...when you make some move that it [the computer] hadn't even considered.
When the computer analyzies "the possibilities" to determine the best move out of all of the possibilities, there isn't anything it didn't consider if it is a top notch chess engine.
I have an idea, why don't any of you who disagree with the IM, just set up a game and play from that position in correspondence. I am sure after a while, reality will set in.
It's futile, their virtual reality will always prevail.
Great thing about QGA is that after move 2, all of White's preparation for Nimzo, KID, and many other systems is simply bypassed. Too bad for white.
QGA is very solid. Played by lots of GMs for many years. Still is. Kramnik, Kasparov, and Karpov have contributed to the development of several critical lines. Lots of other currently active GMs have contributed to the development of the theory.
QGA dates back to about 1745, according to Cafferty and Hooper, "A Complete Defense to 1d4" (Pergamon, 1981).
You take the pawn, hold it if you wish (within the Two Knights Variation), and can "still feel good," when you give it back. 
Computer evaluations at move #2 surely aren't worth crap. Society has has 260 years to work on this opening. Much of the QGA theory still stands, and is being improved, by GMs and GM Centaurs. Why should this surprise anyone?
Fairly recent book, James Rizzitano, "How to Beat 1) d4" (Gambit, 2005). Worth the price of admission.
QGA kicks in at move #2, so you will surely get it a lot, in your OTB games. And it's "Classical Chess," easy for all to learn. What's not to like?
...when you make some move that it [the computer] hadn't even considered.
When the computer analyzies "the possibilities" to determine the best move out of all of the possibilities, there isn't anything it didn't consider if it is a top notch chess engine.
Yeah but at some point it prunes some lines it considers to be no good, it can't calculate every line to infinity. Houdini2Pro is notorious for this pruning, and that is why Houdini 1.5 actually performs better in some positions.... it doesn't prune lines that look bad so easily.
Obviously, it was a compact simplification of language that I used, when sensible people knew what I meant. Obviously Houdini didn't just not bother looking at a move that sacrifices his queen at all, except possibly where the relatively simple in-built logic precluded such a search (something that occurs for example during endgames where it just knows some things by algorithms), which has occasionally led to some bizarre and awful endgame moves, not because it didn't have time to calculate the very simple moves but because it was excluding them.
First of all, there are only a finite set of possibilities when calculating chess variations. I am willing to bet even if a program got rid of a particular part of algorithm/equation/variable to help it lets say be more efficient in a shorter timed game, it will still out think any person in terms of calculating variables and faster, no matter the position.
I am not saying that with less material/horrible position it can somehow come up with a combination to do what isn't mathematically possible, but if you are quibbling over a pawn difference between a man and a computer, unless it is Anand, Kasparov,or Tal,etc, my money is one the computer to win and no worse than draw. This is part of the reason I think it is absurd you arguing with an IM about this. I wouldn't probably take this much time to even entertain this if this was two 1200 players arguing this. I would probably shake my head and move on.
Yeah but at some point it prunes some lines it considers to be no good, it can't calculate every line to infinity. Houdini2Pro is notorious for this pruning, and that is why Houdini 1.5 actually performs better in some positions.... it doesn't prune lines that look bad so easily.
Obviously, it was a compact simplification of language that I used, when sensible people knew what I meant. Obviously Houdini didn't just not bother looking at a move that sacrifices his queen at all, except possibly where the relatively simple in-built logic precluded such a search (something that occurs for example during endgames where it just knows some things by algorithms), which has occasionally led to some bizarre and awful endgame moves, not because it didn't have time to calculate the very simple moves but because it was excluding them.
Haha, you are so full of it. So now a chess engine can know some things "by algorithm"? Just see if a sacrifice is worth calculating? Obviously an engine can't calculate untill infinity, but a few posts before there were moves that the engine didn't even consider, according to you.
Also, since you can't seem to argue without telling people to shut up or to get back under their bridge and can't seem to bother "reading half other people's bullshit", I doubt I will be continue to read this topic.
I love it how some people are self proclaimed experts on everything, are never wrong and should be blindly agreed with in any conversation. You appear to be one of them, although practically every statement you made about chess engines was utter crap. Believe this.
I have an idea, why don't any of you who disagree with the IM, just set up a game and play from that position in correspondence. I am sure after a while, reality will set in.
What a stupid proposition. He would win because it is only a small advantage to White. It is like the opening advantage, perhaps slightly more. The point is that White won back the pawn and continued with the advantage.
I don't know what you were thinking when you wrote that but we're talking about very different things. Pogonina would beat pfren with this position as black, Adams would beat Pogonina, Carlsen would beat Adams. Being down the opening advantage is hardly the end of the world.
