Is the Caro-Kann really "just rubbish"?

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.

Nim (with six stacks) is an example of a game where the first player loses with best play. Chess is too complicated to analyse completely in the way that nim has been, but there's no reason to suppose it might be any different.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]Hi Paul,

Basically what you are saying is the better chess player will win
no matter what sound opening is played and that is correct.

Hi Paul,

Like all good players they probably started off with gambit play and Morphy type games.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I have always wondered about the "chicken and egg" idea: Did the players I know become good, and then took up the Caro Kann, or did they take up the Caro Kann and then become good?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
For awhile, they took up the Caro because Bobby Fischer had trouble against it. 🙂

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
... we could also argue the the starting position is a "strategic zugzwang" where white's first move, no matter what it is, involves a concession of some kin[d] that black can exploit .... I highly doubt that to be the case, but I can't disprove it at this point.

Originally posted by Linden Lyons
Is there any literature which considers this intriguing possibility of the starting position as a 'strategic zugzwang'?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
John Nunn wrote in the introduction to one of his books that he thinks the game is a draw with best play, stating that he couldn't prove it but he believed it to be true. It's what prompted me to think about it.

We're just not yet at the point where we can tell.

after 1.e4 c6 whites initiative is gone.

Here is an OTB game I played tonight against a pretty decent opponent (ECF grade of 177). I was Black; played in the style of Keith Arkell!