There's no real logic there, statistically speaking.  You're talking across variations.  It's like saying 4...dxB in the Ruy Lopez exchange is better than playing 2...d6 in the Sicilian, because it's played in virtually 100% of Ruy Lopez exchanges, while ...d6 is only played in 33% of Sicilians.

Sometimes, it's just that the position itself makes one move overwhelmingly the most obvious choice.  That's ...c5 in the French advance, whereas the case isn't as obvious in the Caro.

I tend to agree that ...Bf5 is the more principled move against the CK advance, but the above argument just doesn't hold water.

A hundred strong GMs once played 1.d4 and lost. Isn't that a blatant proof that 1.e4 is better ?

(I'm not sure if I got Sungolian's logic right, but it sounds like that)

There's a fruit store on our street
It's run by a Greek.
And he keeps good things to eat
But you should hear him speak!

When you ask him anything, he never answers "no".
He just "yes"es you to death,
And as he takes your dough, he tells you...

"Yes! We have no bananas
We have no bananas today...

Trolleslov... I love colloquialism at its finest...lol....thats funny

I would say it is someone who loves to post in threads to either disrupt( in any manner they can) them because they think its funny or they don't like your topic or you or all of the above. Trolls intentionally, arrogantly treat others in threads in a condescending manner, especially as it pertains to disagreements over various things, regardless if the troll is right or not. If the troll is right, they just want you to feel,bad and look stupid instead of politely approaching you and reasoning with you, so that the intent is that you learn, without you being belittled.

I think you're confusing yourself.

We trolls pick out the stupidity in others and make it obvious for the world to see.

You have a choice in raging over the truth or accepting it.

Let's just agree 3...c5 is an inferior move compared to 3...Bf5.

It's about as unsound as the King's Gambit or the Parham Attack.

jeez my science teacher's name is Mr.Parham.

yeah, this is rather confusing. given the various times I've seen the word troll invoked. they don't usually seem to be telling truth or showcasing stupidity of others.

Run away from this thread! And don't turn back!!!

lol. good advice. I think I will do the same. we need more people like anthony here looking out for the innocent kids.

I think they both aren't good lines of play, but make no mistake, I clearly described what you were trying to say, without any confusion. I guess you couldn't understand, some trolls only think they do. If you really want to consider yourself a troll, you should really get better at it first. Same with your opening theory. If you are going to claim relevance as it pertains to either one, you really should study more first.A lot more...

I know more about opening theory than you. 

Please don't mock someone who has a better understanding.

Learning the opening is about as helpful as playing on Chess.com, which is very pointless, by the way.

I have read all the books I can on opening theory. They have nothing to do with my games.

Games are lost in the middle game.

I can tell you didn't learn one crucial thing about opening theory from your studies. When you go from the level that you play at to the one I do, if you open poorly, you will lose any advantage you might have been able to gain from opening properly and most likely the game. This is the first piece of evidence that you aren't on my level.

If you aren't rated better than me and you don't play well in the opening, you probably aren't going to beat me. As for the rating you are at, maybe you can come back against those at your level. BTW, I only lose games in the end game. If you are losing in the middle game, you should try a better opening...

Also you misinterpreted my comments earlier. I don't like either line because I don't like to play that style, that is why I said they are bad(bad for me).

If you knew so much about opening theory, you would have already thought ahead of time,about what I clearly pointed out to you, as to why you won't be having that opening named after you, and would avoided the idea of trying, as well as, the ridicule of those you wish you were contemporaries with.

I play a variation of both an offense and a defense I can't find names for yet. That doesn't mean I am trying to claim them. I don't think I should because I am not a well rated GM, who should be recognized as a contributor to opening theory. You will find that all of the major contributors to opening theory are prominently GM's.

Are you a prominent GM who should be recognized for contributing to opening theory, because people have been awed at your prowess in beating great players, with your fabulous opening? I think you should have needed to buy yourself a new pair of shoes by now, if you had any idea how much you should have put your foot in your mouth.

If you are so good compared to me, why of all of the ratings the we have in common, do mine exceed yours? Is it because the system is flawed or maybe the rest of us aren't understanding them? I'm confused. I still don't know what your basing your logic on.

BTW, I am untracking this thread. So replying to this will go unnoticed by me. So if you want to waste your time trying to reprove me or goading me into a game, I am not going to waste my time. Good luck with your opening.

You do realize this thread is a joke, right?

You do realize taking a Russian nickname won't make you play like one, even if you have your opponent thinking you are one for a few seconds? Right?

You do realize my name is not Russian, right?

If you are trying to convince me that you either don't understand what you read or that you are getting desperate for material, its working.

also the King's Gambit is completely sound. I want you to dump that Fischer Article out of your head because most of the lines in there have been proven to not be the best play by white. His Article is BS by today's theory. which I safely ignore with 3. Bc4

dued thats like  .5 % its negligable. plus It was completely BS because he only dealt with 3. Nf3. he didn't even mention a line with 3. Bc4 in it. also He played it himself proving that he didn't believe his own article that if white plays something different he just looses differently. plus Modern theory has completely disproven that 3. ... d6 is inefectual.

I was going off of what Pfren Gave me since I don't do statistics.