...when you make some move that it [the computer] hadn't even considered.
You don't really get how artificial intelligence works, do you?
Why would I say that if I thought the answer to this question was true? Obviously I do not believe that, now back under your bridge. Go on, off with you.
Look, I am not trying to force any of this into a hair splitting contest, but doesn't Pfren's answer to my quote that you replied to, give you a clue what I am trying to say. If you agree, he would beat you playing either side, playing from that starting position, would he only retain a pawn advantage using either color when he beat you? I realize this is subjective and like comparing apples to oranges, but the point is, he to me is more of an authority on how this plays out than you. He mentioned the human side of playing this position as compared to how a computer calculates the eveness and the final results. Haven't you ever seen a position that if played by two humans(equal skill), that 98% of the time, one side would win, but if you plug it into a good engine, its a draw everytime? To me its kind of like that and I think that is what he is trying to say.
Uhohspaghettio,
Here's what you asked/asserted earlier--
"And where exactly do you find anyone advocating taking the pawn and holding the pawn and fighting White to keep the pawn?"
So I clarified my post (#57), with, inter alia, the following--
You take the pawn, hold it if you wish (within the Two Knights Variation), and can "still feel good," when you give it back...
Personally, I wouldn't try to hang onto the pawn, because of the blizzard of complications in the Two Knights Variation. Giving the pawn back is, of course, thematic for this opening.
Undoubtedly, Rybka or Houdini would be great for analysing both sides of the Two Knights Variation. Looking forward to using Rybka on it, myself.
James Rizzitano (cited in earlier post) gives about 7 pages of sub-variations, covering move pairs #7 through #25, with Black holding onto the pawn (by design).
My "takeaway" (presently) from the earlier posts is--too many folks are asserting NEVER take the pawn at all, it's just a dumb move, according to Houdini, or Rosequeen1985 (a chronic "engine user," with a closed-out account).
And I read IM @prfren as asserting--"Black CAN try to hold onto the pawn, IF HE IS ADVENTUROUS" (emphasis added). Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And he provided two concrete examples. Which you challenged via Houdini, of course.
I also recall reading (on a separate thread) a bunch of nasty posts between RoseQueen1985 and a NM, who had decided to stop playing online because of what he felt was "rampant engine use."
Too often our discussion threads produce "more heat than light." Too bad for everyone, unfortunately.
I used to play QGA quite a lot. Many of my opponents seemed VERY unprepared for it. That was nice. In a non-trival number of my games, they didn't get that pawn back. Their fault, not mine.
I would also like to add that RoseQueen1985 was not a Rose Queen.
I had fairly good results against the QGA though its hard for black to fight for a win if white is satisfied with a draw. That's one drawback. QGA is a good opening even then why not go for grundfeld if you like. According to my personal experience grundfeld is the most successful opening for me.
I have an idea, why don't any of you who disagree with the IM, just set up a game and play from that position in correspondence. I am sure after a while, reality will set in.
What a stupid proposition. He would win because it is only a small advantage to White. It is like the opening advantage, perhaps slightly more. The point is that White won back the pawn and continued with the advantage.
I don't know what you were thinking when you wrote that but we're talking about very different things. Pogonina would beat pfren with this position as black, Adams would beat Pogonina, Carlsen would beat Adams. Being down the opening advantage is hardly the end of the world.
...when you make some move that it [the computer] hadn't even considered.
You don't really get how artificial intelligence works, do you?
Why would I say that if I thought the answer to this question was true? Obviously I do not believe that, now back under your bridge. Go on, off with you.
Look, I am not trying to force any of this into a hair splitting contest, but doesn't Pfren's answer to my quote that you replied to, give you a clue what I am trying to say. If you agree, he would beat you playing either side, playing from that starting position, would he only retain a pawn advantage using either color when he beat you? I realize this is subjective and like comparing apples to oranges, but the point is, he to me is more of an authority on how this plays out than you. He mentioned the human side of playing this position as compared to how a computer calculates the eveness and the final results. Haven't you ever seen a position that if played by two humans(equal skill), that 98% of the time, one side would win, but if you plug it into a good engine, its a draw everytime? To me its kind of like that and I think that is what he is trying to say.
No nameno1had. Your arguments are a lot more rational than hotwax, but you're forgetting something important: I'm not going by my interpretation or analysis, I'm going by what experts, GMs and Super GMs and theoreticians in chess say. People who are vastly better than pfren. Black cannot hold onto the pawn if White wishes to take it back, and White retains the advantage. The greatest authorities in the world say this, and you're going to trust what, a lowly IM above them? I'm just going by what the experts and theoreticians say. Accuse me of just copying what the GMs all say and I put my hands up to it, it is ridiculously easy compared to analyzing chess yes.
