Also we need another master level game to look at. Here we have Magnus Carlsen the strongest chess player who ever lived vs. GM David Smerdon ranked well over 300 points below Magnus.
Smerdon nevertheless absolutely crushes Carlsen with the Alapin. Being the good team player that he is though Smerdon decided to take a perpetual check draw that would give Australia the victory over Team Norway instead of risking blundering his completely won position into a loss. Here we have it enjoy.
Also we need another master level game to look at. Here we have Magnus Carlsen the strongest chess player who ever lived vs. GM David Smerdon ranked well over 300 points below Magnus.
Smerdon nevertheless absolutely crushes Carlsen with the Alapin. Being the good team player that he is though Smerdon decided to take a perpetual check draw that would give Australia the victory over Team Norway instead of risking blundering his completely won position into a loss. Here we have it enjoy.
He wasn't in a completely winning position and the engine says the best move is to go for the perpetual.
Your analysis of this game is completely wrong. Black was equal by move five, Na3 is an alright move but it is not "crushing". By move 13 black could have won a piece with 13...Bxa3. This is all backed up by computer analysis.
I didn't claim the middlegame was well played. In fact, I openly admitted in my annotations of the game that the middlegame was not played well by me or my opponent. As I've said before, whether or not me and my opponent are complete morons in the middlegame is irrelevant to whether or not white got a big advantage in the opening which white did.
I see you like engine analysis, so do me a favor please and plug the position after move 10 into your engine and tell me that it doesn't say that white is just completely winning?
… Black is just lost after [1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 Qxd5 4 d4 Nc6 5 dxc5]. He can ... sacrifice the pawn by taking on d1 in which case there is insufficient compensation for the pawn and black loses, …
"... the critical 5...Qxd1+ 6 Kxd1 e5, gaining dangerous compensation …" - IM Richard Palliser (2007)
Also we need another master level game to look at. Here we have Magnus Carlsen the strongest chess player who ever lived vs. GM David Smerdon ranked well over 300 points below Magnus.
Smerdon nevertheless absolutely crushes Carlsen with the Alapin. Being the good team player that he is though Smerdon decided to take a perpetual check draw that would give Australia the victory over Team Norway instead of risking blundering his completely won position into a loss. Here we have it enjoy.
He wasn't in a completely winning position and the engine says the best move is to go for the perpetual.
He was absolutely in a winning position. He intentionally played some inferior moves so he could force a perpetual to win the match for Team Australia. Again please put the position after move 20 into your engine and tell me that it doesn't say that white is winning.
Your analysis of this game is completely wrong. Black was equal by move five, Na3 is an alright move but it is not "crushing". By move 13 black could have won a piece with 13...Bxa3. This is all backed up by computer analysis.
I didn't claim the middlegame was well played. In fact, I openly admitted in my annotations of the game that the middlegame was not played well by me or my opponent. As I've said before, whether or not me and my opponent are complete morons in the middlegame is irrelevant to whether or not white got a big advantage in the opening which white did.
I see you like engine analysis, so do me a favor please and plug the position after move 10 into your engine and tell me that it doesn't say that white is just completely winning?
By move eight you were winning however, black had made four inaccuracies giving the evaluation a +2.50. Playing the Alapin variation didn't do that, your opponent playing bad moves did.
In my opinion the Sicilian Defense is busted. It loses by force.
The opening move of the Sicilian Defense violates just about every opening principle. It fails to develop a piece, fails to put a pawn in the center, and fails to open up a bishop for development. It allows white to immediately open up the center and to do so with greater development. The Sicilian Defense has nevertheless remained popular despite all of this for one reason and one reason only; in order for white to open up the center it comes at the cost of having to trade its D pawn for black's C pawn. This is why the ideal response to the Sicilian is the Alapin Variation 2. C3! It says to black no you can't have my center pawn. Now white is ahead in both development and control of the center , and black has absolutely no compensation.
You don't believe me? Look at the game explorer then. I have played 581 games here on chess.com using the Alapin. I have won 68% lost 26% and drawn the other 6%. That is a score of 71%. No other opening is capable of scoring 71%. But to prove all this let's look at some games. First, we have a 3 minute no increment blitz game I played. Look at the massive advantage white immediately gets both in piece development and in center control. Both are problems which stem from black's first move.
Here's another 3 minute no increment blitz game I played. Notice how easy white's development is and how black's position is already completely unplayable by move 10.
Finally, I'm sure you want to see a master level game so here we have Deep Blue vs. Kasparov (1996). For a little historical context this was the first match between them and Kasparov annihilated Deep Blue +3 -1=2. Deep Blue's lone victory came as you might guess playing the Alapin Variation. Kasparov faced a horrible position straight out of the opening and Deep Blue wasted no time converting it. Notice that the most powerful chess player of all time got destroyed playing against a computer much weaker than him.
After 2. C3 black is in my opinion lost. White refuses to allow black to exchange its c pawn for white's d pawn giving black no compensation for white's lead in development and center control, which ultimately always proves decisive in the end.
