|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-27-23 | | stone free or die: <saff> I can only conclude you're a published author, which is the only explanation I can come up with for this pagecount obsession! Just curious, how many pages do you think would be required? As for (A), that does make a book controversial. If anything, it might suggest it just the opposite. As for (B), you've just targeted about 90% of the contemporary published chess literature, haven't you? . |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | saffuna: <Just curious, how many pages do you think would be required?> To present a winning plan for white (or at least gaining a solid advantage) from move one? Thousands of pages.
Elite chess players are result-oriented, do we agree? If Berliner had actually presented as good an opening system for white as he claimed to, everyone would be playing it today. But believe me, whoever reviewed it for "Inside Chess"--it must have been Benjamin or Donaldson--really, really hated it. As I remember, repeating myself, the primary complaint was that the book was not nearly detailed enough, did not have deep enough varations, to justify Berliner's claims. |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | eternaloptimist: Wow a bunch of kibitzes have been made today for Berliner on his birthday! He’s definitely 1 of the best correspondence chess players of all time & he got into corr chess before chess players were using computers for analysis. <fredthebear> I agree that Stockfish thinking that the Colle System is better than the Queen’s Gambit is controversial. I’ve noticed that when black plays ...g6 & fianchettos his ♔side ♗ vs the Colle, he/she normally doesn’t hv any problems fending off attacks from white. That is unless there’s a big rating difference & white has a substantially higher rating than black does OR black just plays a blunder. I plan to do some analyzing w/ Stockfish w/ both openings & c what happens! |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | keypusher: <How about the Woodpecker Method, anyone?> I tried it (one cycle, at least), and I still suck. But even a very good book can only do so much. I still think the method is worth trying. The problem, if you do something other than play chess for a living, is finding the time. |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | chancho: The Woodpecker method is basically like using Reinfeld's two books: 1001 Brilliant Checkmates and 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations. I remember Joseph Sparks mentioning that reading and re-reading those Reinfeld books can help a player improve at tactics and mates. |
|
Jan-27-23
| | eternaloptimist: To elaborate more on ...g6, when black plays this vs the Colle, white’s ♗ on d3 is “biting on granite” |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | Check It Out: This game is always worth looking at again:
Estrin vs H Berliner, 1965 |
|
| Jan-28-23 | | whiteshark: The German GM Robert Huebner reviewed Berliner's work in detail in ChessBase magazine (No. 79 [2000] and No. 80 [2001]) and came to the conclusion <"that <The System> is a system of faith. [...] The mind cannot gain a foothold on what is commanded, but it is not supposed to; allegiance and faith provide security."> |
|
Jan-29-23
| | saffuna: I broke down and bought a digital clpy of "The System." Looks like a smart purchase so far. From the introduction:
<There seems to be some point where one side is far enough ahead to force his opponent to make concessions as discussed above. We believe that point also exists at the start of the game. The fact that Black has a very bad position after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 and after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 certainly does not instil much faith in Black’s ability to find a satisfactory defensive set-up. We have not as yet found any refutation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence, but are close. However, if the analyses of the Queen’s Gambit Declined and the Grünfeld Defence are correct, then the future will certainly bring further refutations, and chess will be a solved game by the year 2030. Many will wring their hands at this, and hope that I am wrong.> So the Queens Gambit and the Grunfeld are discarded without a word of analysis. And only eight years until chess will be solved! (Tablebases reach seven pieces as I understand, so a long way to go before '30.) |
|
Jan-29-23
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Saffuna,
(the book is so good you posted twice.)
