8877 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
That's true of most of the treads. Old wine in new bottles. Still, the entertainment continues apace.
Bright people can always make for interesting threads. Just don't hold your breath.
There's lots of quantity, but less quality, unfortunately.
If you think Carlsen made an error in the relevant games then point it out?
But regardless of this, all signs point to 1. e4 being a move hard to win with if you are playing against a supergrandmaster who wants to draw.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating the same wrong statement over and over again. Are you hoping that if you say it enough times it will somehow become true? Carlsen makes mistakes in every game though I am not strong enough to identify them. Leave Houdini running for ten years and it will find that many of Carlsen's moves are suboptimal. Evidence that is necessary but not sufficient is not enough to prove a theorem. This is very basic maths that any high school student should be well versed in.
Anything inferior to the objectively best move. An example would be, "1.b3 may be suboptimal unlike 1.Nf3 or 1.e4 but it is very playable at any level" or, "This move may be suboptimal, but the complications created will force the winning side to dig deep to convert his win"
You could be a pragmatist like Petrosian or optimalist like Kasparov, either way works so long as you aren't too suboptimal or waste too much time trying to be too optimal.
Of course you realize that a move which seems suboptimal may not be suboptimal. For instance if you are an expert playing a GM in a USCF tournament you might play what most would say is a sub optimal line in order to try and win.
Intentionally making a poor(er) move strikes me as a bad strategy
You are correct in most cases but you have not seen my wins over players who are current GMs. It is unusual to make a suboptimal move in the opening but sometimes it is the best thing to do. [mostly it is not best]
As Nigel Short demonstrated recently...!
ƄɅƄƎ04 LucknoW,ℂall,ℊiRℒs,O8932OOOSSS Esℂort,Serviℂes,Number
by kjgjhgjhgjhgkjhgjhg a few minutes ago
ƄɅƄƎ03 LucknoW,ℂall,ℊiRℒs,O8932OOOSSS Esℂort,Serviℂes,Number
3/15/2014 - Speed Chess Tactics
by iMacChess 3 minutes ago
ƄɅƄƎ02 LucknoW,ℂall,ℊiRℒs,O8932OOOSSS Esℂort,Serviℂes,Number
by kjgjhgjhgjhgkjhgjhg 3 minutes ago
ƄɅƄƎ01 LucknoW,ℂall,ℊiRℒs,O8932OOOSSS Esℂort,Serviℂes,Number
No sound on opponen'ts move
by Citadel_7 11 minutes ago
Carlsen vs Anand rematch
by 444aki 20 minutes ago
A draw with a Candidate Master!?
by Jeekeat 20 minutes ago
How should I use tactics puzzles at chess tempo for maximum benefits?
by Shadow_Bishop 25 minutes ago
Why is the Smith-Morra Gambit so popular?
by Likhit1 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!