
losses 37% 6394

That is about 4% worse than 1.e4 scores in my database. So not horrific, but not ideal either- which is about a typical assesment of 1.b3 - it's playable.

Then again I don't trust win stats much as I posted earlier in a different thread.

For not trusting them, you certainly do appear to post them and try to use them as some sort of authority.

It seems to me that one should look at the ratings to determine how playable an opening is. What works for an 1800 may not work as well for a 2200 which may not work as well for a 900.

Know the idea behind your opening. Play an opening that leads into positions you like. Have fun playing chess and don't play openings that lead to boring games!


There are many reasons besides win % why a novice should not play 1.b3 unless improving their play is not high on their list.

Once again placing way too much importance on which piece one should move first. Play 1.b3 and you'll never improve! Play 1.e4 and you will improve!

Anyone who has spent any time playing knows this is gibberish.

Give me enough resources to hire 1000 GM's and Rybka clusters to go through my 6+ million database of games for objective truth in positions and I will trust win %
Until till then it remains a fantastic trap for those who trust raw outcomes....

For fun play anything, to improve, just play 1. e4 - it really is that simple. At some point players hit a wall, and instead of working on their tactics and such they blame the opening preparation of their opponents and start searching for a cure all.

reasons why 1.e4 is better-
1) played with a view to open games you get more tactics, opening principles matter more i.e. development etc.
2) playing through the old classics is easier because you are familiar with the openings and can follow their development throughout the years to the modern era.
3) way more datapoints- which means way more examples of how to play the middlegames, endgames etc.
4) most instructional books use e4 examples heavily, so looking at positions in them have an immediate relevant impact.
5) e4 at its most basic is a simple opening, attack. It can gain sophistication as you do. Lots of the offbeat stuff like the Reti, the nimzo larsen etc require a lot more out of a player and I am guessing if I comb through a 1600's games in these openings I will find that they arent even getting the point of the opening.
6) All of GP's posts will make sense because you have played the fried liver attack etc.. and have considered all the fantastic swindles available.

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]There are many reasons besides win % why a novice should not play 1.b3 unless improving their play is not high on their list.

Once again placing way too much importance on which piece one should move first. Play 1.b3 and you'll never improve! Play 1.e4 and you will improve!

Anyone who has spent any time playing knows this is gibberish.[/b]

I am not at all concerned with the first move, I am thinking about the positions that arise from the opening.

Based on watching 10+ players go from 1200-1400 to National Master, IM and one GM I can tell you that they all were instructed to play 1.e4 by their teachers and I have listed just a small portion of the reasons why.

Frankly, I think almost all the semi closed and closed openings are just too hard for non masters. You might score well with one, but at some point you wil meet players who understand them and then you are going to be utterly and completely stuck.

I thought the whole thread was a piece of fun.
Had no idea it was semi-serious.

The stats.

The 1400-1900 DB are incomplete and only show games
that last for 16 moves or more.

The full stats. This postion.


Has appeared 4,761 times.

White wins = 2082
Draws = 453
Black Wins = 2226

Black has the plus in 1.b3

Game 5925179 This is the Quickest Black win - you won't find it on the linked DB. Too short.



This postion.



663,234 times.

White wins = 308,977
draws = 61,145
Black wins 293,117

White has the plus in 1.e4

And don't ask me what opening scores the most for Black etc etc.
I cannot be bothered.

Originally posted by nimzo5
We definitely disagree about historical win % - IMO win % is simply a data trap for a CC player. You can't rely on the numbers being accurate to the quality of the position on the board.

I think is more and more true the deeper you get down an opening tree.

It is perfectly possible to have some variation get played 500 times with a 50% win rate for white, then have someone invent a counter that *would* reduce that to 20% if anyone kept playing the move. Since the variant is abandoned the historical percentages change only slowly.

But on black's first move? I don't think so. You want to argue that the Steinovichikine variation of the Najdorpyblanca attack on move 13 has been refuted, I will defer, but if you want to claim the historical track record of the Sicilian defense is refuted by something white can do on move 2 or 3 to force a more favorable line, I would like to see the argument.

I play both Open Sicilians and Dragons, so I am not about to say 1.e4 c5 is losing for Black. I don't know if it is the best answer to 1.e4 though.

Stats for the Sicilian v 1.e4

White wins some, Black wins some, some are drawn.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I play both Open Sicilians and Dragons, so I am not about to say 1.e4 c5 is losing for Black. I don't know if it is the best answer to 1.e4 though.