I'd like to close by saying that of course black can always play differently than in the games shown, in which case he merely loses differently.
I have personally slapped down every one of these. technically c5 puts a pawn in the center, and c3 also fails to accomplish any basic opening principles.
Two, that's your games. If grandmasters/computers can't convert it most of the time, and that's best play. You're also failing to show times white lost. You're only showing half of the pie.
And lol "development and center"
Let's take a look at a main line in the alapin...
Notice that the most powerful chess player of all time got destroyed playing against a computer much weaker than him. Umm... it could be that a HUMAN made a MISTAKE. (gasp)
Also we need another master level game to look at. Here we have Magnus Carlsen the strongest chess player who ever lived vs. GM David Smerdon ranked well over 300 points below Magnus.
Smerdon nevertheless absolutely crushes Carlsen with the Alapin. Being the good team player that he is though Smerdon decided to take a perpetual check draw that would give Australia the victory over Team Norway instead of risking blundering his completely won position into a loss. Here we have it enjoy.
He wasn't in a completely winning position and the engine says the best move is to go for the perpetual.
He was absolutely in a winning position. He intentionally played some inferior moves so he could force a perpetual to win the match for Team Australia. Again please put the position after move 20 into your engine and tell me that it doesn't say that white is winning.
By move twenty the evaluation was +0.54 I fail to see how this is completely winning.
Deep Blue played 4 games w/ alapin. The score? 2-2-0. BUT in 1 of his wins, he was playing black. The rest were 1 black 1 white, both draws. So, if deep blue, as a "weak computer", can beat the alapin on the black side, it's NOT GOOD.
Deep Blue played 4 games w/ alapin. The score? 2-2-0. BUT in 1 of his wins, he was playing black. The rest were 1 black 1 white, both draws. So, if deep blue, as a "weak computer", can beat the alapin on the black side, it's NOT GOOD.
Haha. I appreciate your contributions. That being said, what you just said is completely false. Kasparov never played the Alapin as white against Deep Blue.
They played two games in the Alapin, both with Deep Blue as white. The first Deep Blue crushed Kasparov, and in the second it was drawn because Kasparov outplayed deep blue after the opening
"... I'm sure you want to see a master level game so here we have Deep Blue vs. Kasparov (1996). For a little historical context this was the first match between them and Kasparov annihilated Deep Blue +3 -1=2. Deep Blue's lone victory came as you might guess playing the Alapin Variation. Kasparov faced a horrible position straight out of the opening and Deep Blue wasted no time converting it. Notice that the most powerful chess player of all time got destroyed playing against a computer much weaker than him. … [After 11. a3,] White's position is better … [After 14. Ne5,] White's position is still already much better … [After 17. Bg5,] White's position is just crushing as this pin on the knight can never be broken without exposing black's king … [After 18...gxf6,] Black's king is completely exposed. From here white's win is just a matter of technique … [After 37. Rxh7+,] Kasparov resigns because Mate in 1 follows ..." - staples13
"... look at the Kasparov Deep Blue game I posted.Kasparov was a lifelong Sicilian player. He knew more about the Sicilian than anyone who's ever lived, and he immediately reached a position straight out of the opening that is just completely lost for black by move 17. This was in the 1996 match when Kasparov was still much stronger than Deep Blue by the way, but he still got destroyed by the Alapin against an opponent much weaker than himself." - staples13
"... Up to [the point of 27. Qc5], the game was basically dead even. 27... d4?! (27... Qg5 28. g3 f4 29. Nd6 Qh5 30. Kg2 fxg3 31. fxg3 Qg6 32. Rc3 d4 33. Rf3 f6 34. Qf5 Qxf5 35. Rxf5 d3 36. Rd5 Ra8
White has the better pawn structure here, but the game is roughly even.) ... [With 32...Re8??,] Kasparov demonstrates that he is human. He was in a slightly worse position due to some minor inaccuracies in the few moves prior, but this is a blunder. (32... Rg5 33. Qxf7 Qxf7 34. Rxf7 Rd5 35. Kf1 Nc1 White is still better, but there is still a lot of work to do here.) 33. Nd6 Of course, even with Deep Blue being significantly weaker than today's engines, it still found these tactics (though, likely did not find the mate in 32 from here) ... 27 moves before he makes an inaccuracy that gives white any sort of advantage - and you think that refutes the opening? ..." - BobbyTalparov
"... I disagree that Kasparov is better until move 27. His knight is put in a brutal pin on move 17 that he can never break without exposing his king and in fact his kingside paw structure does get completely destroyed on move 18. …" - staples13
"... The game was dead even until Kasparov made a mistake on move 27. He needed to play Qg5 to maintain the balance, and instead played d4, which gave white a strong initiative. Then he blundered completely on move 32 (which he later admitted was partly due to fatigue and partly due to frustration that he was in a worse position of his own making). And opening up the g-file is double-edged. Yes, black loses part of his pawn shield; however, his king will tuck in nicely on h8 and the rook moves over to the g-file staring at white's king. That is why 27...Qg5 was necessary (it was a mate threat). …" - BobbyTalparov
