There were inaccuraties from both sides, but black was not standing better in the opening. I've put the whole continuation in rybka and white was slightly better at every point in the opening. After 10. Qb5, he is even +0,70. At move 13 white is still slightly better. And black didn't choose to not draw, he missed the continuation.

Even if not being behind Black, White could have been much better than he was after the opening. The very fact Black was equal at ~ move 13 means White hadn't made use of his first move advantage.

About drawing, if that was Black's goal, he should have looked for a continuation to draw. But he continued developing instead. That meant he was preparing to continue playing, and that he was allowing White to develop too - something that would negate Black's achievements so far (even if they are not "advantage"). That's why I think Black wasn't content with drawing.

Also, moves 44-47 were leading to a draw, and 48...Kd5 was played by Black to avoid drawing, there was no other possible explanation.

A game I played not to long ago on here

'maybe because of time pressure, white blundered and lost.' (learnateverygame) That's why black didn't go for the draw, because white was losing on time. And white gets a small advantage at the beginning of the game, and at move 13 white was still slightly better. How can you conclude white didn't make use of his first move advantage? And as I said before, black MISSED the continuation. 

Be it due to time pressure or not, Black didn't play for a draw. The reason I think White didn't use his first move advantage is that White had worse development, worse space control, weaker pawn structure, had posed no threats to Black so far, and, quite the contrary, Black was preparing an attack on his kingside. This is very unusual for White as early as move 13.

Do you think the opposite? If you do, I believe there should be quite a big difference in our concepts of chess, and therefore I believe whatever arguments we may point out will make few difference. That's why I won't ask you why do you assume White was better at move 13.

If white was worse than black in so many aspects, than why would rybka judge the position to be equal, even slightly better for white? And my point is not that white is better (because a +0.10 advantage is negligible). I just wanted to point out that black is not standing much better, as you assume. 

Because chess programs' evaluations are worthless in the opening. Had they been accurate, openig repertoires would have been thrown away, but that won't happen soon.

Take whatever program you want, set an initial position and let the program evaluate it. It will say White is better.

But that has no importance whatsoever. There are four important things in the opening:

- pieces' development;

- center control;

- pawn structure solidity;

- king safety.

Those are important because they allow you to continue into a playable middlegame. Otherwise you will either have to continue working on them, or draw or lose. No matter what a computer may say. They are currently not advanced enough to be able to judge such positions.

By the way, I can't remember to have said that Black stood better, let alone much better, as you assume I assume. I think from the very first comment about this position I said it was equal, and din't change that opinion. Moreover, I even said Black was in risk of losing if he made a mistake against accurate play from White. I won't quote it, because I think it's not necessary - all posts are next to each other, but it's in post #726.

If the program has given +0,10 evaluation, that's practically nothing. That's a third of an inaccuracy. I can hardly think of such a difference being able to suggest anything but a draw. Unless you expect perfect play from both sides, either side will make at least an inaccuracy, and for mathematical reasons that's ~0,30 points change in evaluation, and it will be much, much more important than those +0,10. If you have, on the other hand, pefrect play, I believe it will be impossible to turn +0,10 into a win (should it be possible, then White should win in chess, since White's given a better evaluation at the initial position; but that's not yet possible, at least not practically). If you check different openings, you should find out that many of them have positive evaluation (advantage for White) for a long time, but they get drawn too - because until each side fully develops, every move considerably changes the evaluation. Back to the position, the very fact White got only +0,10 instead of, say, +0,5~0,8, is to show White didn't play the opening well.

wow, I never realised this could be so complicated  

well, it IS a blitz game guys, so anything could happen. I have played 2000 rated players before otb, and against those guys, I put a reasonable resistance, before finally falls down lol. 

Time to learn more endgames, as from my exp, when I play someone 1700+, if I wanted to simplified into endgame as quick as move 20, they will gladly go for it.

I could be wrong, but I feel that I am better in endgame ;)

Yes, but time format is up to each player's choice. Unless you are able to play quickly, you shouldn't expect to be good at blitz (or lightning) chess; and unless you are able to use more time for every move but justify that with finding a better move than after a quick consideration, you shouldn't expect to be good at standard chess.

In other words, having a low time control doesn't itself justify playing inaccurately, for three reasons: first, time control is something you agree on with your opponent before starting a game, so, once you have accepted it, you should have considered it to be good for you; second, your opponent has the same time control, and if it is easy or difficult for you it is also such for your opponent; and third, it is not up to the time control to choose your moves, it is up to you - of course there is a difference in the moves you would choose in the same position if you consider it for some seconds or for half an hour, but in both cases you should have an approach that will allow you to play well, although those approaches would be different.

About choosing to go into the endgame, this depends on the game situation. If you have the initiative, better development, attacking opportunities, etc. you may choose not to simplify, because that would more or less negate those advantages, but go for an attack instead. I would personally prefer to create an attack whenever I have the opportunity to do so, and I would simplify into an endgame only if I consider my opponent to have better attacking chances, or if the endgame would be favorable for me.