This is just ridiculous that this is still going on. You have no other point other than he is better than me at chess and so he must be right about everything no matter what, and no matter who says anything else. If he said 1. f3 was better than 1. e4 you'd believe him above me.
Even Kasparov has stated that these things in the openings are not always obvious, that they take huge amounts of time and trial and error and experience and theroetical analysis. I am going by the theory.
Uhohspaghettio,
Here's what you asked/asserted earlier--
"And where exactly do you find anyone advocating taking the pawn and holding the pawn and fighting White to keep the pawn?"
So I clarified my post (#57), with, inter alia, the following--
You take the pawn, hold it if you wish (within the Two Knights Variation), and can "still feel good," when you give it back...
Personally, I wouldn't try to hang onto the pawn, because of the blizzard of complications in the Two Knights Variation. Giving the pawn back is, of course, thematic for this opening.
Undoubtedly, Rybka or Houdini would be great for analysing both sides of the Two Knights Variation. Looking forward to using Rybka on it, myself.
James Rizzitano (cited in earlier post) give 7 pages of variations, covering move pairs #7 through #25, with Black holding onto the pawn (by design).
My "takeaway" from some of the earlier posts is--too many folks are asserting NEVER take the pawn at all, it's just a dumb move, according to Houdini, or Rosequeen1985 (another chronic "engine user," with a closed-out account).
And I read IM @prfren as asserting--"Black CAN try to hold onto the pawn, IF HE IS ADVENTUROUS" (emphasis added). Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And he provided a concrete (and persuasive) example. Which you challenged via Houdini, of course.
I also recall reading (on a separate thread) a bunch of nasty posts between RoseQueen1985 and a NM, who had decided to stop playing online because of "rampant engine use."
Too often our discussion threads produce way "more heat than light." Too bad for everyone, unfortunately.
I used to play QGA quite a lot. Many of my opponents seemed VERY unprepared for it. That was nice. In a non-trival number of my games, they didn't get that pawn back. Their fault, not mine.
kborg, I'm reading your post multiple times but cannot make out what you're saying about engine abuse. Can you give a single recommended line for black where:
1) Black keeps the pawn and NEVER gives it back.
2) Black is still playing a theoretically sound game. Sure some weaknesses in exchange for the extra pawn are expected, but black much worse than that.
3) White makes strong efforts to try to get the pawn back, but cannot take it back without allowing equality.
And yes, I said that black CAN do anything if he's feeling adventurous. That's exactly what I said in the first post. The matter should have been over with then, before some clowns felt they had to "come to the rescue" of the IM and confirm that the IM was right as if they had a clue what we were even talking about.
And before some people get all high and mighty again, just ask yourself: why are you arguing this? Is it because you genuinely are sure in what you're saying, or are you just trying to latch on to the back of the IM and have a laugh at little Uhohspaghettio who is so obviously "inferior"? Because I am standing on the shoulders of giants, while you are standing on the shoulder of that one IM who made a single casual remark in the afternoon. And by prolonging it further, if anything you're just embarrassing him when he would rather it be forgotten.
Look, we are essentially saying the same thing, except, all of this is completely dependent upon who is playing and how they will play.What percentage of chess players would you say are GMs, 2%? If 98% of the time a position is won by one side (when played by two players of equal skill) even though 2% of the time or if a computer plays it out its a draw. The 2% are the GMs.These are rough hypothetical statistics, just to make a point about how things could be.
I will relate this back to another thread that was entitled "Is it better to always play the book moves for a position"?
One guy said people throw chairs over this subject, simply put, you may agree that a specific outcome will occur if you keep playing the book moves and is that best? When in reality if you deviate, thou the move is weaker, can that give you an advantage somehow otherwise. Yes, potentially it can, it all revolves around who is playing and how they will play...Think of chess theory as a highlight real from your favorite sport, that shows a spectacular play every play. Does it ever happen in reality?
Pay particular attention to the words I highlighted in red as read the rest of this, though that had their relevance there, in order for the last part to be understood, it is paramount that you base what I am saying in the next paragraph, on them.
I really don't want to argue, theoritcally, it is possible under a set of conditions, that which, if the game were locked into being, before it even began,(and if so why bother play/ and that is precisely why study theory and call it "theory"/ and why we play the games inspite of theory/ because our games aren't predetermined by what theory dictates could be)you are right, but if any two players, aside from GMs and computers, do you honestly think from that position, book will always occur? I will tell you no, it almost never will, even if GMs are playing it might not. You might be more likely to win the lottery than to see it happen between anyone else. So after arguing this theory until we want to puke, if it usually never gonna happen anyway, who cares?
