Frankly I always try to get a position I enjoy playing. Of course this will be a position with good chances, however a computer might prefer another type of position. In any case I know I find many games from computer tournaments dreary to play back, since computers like to ''play it safe''.
Acuteness of openings
Sort:
Aug 24, 2017
0
#22
Interesting analysis, I look forward to seeing more (:
Aug 25, 2017
0
#25
I maintain several lists of openings by # of plies, popularity, pawn structures etc. As soon as new examples appear, I'll post it here. 
Aug 25, 2017
0
#26
Well, From's gambit, #55 in the list
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/list-of-all-400-legal-openings-in-2-plies-master-games
is also one more trivial ecample of 1-acute opening.
Aug 25, 2017
0
#27
savagechess2k wrote:
Initial Position is 20-acute right ?
Actually, no. There are no big gaps in evaluations but not all 20 moves are optimal.
Aug 25, 2017
0
#28
DeirdreSkye: I guess that gambitlover's message is addressed to IM pfren, not to U. Indeed, U didn't say anything aggressive. U just wondered of practical usefulness of this notion of acuteness. On the other hand, IM pfren is "famous" in this Opening Forum. He doesn't generate any new ideas but always tries to attack others.
Aug 25, 2017
0
#29
Actually I find the comments of Pfren to be quite useful, that is if you ask him the right question.
Aug 25, 2017
0
#30
BluemanIsBack wrote:
Actually I find the comments of Pfren to be quite useful, that is if you ask him the right question.
Good for U. Probably, I asked only wrong questions. LMAO 
Aug 25, 2017
0
#32
BluemanIsBack wrote:
Actually you did not ask any questions.
LoL It reminds me an old Russian/Soviet joke:
- How many books have U read?
- Zero. I'm not a reader, I'm a writer. 
Aug 25, 2017
0
#34
Yigor wrote:
pfren wrote:
Actually it's less than useless: You think you have learned something, while in reality you have not learned anything. Anyway, it won't harm much if it is not YOU the one you have worked on such crap.
It's still more useful than your filthy meaningless comment.
If an International Master suggests that this work is less than useful then I would have thought that was a highly meaningful comment.
Aug 25, 2017
0
#35
repac3161 wrote:
If an International Master suggests that this work is less than useful then I would have thought that was a highly meaningful comment.
U shall not make for youself an idol.
Aug 25, 2017
0
#36
I'd hit back even Magnus Carlsen if he attacked my threads here. 
Fortunately, chess.com is not an elitist site, all players can participate and freely express their (right or wrong) ideas and opinions about chess.
Aug 26, 2017
0
#37
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I googled him and he is not only an IM but also a certified FIDE trainer.
From the games I could find , I found draws against Van Wely and Kotronias(chessgames and chessbites).
Against Van Wely he had a winning a position (after a very nice exchange sacrifice) which he ruined somewhere near move 40(time pressure?).Quite remarkable results and games.
I am surprised someone like him even bothers to comment on these forums.
Could you post the link to these games? I'm curious.
Doctor's are constantly prescribing medicine than stopping the medicine when there is no improvement. Being an expert doesn't mean you know what's best in the simple science of chemical reactions. Being a master at chess doesn't mean that you can analyse this complex situation.
Aug 26, 2017
0
#39
With all due respect to everyone participating, I must take pfren's side (though perhaps with a more diplomatic tone )
You can already see from the examples of k-acute you have gathered where this is going to go: forcing positions are highly k-acute (any gambit opening; the Ruy Lopez after ...a6 when White wastes time with anything else other than Bxc6 and Ba4; etc) as are situations which are highly tactical (for instance, a middlegame situation where one side has sacced a piece for an offensive).
So, the conclusion of this work is going to be what is already known: if you want to increase you opponent's chances of erring, you fight for the initiative. How sharp and how aggressive you can get away with, depends on your opponent's level.
To use the previously mentioned example: you don't play 4. Ba4 against the Ruy Lopez because you know it's a 2-acute situation. You play that because you are using common sense and general chess principles (instead of relying on an engine's analysis tree).
Also, if you want a practically meaningful definition of 2-acute, you need a way higher treshold than 0.2. Take the Alekhine's, for example; if your opponent plays 2. Nc3 instead of 2. e5, you haven't won yet nor have you even gained the upper hand. So saying that the Alekhine's is a 1-acute opening is just plain wrong. And once you increase the treshold to where it "should" be, you'll notice there are no situations where k-acuteness exists in the opening phase, outside of gambits (where finding the best move is usually fairly straightforward) and downright mistakes by the opponent.
Aug 26, 2017
0
#40
Laskerator wrote:
With all due respect to everyone participating, I must take pfren's side (though perhaps with a more diplomatic tone )
You can already see from the examples of k-acute you have gathered where this is going to go: forcing positions are highly k-acute (any gambit opening; the Ruy Lopez after ...a6 when White wastes time with anything else other than Bxc6 and Ba4; etc) as are situations which are highly tactical (for instance, a middlegame situation where one side has sacced a piece for an offensive).
So, the conclusion of this work is going to be what is already known: if you want to increase you opponent's chances of erring, you fight for the initiative. How sharp and how aggressive you can get away with, depends on your opponent's level.
To use the previously mentioned example: you don't play 4. Ba4 against the Ruy Lopez because you know it's a 2-acute situation. You play that because you are using common sense and general chess principles (instead of relying on an engine's analysis tree).
Also, if you want a practically meaningful definition of 2-acute, you need a way higher treshold than 0.2. Take the Alekhine's, for example; if your opponent plays 2. Nc3 instead of 2. e5, you haven't won yet nor have you even gained the upper hand. So saying that the Alekhine's is a 1-acute opening is just plain wrong. And once you increase the treshold to where it "should" be, you'll notice there are no situations where k-acuteness exists in the opening phase, outside of gambits (where finding the best move is usually fairly straightforward) and downright mistakes by the opponent.
I was pretty nuanced in my posts, however I don't write an entire essay to enforce my opinion 😉
Actually it's less than useless: You think you have learned something, while in reality you have not learned anything. Anyway, it won't harm much if it is not YOU the one you have worked on such crap.
It's still more useful than your filthy meaningless comment.