'Take whatever program you want, set an initial position and let the program evaluate it. It will say White is better.' Not true.. ever used a modern chess computer? In many opening systems, the position is immediatly judged to be equal or even better for black. Also, this is move 13, not move 4 or 5 or something.. In this position, definately because of the very unusual opening, the engine output is pure mathematics.

 'Back to the position, the very fact White got only +0,10 instead of, say, +0,5~0,8, is to show White didn't play the opening well.' White is not +0,50 or +0,80 at the beginning of the game, but only ~+0,10. So his opening seems to be just as bad/good as black's. 

'White had worse development, worse space control, weaker pawn structure, had posed no threats to Black so far, and, quite the contrary, Black was preparing an attack on his kingside.' So white is worse in the  'four important things in the opening' , but the position is still equal?

Also, many things you say are too obvious. I'm not new to chess.

How not to the play against the king's gambit

Would you let a chess program evaluate the initial position and write what's the result? Believe me, I'm familiar with computer analysis, and I know the answer. This question is rethorical, but if you don't agree, test it yourself.

Also, could you give an example of an opening line where White gets not more than +0,10 advantage? Or an opening that's "immediately better for Black"?

Does this have any relevance whatsoever to the position's evaluation?

Can you give an example of an opening that is played in serious games and White goes no further than +0,10? Because such an opening is spoiled and shouldn't be played at all.

Do you consider it not to be? Also, why do you say White is better, than say White is worse?

Although they are too obvious, we seem not to have agreement upon them, or not take them into account in the same way. I think it's important to point out what your reasoning is based upon. There's no easier thing for me than saying "That was very bad opening play for White, very passive and non-coordinated. No wonder you managed to draw so quickly", as I did in post #724, but you can see yourself such a simple conclusion is not easily accepted by everyone.

I wish we could have spent more time on analyzing the position instead of arguing about each other's statements' truthfulness. Anyway, if you prefer the second, please give some reasoning along with your thesis too, otherwise there's neither point nor possible way to have a discussion. I know what my thinking is based upon, and I needn't convince myself. If you believe I'm wrong, please be so grateful to say why. I don't see any point otherwise, if you are neither willing to controvert my claims nor to justify yours.

Well played. Your opponent was willing to checkmate you, but was too optimistic He spent too many moves on preparing pseudo-attacks, while you were developing, that's why you easily got an advantage. You are right, this is a strange way to play Black in the King's Gambit. Maybe Black would have done better in some kind of counter-gambit if he was so willing to go for attacking play.

I think white and black could play better, considering they are around the 1500 range, almost same as I do, but I wouldn't made pointless move like that lol.

with white you could play Kf2, then open the e file, ready for your opponent's king to be killed easily, after his Q is gone, that game is already going downhill faster.

Yes. But after White got such a big advantage, almost any strategy would have worked for him Black should have resigned, that's what was logocal, apart from that all possible continuations are more or less pointless

You understood me wrong, this is what I meant

'White had worse development, worse space control, weaker pawn structure, had posed no threats to Black so far, and, quite the contrary, Black was preparing an attack on his kingside.' (quoting you) So according to you white is worse in the  'four important things in the opening' , but the position is still equal ? (isn't that a contradiction?)

Does this have any relevance whatsoever to the position's evaluation?

Yes. As i pointed out. 'In this position, definately because of the very unusual opening, the engine output is pure mathematics.' So it's not a position the computer is familiar with, so the output is just mathematics. (If he was familiar with the opening, the output can be based on databases of played games.) The beginning of the opening (that's why I said 4 or 5 or something) is played more often, so can be based on game databases. The position at move 13 not.

Also, could you give an example of an opening line where White gets not more than +0,10 advantage? Or an opening that's "immediately better for Black"?

Examples of openings in which white doesn't get a big advantage and are not spoiled: QGD (max +0.10), Semi slav (max +0.06), Vienna Game, Ruy Lopez (+0.14), Italian game(0.00),...

An opening in which black is better according the computer: e.g. Bird's opening.

And I checked the initial position before, and white was better all the time, at a point even +0.65 or something (see one of the comments above).

well I think that engine's are useful until some point, it reaches the tip where it stops being useful, and you won't develop. As one famous IM said, "Chess is a game full of human spirit and emotion" , with you talking white have slight lead (+0,2 to 0,6), for me, it doesn't mean anything, if you DID NOT know how to see the imbalances, and made correct plans.

As we amateurs do not really play like masters, all of us had a lot to learn, and instead of typing away on things like this, why not you also contribute to this thread, and keep posting games you played, win or lost.

If I am not right, please, correct me.

Thank you.

Just one of my games played over 3 days/move. I find that my games are always full of errors, but still, if it interests anyone

I should note that my submition is just my effort against the French defense.  I'm generally a bit reluctant to submit my games as they seem to involve clear errors by either party (like they give away a knight to some cheap tactic etc). But I'd welcome comments as I really dont enjoy playing against the old French