Dear Spaghettio and Chess Colleagues,
All these massive quotations (above) are unworkable. Sorry, I keep my posts modular and eminently readable. Just read the "bolded text" and you're done with me.
In a nutshell, there is a very sharp variation (The Two Knights) within the QGA in which White deliberately gives up the pawn for other compensation.
And there are about 5 or 6 sub-variations within the Two Knights, where both White and Black get to make various move choices, all leading to hair-raising complications. These sub-variations (where Black "keeps the pawn" and white "doesn't want to take it back") are covered in about 7 pages of annotated text (with GM games cited) in James Rizzitano's (2005) book on the QGA, by Gambit Publishing.
But I don't have the book at my fingertips, presently. And please, I didn't just "make this shit up" to score debating points.
White doesn't have to recover the pawn, and black doesn't have to give back the pawn in the Two Knights Variation. Both options are available, and are subject to continuing GM and GM/Centaur investigations. Last I heard.
*Having just re-read all the previous posts, Spaghettio has asserted 1) he read some Opening Tome @20 years ago that included the QGA, and 2) probably about the same time, he read or heard some GMs and the WC say--"Black cannot hang onto the pawn in the QGA."
Sounds like 1) very "old evidence," when Spaghettio was much younger lad, and 2) a blatant "appeal to authority," via recollections.
And the kicker to this assertation is that Houdini's (+0.14) evaluation proves his case? The "structure" of his argument just takes your breath away.
Yes, this thread appears to have "ganged up" on Spaghettio. Presumably because of what he said, and how he said it to others. Typically, you reap what you sow.
Best Wishes to All,
zborg
I had fairly good results against the QGA though its hard for black to fight for a win if white is satisfied with a draw. That's one drawback. QGA is a good opening even then why not go for grundfeld if you like. According to my personal experience grundfeld is the most successful opening for me.
I wonder if this is the crux of the issue, of why it's not particularly popular these days. But if you have the personality (like me) where you're okay with a draw as black, then it might just be the right opening. I think I'll add it to my repertoire.
Both the QGA and Petroff have been around for so long, about 250 years, that dozens of "draw by repetition" positions have been developed. Nonetheless, the tactics involved in getting there remain "red hot."
These "repetition draws" are usually 25 to 30 move pairs into the games. Last night, I looked up the Two Knights Variation in QGA. Found 3 or 4 such examples, all around move #30.
You can be fairly confident that your opponent won't know "these tactics" that deep, unless he's a titled player, of course.
Both openings are a "minefield" for the unprepared. Lots of fun too.
I had fairly good results against the QGA though its hard for black to fight for a win if white is satisfied with a draw. That's one drawback. QGA is a good opening even then why not go for grundfeld if you like. According to my personal experience grundfeld is the most successful opening for me.
I wonder if this is the crux of the issue, of why it's not particularly popular these days. But if you have the personality (like me) where you're okay with a draw as black, then it might just be the right opening. I think I'll add it to my repertoire.
Yes, of course you can add that to your repertoire. There are some very interesting lines there. For eg. 1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5 c6 etc.
Why on earth would I want to add an interesting line to my repertoire??
This is the only line I like from QGA :
The problem though is that white can easily side step.
Black either loses quickly or gets a terrible game if he/she tries holding on to the QGA "gambit" pawn at all costs. The idea of QGA is fast development and to avoid cramped positions typical of many QGD lines. Presuming that the Albin CG is working for you, you could try playing QGA occasionally to see what it's like for you. If the Albin isn't working for you just ditch it and play QGA every chance you get until you decide to keep it or expunge it from your opening arsenal.
Try playing thru as many games as you can with QGA played by GMs to get some ideas about how to play it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Gambit_Accepted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ue14nMxaO4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ue14nMxaO4
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=d20
"At all costs" is quite a generic statement.
Having played the white part of the Geller Gambit of the Slav for quite some time, I can say that it all depends on the magnitude of the initiative white gets for his pawn(s). Sure, white has central control, also sure, he has very active play, but he does have to find targets to attack. And this is far from easy.
I will also disagree about your statement over the QGD. Black is not "cramped" at all- his main problems are two: 1. the development of the LSB, and 2. liberating his position without allowing too much play against his isolated c-pawn, or hanging c/d pawns. But the generic concept of the QGD is not allowing white a free stake in the center, and getting Black in a "cramped" position.
...when you make some move that it [the computer] hadn't even considered.
You don't really get how artificial intelligence works, do you?