hmm.. from the same source .... d4 - e5 black wins 43.3%!
d4 - d5 22.7 % so looks good .....but small number of games and i suspect black knew what they were doing more than white ....
Such a superficial statistical analysis of the first move will never yield any conclusions or insight into which move is actually better than the other. For instance, evaluating the soundness of the Englund Gambit should be done from an evaluation of the critical positions, not from the scoring statistics at move 2. You could use a large set of games and a computer, as well as your own analysis to figure out what the best moves are for both sides (approximately), and evaluate the resulting positions once some clarity has been reached. I'd suspect this gambit absolutely sucks for Black intuitively, but what do I know? 😀
according to all the stats of all the possabilities after e4 or d4...
d4 - d5 and d4 - c6 are the worst for black ... the queens gambit has very good stats with black winning just 1/5 games.... am not playing it any more as black!
TONY , disagree- the difference between e4 - e5 and d4 - d5 is marked .. it's clear black is slightly worse with the later and i'm sure if you had a billion games database it would only prove it more.
although agree d4 - e5 looks dodgy and the stats could be very misleading ... a lot of unsound tactical openings have good stats.
just found the halloween attack wins 60%, but i'm sure its unsound ... 🙂
I'd say general statistics on openings can be largely ignored. they only give you the information on how badly the unprepared opponents do.
instead, I think it's much better to take a specialist on any given opening, and see how well he does against his peers. often their performance in their specialty far exceeds the statistical average. and THAT is what tells you most about the potential of an opening. HIS level on the opening is what you should aim at and compare yourself against, not all the players who mishandle the opening in countless ways.
most openings are extremely dangerous in the hands of a specialist, regardless of the general statistics. put in more work than your peers, and you'll have the advantage in most of the games.
Originally posted by wormwood I'd say general statistics on openings can be largely ignored. they only give you the information on how badly the unprepared opponents do.
instead, I think it's much better to take a specialist on any given opening, and see how well he does against his peers. often their performance in their specialty far exceeds the statistical average. and THAT ...[text shortened]... istics. put in more work than your peers, and you'll have the advantage in most of the games.
Originally posted by Black Star Uchess TONY , disagree- the difference between e4 - e5 and d4 - d5 is marked .. it's clear black is slightly worse with the later and i'm sure if you had a billion games database it would only prove it more.
although agree d4 - e5 looks dodgy and the stats could be very misleading ... a lot of unsound tactical openings have good stats.
just found the halloween attack wins 60%, but i'm sure its unsound ... 🙂
That's the thing. It's not clear. If you wanted to compare the validity of 1. e4 e5 vs. 1. d4 d5 (which is silly in my opinion anyway, there's no relation between the two whatsoever), it would be better to take a large sample of top level games from critical and well respected positions within each opening. For instance, take games played by 2500+ players in the Main Line Chigorin Ruy Lopez, and the Main Line Slav or QGD positions. Database statistics on move 2 are screwed up by sub par amateur play and sub par opening choices. Your comparison doesn't delve deep enough into the subtleties of openings.
Originally posted by Black Star Uchess TONY , disagree- the difference between e4 - e5 and d4 - d5 is marked .. it's clear black is slightly worse with the later and i'm sure if you had a billion games database it would only prove it more.
Does the fact that Anand won the world championship beating Kramnik from the Black side of 1. d4 d5 affect your view?
well am sticking to my argument... the stats say .. over a significant number of game that d4 - d5 is bad for black.
i apprecaite that opening stats can be very mislaeding and are scewed by preparation but , when looking at the 4 most common moves played. the sheer number of games counters this. And the stats say d4-d5 is the worst for black.
Originally posted by Black Star Uchess well am sticking to my argument... the stats say .. over a significant number of game that d4 - d5 is bad for black.
i apprecaite that opening stats can be very mislaeding and are scewed by preparation but , when looking at the 4 most common moves played. the sheer number of games counters this. And the stats say d4-d5 is the worst for black.
1.d4 d5 would be so obviously worse for black could you explain why top GMs don`t mind to play 1.d4 d5 as Black and why they play not only 1.d4 ?
About value of statistics - you may check my last blog post 😉
to put it another way... the data was from GM games ... and about 150,000 in the sample said... you know despite all my preperation i played d4-d5 and still lost .. and you know on average it is the worst reply to d4 out of all our games.. seems valid ...
e4 vs d4
23 Mar '09 13:39
Back to Top