Computers via tablebases are solving chess backwards. There maybe a huge leap in technology ( they will call it 'The God Chip') and come 2030 a 32 piece tablebase will be on everyone's mobile phone. I suspect the best first move will be 1.Nf3 (commands central squares, does not weaken the pawn structure.) 1..Nf6 is the reply. |
|
Jan-29-23
| | saffuna: <(the book is so good you posted twice.)> I re-posted with a typo corrected. Then at the moment I had posted and went back to delete the original post, the hour had passed and I could no longer delete it! |
|
Jan-31-23
| | keypusher: <The fact that Black has a very bad position after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 and after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 certainly does not instil much faith in Black’s ability to find a satisfactory defensive set-up. We have not as yet found any refutation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence, but are close.> I'm very much in the market for a refutation of the Nimzoindian, given that I seem to be struggling for equality against it at times. So let me know when that gets figured out, <jim>. Speaking seriously, I do think the terrible Black score for the QGD is meaningful. Not that super-GMs, who are generally satisfied to survive with Black, need to choose their defenses that way, but I know that, for example, FSR avoids really low-scoring lines. |
|
| Jan-31-23 | | savagerules: This Berliner guy is the 1 d4 and Wins equivalent of the 1 e4 and Wins mantra by the controversial Weaver Adams back in the day. Fischer referred to Adams on occasion and of course he was also a proponent of 1 e4. I think Berliner wanted chess to be solved by 2030 and he would be 100 years old by then and could then die happy seeing his 1 d4 proven right. But Berliner died and 1 d4 is just another opening move, nothing special. |
|
Jan-31-23
 | | beatgiant: If one looks at the percentages in the Opening Explorer, 1. Na3 is awesome (66.7% wins), albeit on a small sample (30 games). Of the first moves with thousands of samples, most score around 38% wins, the highest being 1. b3 (38.5%). |
|
| Feb-01-23 | | stone free or die: <beat> Ha!
But as I've often said, every number number is a lie without an error bar. One also has to be very suspect of sampling bias for this screwball opening. And what's <CG> criteria for game selection? (Are we filtering on min ELO, average ELO, recent tournament play, etc. etc.) <Millbase> gives 1.Na3 a 55% scoring (21 games), dropping down to the expected 42% if Black answers with 1...e5 (6 games). (Note- if White answers 1...e5 with 2.Nh3 the scoring goes to 100% (2 games).) |
|
Feb-01-23
 | | FSR: <keypusher: <The fact that Black has a very bad position after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 and after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 certainly does not instil much faith in Black’s ability to find a satisfactory defensive set-up. We have not as yet found any refutation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence, but are close.> I'm very much in the market for a refutation of the Nimzoindian, given that I seem to be struggling for equality against it at times. So let me know when that gets figured out, <jim>.> Berliner was a crackpot, right up there with Weaver <White to Play and Win> Adams. (Weaver in action: W Adams vs G Kramer, 1946) But you knew that. The Nimzo-Indian is Black's best defense to 1.d4, scores 49% for Black, and will never be refuted. btw, I heard Peter Svidler recently say that all mainstream openings will turn out to be drawn with best play, with the possible exception of the King's Indian, which might just lose for Black. <Speaking seriously, I do think the terrible Black score for the QGD is meaningful. Not that super-GMs, who are generally satisfied to survive with Black, need to choose their defenses that way, but I know that, for example, FSR avoids really low-scoring lines.> Yes, I pay a lot of attention both to how different openings score and what the engines think of them. You won't see me playing lines for Black that score 40%. |