The problem is that the human brain is horrible at noticing the practical impact of small percentage differences in the likelihood of favorable outcomes. To do that, you need statistical analysis, which is surprisingly underutilized in Chess. Arguments about the superiority of specific moves are usually settled by playing around with the board and seeing who has the best position. Which is fun, and helps you learn, but doesn't settle arguments where the advantages aren't obvious by looking at the board. For that, you need stats (interpreted carefully, as we both seem to agree).

Greenpawn just provided a perfect example of how this can be done.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Stats for the Sicilian v 1.e4

White wins some, Black wins some, some are drawn.

Bad post placement. was referring to the "b3" analysis above.

I agree about the value of statistical analysis, I use it religiously in my work- Which is why I am unwilling to draw conclusions from horribly inaccurate sets of data.

When I work through opening lines whenever possible I start from an early key game and then work forwards and backwards to see how the line has evolved. Example, I was looking at a suspect Nbd2 move in the Semi Slav recently as played by Botvinnik vs Sharov in 1928.



I then went back and looked at how Botvinnik improved on previous play as in Antze - Leonhardt 1922 where Antze went very wrong and allowed a crushing attack
(requisite final position where White resigned)


Then I moved forward to see what improvements were made on the line
which are virtually nil as Stahlberg - Gideon Munich Oly 1958 went in a totally different direction.

Now I wouldn't pronounce this position 1-0 but I would gladly play White's side if given the chance.

That is how I view openings.

Hi

"Greenpawn just provided a perfect example of how this can be done."

Not really. If looking at stats for an opening then restricting the scope to
25 moves would have been better.
That is where games are won or lost in the opening. Any longer than that
and you have to consider that the opening has passed and the better
middle game player takes over.

True a player can pick up a healthy plus from an opening and take
it into the middle game. But again if his middle game is poor.
(and this has nothing to do with the opening) then the + will be turned around.

Personally think all novices should start with 1.e4.
It gets the pieces fighting hand to hand, tactics all over the place on
an open board.

The trouble with not being schooled in the classical openings is
that sooner or later closed games open up and then the player is found wanting.
Wild open games never go closed. It just does not happen.

1.b3 is OK infact anything is OK. But you have to have the abilty to
get your hands dirty and trade battle scars on an open board and know
all the tempo gaining tricks, the bog standard sacs and mating patterns....

You pick this up big time from 1.e4. You have to.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
True a player can pick up a healthy plus from an opening and take
it into the middle game. But again if his middle game is poor.
(and this has nothing to do with the opening) then the + will be turned around.

But this is why large dataset statistical analysis is valuable. It provides an all else equal analysis. Restricting to 25 moves preferences openings that lead to fast wins rather than to superior middlegame position. If that is what you want, this is certainly a solid way to analyze it.

I think the trap-heavy fast action of the king pawn openings is partly why they remain popular. Its also why I avoid them as white, figuring that the best way to avoid getting mugged is to not walk down the dark alley in the first place. But I will think on your comments of e4 as an invaluable learning tool. Hadn't thought that I might be gimping my tactical play in the long run...

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer

shows that:
1 e4 is pretty good, white wins 37.6%, black wins 29.2%, so white is about 8.4% up

1 d4 is possibly better, with slightly more white wins (37.2😵, more draws and fewer black wins (25.4😵, so white is about 11.8% up

1.e3 seems to give away whites advantage completely, white wins 35.4% against blacks 45.2% wins

and 1b3 is not exactly great, 36.7% wins for white and 33% wins for black, only 3.7% up for white.

Hi Rask

"....the best way to avoid getting mugged is to not walk down
the dark alley in the first place."

Play 1.e4 and soon you will be one of the muggers who dwell in the dark alley.
It's OK. You will be safe. We don't mug each other. No need.

There are plenty of tourists who like to take short cuts.

Tourists who think 1.Nf3 1.c4 even 1.b3 is a torch
to get them from one side of the alley to the other.

You hit them with a gambit, open up the game and their torch goes out.

....all alone in a dark place they have never been before.
....Their nightmare has just begun.

Go and see big M he will tool you up for the Alley.

Morphy will give you the infra-red goggles.
Mieses will give you a cosh.
Marshall will give you soft silent shoes.

Me?
I'll give you a whacking great Cricket Bat to swing widly and blindly about.
Sometimes you might actually hit someone. What a pleasant noise that makes. 😉