"In my opinion the Sicilian Defense is busted. It loses by force. ..." - staples (#1, ~14 days ago)
"... Black has 2 main move , 2...d5, ... and 2...Nf6 ..." - UzayAltay (#12, ~14 days ago)
"... I think you should back up your claim with more reasons why 2...d5 or 2...Nf6 might fail for Black. ..." - wiahwib (#32, ~14 days ago)
"... Yes d5 and nf6 do provide much stiffer resistance than any of black's other responses. I, however, believe black is still lost even after these moves. I will post an analysis shortly." - staples13 (#38, ~14 days ago)
"... I’m gonna analyze nf6 ..." - staples13 (#74, ~12 days ago)
"Try your opening against latest Stockfish on your desktop, give SF 1 min per move thinking time. Post your pgn at move 12. Let me know whether black is busted or not!! ..." - drmrboss (#110, ~8 days ago)
"Here's my game with Stockfish. It wasn't able to equalize against my Alapin and its position is probably lost. ... Admittedly I couldn’t figure out how to download stockfish so I had to guess as to what moves stockfish would have played, but I think I probably got it right" - staples13 (#114-5, ~8 days ago)
"Come on. Bust sicilian with Alpin opening. I will use Droidfish on my S7 , with 1 min of analysis. ( I am just 2000 noob compared to 3400+ Stockfish on my phone). Your move now, Stockfish play [1 e4 c5 2 c3] Nf6" - drmrboss (#146, ~6 days ago)
"[3 e5 Nd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 Nc6 6 Nf3 d6 7 Bc4 Nb6]" - drmrboss (#181, ~4 days ago)
"Bb3" - stables13 (#182, ~28 hours ago)
"[8...dxe5]" - drmrboss (#191, ~24 hours ago)
"d5" - stables13 (#205, ~20 hours ago)
"[9...Na5]" - drmrboss (#207, ~20 hours ago)
"Nc3" - stables13 (#208, ~18 hours ago)
"[10...f6]" - drmrboss (#210, ~15 hours ago)
Can we take it that staples13 still does not have the feeling of knowing a winning move #11 for white at this point?
They played two games in the Alapin, both with Deep Blue as white. ... in the second it was drawn because Kasparov outplayed deep blue after the opening
Can we safely conclude that there was not a perception of a forced win for White in the second game?
… Kasparov never played the Alapin as white against Deep Blue.
No perception of a forced win for White?
Also we need another master level game to look at. Here we have Magnus Carlsen the strongest chess player who ever lived vs. GM David Smerdon ranked well over 300 points below Magnus.
Smerdon nevertheless absolutely crushes Carlsen with the Alapin. Being the good team player that he is though Smerdon decided to take a perpetual check draw that would give Australia the victory over Team Norway instead of risking blundering his completely won position into a loss. Here we have it enjoy.
He wasn't in a completely winning position and the engine says the best move is to go for the perpetual.
He was absolutely in a winning position. He intentionally played some inferior moves so he could force a perpetual to win the match for Team Australia. Again please put the position after move 20 into your engine and tell me that it doesn't say that white is winning.
By move twenty the evaluation was +0.54 I fail to see how this is completely winning.
Really? Hmm strange at some point in the game I’m pretty sure white is up like 2 pawns.
"... He was absolutely in a winning position. He intentionally played some inferior moves so he could force a perpetual to win the match for Team Australia. ..." - staples13
"... It was a bit of a strange one. I got a pretty comfortable position, and then I had the chance to swap queens and go for an endgame which was just equal, which I was really tempted to do, but then I thought, you know, I'm not going to get this opportunity again. I better be a little bit more aggressive, make myself proud, so I actually went for a king-side attack. We had opposite-side castling, and I rejected the queen swap, put all my pieces towards his king, gave up the bishop-pair, gave up some structural advantages to try and attack and I played some really ugly chess, as I am sure that my team-mates will say, really anti-positional, but the tactics all sort-of worked in my favor. Then I ended up sacrificing a pawn. He played all the critical stuff. I think he played all the best moves, and then I had this huge attack for the pawn. I couldn't quite see a way to break through, and so I just forced a draw. ..." - GM David Smerdon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELmoNHljCKk
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Here's another instructive 5 minute no increment blitz game I played a couple minutes ago.
I've found that Na3! is usually the crushing move in these 2.d5 Alapin's. After Na3 white's development is just too quick to be dealt with especially because white's bishops are free to develop while Black has to play e6 to get his bishop out, and white's dark square bishop develops with a tempo attacking white's queen. Essentially what this Na3 move does is it puts the question of now that the center is wide open how to deal with white's much more rapid piece development, and unfortunately black has no answer.
Your analysis of this game is completely wrong. Black was equal by move five, Na3 is an alright move but it is not "crushing". By move 13 black could have won a piece with 13...Bxa3. This is all backed up by computer analysis.