|
Feb-01-23
 | | nizmo11: <Sally Simpson>
<I suspect the best first move will be 1.Nf3 (commands central squares, does not weaken the pawn structure.) 1..Nf6 is the reply.>
After 1.Nf3 Nf6 the perfect game continues 2.Nc3 Nc6, and then the main moves are 3.Ng1! and 3.Nb1! |
|
Feb-01-23
| | saffuna: <After 1.Nf3 Nf6 the perfect game continues 2.Nc3 Nc6, and then the main moves are 3.Ng1! and 3.Nb1!> Correct. Advancing pawns only weakens white's defensive position. |
|
Feb-01-23
| | FSR: <beatgiant> Opening Explorer shows that the six most popular opening moves are 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.f4, and 1.b3. 1.f4 is an outlier (=weak), with White scoring only 34.4% and Black scoring a walloping 41.7%. We'll put it aside. The rest all have White wins of between 37.2% (for 1.Nf3) and 38.5% (1.b3, as you note). Black's winning percentage for these openings varies more widely, from 24.7% (1.Nf3) to 33.4% (1.b3). So 1.b3 is both the winningest and losingest opening move of those five, making it overall the worst-scoring move of them. I am surprised to see that 1.c4 is White's best-scoring move in the database, with a 12.7% gap between wins and losses, while 1.Nf3 (No. 2) is 12.5%. 1.e4 has only a 7.8% difference. This is due primarily to the mighty Sicilian, Black's most popular response. Opening Explorer shows that 1...g6 scores even better, but I suspect that in the case of that opening the Black players are higher rated than the Whites. |
|
Feb-01-23
| | keypusher: <FSR> <beatgiant> Mildly surprising to me that 1.g3 is nearly as popular as 1.b3 and 1.f4 put together (and scores better than either). Does it even have a name? I guess some people call it the Hungarian Opening. I guess 1.g3 (which I've done pretty well with online) generally transposes to something else, while 1.b3 and 1.f4 have more of an identity. |
|
Feb-01-23
| | FSR: <keypusher> 1.g3 is also called Benko's Opening. It's a little offbeat, but I think it's as good as the "Big Four." |
|
| Feb-02-23 | | sudoplatov: Just for fun, we once ran LACHEX for several hours from the beginning position; the Book was turned off. LACHEX found 4 opening moves worthy of consideration: d4 and e4 followed closely by c4 and Nf3. I'm guessing that transpositions were collapsed into "normal" lines. It did tell us that the evaluation function was reasonable. We also tried 1d4 Nf6, c4 e6, 3.Bb4 a3 and LACHEX preferred Bxc3. Also, after 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bb3 a6, the computer preferred Ba4 a bit over Bxc6 (its only choices.) |
|
| Oct-15-24 | | Gottschalk: Best ICCF rating 2763
https://www.iccf.com/player?id=5100... |
|
Mar-23-25
| | FSR: According to Stockfish 17 (depth 30/49), the top dozen opening moves are: 1. 1.e4 +0.29
2. 1.d4 + 0.28
3. 1.Nf3 +0.25
4. 1.e3 +0.16
5. 1.c4 +0.11
6. 1.g3 +0.06
7. 1.Nc3 +0.04
8. 1.c3 -0.02
9. 1.a3 -0.06
10. 1.d3 -0.07
11-12. 1.b3 -0.08
11-12. 1.h3 -0.08
I was surprised to see 1.e3 (the subject of a book called "e3 Poison: A 21st Century Opening Repertoire" by Axel Smith) ranked above the English. |
|
Mar-24-25
| | FSR: As for 1.f4?!, Stockfish 17 (depth 35) assesses it as -0.29. Of course this number will move closer to zero at higher depths. At depth 72 it is down to -0.16. Any opening move with the possible exception of 1.g4??, with perfect play thereafter by both sides, will eventuate in a draw. Correspondence games where my opponent has played 1.f4?! have thus ended in draws. V Wong vs F Rhine, 2024 ; H Hess vs F Rhine, 2023. Since I, and no doubt my opponents, were using one or more engines rated 3500+, these games, after 1.f4?!, feature essentially perfect play. 1.g4?? d5! gives Black close to a winning advantage, e.g. 2.Bg2 Bxg4! 3.c4 c6! 4.Qb3 e6 -1.3 Stockfish 17 (depth 41). Just be sure when White plays 5.cxd5 to capture AWAY from the center rather than falling for 5...cxd5?? 6.Qa4+ 1-0 P H Nielsen vs L Sawlin, 2015 ; H van der Heijden vs Van Wanrooy, 1978. Note that after 5...exd5! 6.Qxb7 Nd7, 7.Qxc6?? Rc8! wins. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
