d4 in the Reti - A Statistical Perspective

              d4 in the Reti - A Statistical Perspective

The most frequently asked question in our vote chess games is' "Can we play d4 now?"
In order to try to answer that question and also to provide some insight into when and how d4 is played in the Reti, I have prepared the following statistical presentation.

As a database I used the 758 example games referenced in the book "Reti Opening 1Nf3 d5" by Viacheslav Osnos 1982. I chose the Osnos book because it is an older book and it presents the basic Reti uncluttered by modern variants such as Delchev's "Modern Reti" and Kramnik's Repertoire. I also chose it because of the number of example games it contains; 758 compared to 265 in Dunnington's book, which presents very much the same material and variations as Osnos.

I applied the same statistical study to the games in both books and the percentages agree very closely. Of course many of the referenced games are in fact the same games in both books. But here I am presenting only the statistics from the Osnos book.

                   ---------------------------

The question has been asked, "Is d4 part of the Reti?"

In responce to that question I found that in 418 (55%) of the 758 referenced games in Osnos' book, d4 was NOT played AT ANY TIME during those games. Therefore the move d4 would not be considered an integral part of the Reti Opening.

Of the 340 games in which d4 was played; the d4 square was reached 178 times from the d3 square and d2-d4 was played in one stroke 162 times.

In 65 games (8.5%) d4 was not played until after move 20 and on one occasion it was played as late as move 65.

Games in which d4 was played at moves 1 thru 6 were found to be games added to the book for purposes of comparison and transpositions. The earlier d4 is played, the more likely it will transpose into another opening.

.
The number of times d4 was played at moves 7 thru 20 are shown in the graph below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

first off....thanks for taking the time to share info!

i have a couple of questions which should help instigate discussion: 1.)  by choosing a book from 33 years ago, does this mean statistics are a little skewed?  does this allow new findings by computers to not be used?  The Reti has been used in modern World Chess Championships, but that info would not be relevant to these statistics?  2.) these statistics are only from "Reti" games, correct?  So these statistics will not show transpositions when d2-d4 was played and was actually the stronger or "more correct" move?  if so, i think that is a very important note!  it was noted that d2-d4 earlier in the opening more often leads to transpositions, but does it mean those games are not in the statistics shown here?  3.)  it was stated that Kramnik Repertoire and Delchev's work were not used; why?  I would think that Kramnik's work in this area would be very enlightening, especially since he is a former World Champion who is currently one of the highest rated players still actively contributing to chess theory. to me, it again begs question of "does this skew stats a bit?". 

again, i appreciate the time you have contributed, and ask these questions hoping for good discussion!

At the time the Osnos book was published the Reti had been used in tournament play for 49 years. Thus those games are good examples of basic Reti games and they cover all of the variations. These are the same variations that are still played today.

Using the term "skewed" in regards to statistics usually implies some devious methods or deliberate manipulation of information. I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I think I made it clear why I chose Osnos. As I said, I applied the same study to Dunnington's book which was published 11 years later and got the same results. But Osnos had more than twice as many games. More samples = more reliable statistics.

I did not use Davies' book because it is a personal repertoire which omits certain variations of the basic Reti.

I did not use McDonald's book because it is an even narrower personal repertoire which omits MANY MANY MANY of the basic Reti lines despite being called a "starting out" book. If I had used the games in those books the statistics would have been "skewed" disproportionately but probably not so much regarding d4.

Delchev's so called "Modern Reti" is NOT an improvement on the Basic Reti. He does not make that claim. It is a repertoire he devised for his team to play in a specific tournament and then he wrote a book about it. He makes it clear in the introduction that his lines are intended to take the opponent into unknown areas in which the advantage comes from knowing where those lines might lead. Basically, you will be better "prepared" than your opponent. But in many cases the thematic double fianchetto characteristic of the Reti is omitted and therefore these are not good examples of the basic Reti.

Kramnik's repertoire provides several transpositional possibilities at various points in opening lines of the Reti when it might be said that you would have a superior position in another opening system such as the Catalan or Queen's Gambit.

But how superior would it be and how useful to the average player?

I suppose if you are Kramnik and you know the Catalan and CG inside and out and you are playing at the top levels of chess then yes, there might be some advantage. But down here at the level of us mortals, the number one rule of transposition is that you must know and understand the opening to which you are transposing for it to be worthwhile. That does not describe all of us in this group. It certainly does not descibe me.

If you transpose, then by definition, it's not a Reti anymore. Those games are, by reason of that  definition, not included in books on the Reti.

The purpose of this group is to provide a place where people can come and learn the BASIC Reti. That has always been it's purpose. I have never tried to mislead anyone about that. So, I believe it is totally appropriate that I use a book which contains the greatest number of "Basic" Reti games of any book I know of, in order to provide a basic overview.

If we were to spend the time it would take to explore all the transpositional possibilities in the Reti for those rare occasions when a transposition would lead to a possibly superior position there would be no time left to learn the basics.

I think Kramnik's repertoire would make a great theme for a vote chess group, I really do. The same for Delchev's so called "Modern Reti". But I'm not the one who will be doing that.

YOU should do it.

wow, seems you took it personal and i can assure you, it was not meant that way at all.  i meant "skewed", because it is only one source, while admittedly omitting other works....that it!  i was only trying to get good discussion, that's it!  i am sorry i even made a comment. 

What's wrong? I just answered your questions.

ok

I think you took the most solid approach. By covering games that were somewhat older, you are covering material that is most applicable to non chess pros for live play. One needs to learn the logic underlying a system before becoming creative.