Are most of the chess openings refuted in the Top level?

RJFischer960
BringBackTheRomantic wrote:

Adding to the Carlsen discussion on the previous page, he beat Caruana with the Bishop's opening (e4 e5 bc4) in Norway this year. 

He also beat MVL with the Pirc Defense as Black in the Biel Chess Festival

testaaaaa
RJFischer960 wrote:
BringBackTheRomantic wrote:

Adding to the Carlsen discussion on the previous page, he beat Caruana with the Bishop's opening (e4 e5 bc4) in Norway this year. 

He also beat MVL with the Pirc Defense as Black in the Biel Chess Festival

The bishops is such a nice anti-petrov!

RJFischer960
testaaaaa wrote:
RJFischer960 wrote:
BringBackTheRomantic wrote:

Adding to the Carlsen discussion on the previous page, he beat Caruana with the Bishop's opening (e4 e5 bc4) in Norway this year. 

He also beat MVL with the Pirc Defense as Black in the Biel Chess Festival

The bishops is such a nice anti-petrov!

True. I feel it's an underrated opening. Carlsen has won quite a lot of games with it

congrandolor
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ForceIsOnMySide wrote:

There are theoretical and practical aspects of it. Even very suspicious openings like Albin's Counter Gambit or 1.b4?! aren't refuted among the top correspondence players who use books + engines. Nearly everything is a draw, because even if you get advantage of +0,7 according to stockfish, it's still a draw. That is not true when we speak about practical chess - human chess. Why would a GM go for a position where the other side has a big advantage, where one mistake could be fatal and lead to a lost position. If a GM however opts for most ambitious openings like Spanish, the positions he will get into as black will be near equal and a small mistake would not be fatal as it would only lead to small advantage for his opponent.

In conclusion, theory suggests you can play nearly anything if you follow it up with a perfect play with the help of an engine. However humans tend to make mistakes and thus in practice one opts for most ambitious lines that lead to equal positions where small inaccuracies wouldn't be fatal.

     What you say makes no sense and certainly doesn't explain why 9/10 of the top 10 players play 1...e5 as Black.

All main openings are ambitious. They were considered ambitious for many decades and some of the world's bets players employed them. Ambitious players like Botvinnik , Korchnoi , Tal, Petrosian, Fischer , Kasparov and others.

   So why almost everyone today plays Spanish? Because everything else (Caro Kan , French , Pirc) including Sicilian is unambitious?

        As I said , your thinking makes no sense at all!

      Sicilian still is as ambitious as it was when Kasparov and Fischer employed it. French is as ambitious as it was when Botvinnik , Petrosian and Korchnoi employed it. Caro Kan is as ambitious as it was when Karpov employed it. Nothing has changed. It is clearly and obviously a matter of fashion.And fashion today is "safety above all". 

    Spanish is not today's most popular opening in top level because it's more ambitious , its because it's the most safe. Kramnik in his interview clearly says that proffesional players today can't afford to take risks. And ambitious openings means risks. If you want to get a lot of winning chances you have to allow your opponent a lot of winning chances, it can't be any other way. That is why openings like Benoni and King's Indian have almost dissapeared from top level today.

    As Giri said:

"Why play Benoni and risk to lose when I can play Queen's gambit and draw?" 

    So it has nothing to do with ambitious openings. Quite the contrary.

You say players are ambitious, then you say they are not ambitious («they can't afford play risky»)

DeirdreSkye
mecuelgalapieza wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ForceIsOnMySide wrote:

There are theoretical and practical aspects of it. Even very suspicious openings like Albin's Counter Gambit or 1.b4?! aren't refuted among the top correspondence players who use books + engines. Nearly everything is a draw, because even if you get advantage of +0,7 according to stockfish, it's still a draw. That is not true when we speak about practical chess - human chess. Why would a GM go for a position where the other side has a big advantage, where one mistake could be fatal and lead to a lost position. If a GM however opts for most ambitious openings like Spanish, the positions he will get into as black will be near equal and a small mistake would not be fatal as it would only lead to small advantage for his opponent.

In conclusion, theory suggests you can play nearly anything if you follow it up with a perfect play with the help of an engine. However humans tend to make mistakes and thus in practice one opts for most ambitious lines that lead to equal positions where small inaccuracies wouldn't be fatal.

     What you say makes no sense and certainly doesn't explain why 9/10 of the top 10 players play 1...e5 as Black.

All main openings are ambitious. They were considered ambitious for many decades and some of the world's bets players employed them. Ambitious players like Botvinnik , Korchnoi , Tal, Petrosian, Fischer , Kasparov and others.

   So why almost everyone today plays Spanish? Because everything else (Caro Kan , French , Pirc) including Sicilian is unambitious?

        As I said , your thinking makes no sense at all!

      Sicilian still is as ambitious as it was when Kasparov and Fischer employed it. French is as ambitious as it was when Botvinnik , Petrosian and Korchnoi employed it. Caro Kan is as ambitious as it was when Karpov employed it. Nothing has changed. It is clearly and obviously a matter of fashion.And fashion today is "safety above all". 

    Spanish is not today's most popular opening in top level because it's more ambitious , its because it's the most safe. Kramnik in his interview clearly says that proffesional players today can't afford to take risks. And ambitious openings means risks. If you want to get a lot of winning chances you have to allow your opponent a lot of winning chances, it can't be any other way. That is why openings like Benoni and King's Indian have almost dissapeared from top level today.

    As Giri said:

"Why play Benoni and risk to lose when I can play Queen's gambit and draw?" 

    So it has nothing to do with ambitious openings. Quite the contrary.

You say players are ambitious, then you say they are not ambitious («they can't afford play risky»)

    Reread it. What I say is pretty clear to everyone with average intelligence. If you can't understand it , is not my fault.

 

Newman6
testaaaaa wrote:

i think magnus and sergey played too much ruy lopez more d4 please

 

Newman6
Newman6 wrote:
testaaaaa wrote:

i think magnus and sergey played too much ruy lopez more d4 please

 

 

Newman6
DeirdreSkye wrote:
mecuelgalapieza wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ForceIsOnMySide wrote:

There are theoretical and practical aspects of it. Even very suspicious openings like Albin's Counter Gambit or 1.b4?! aren't refuted among the top correspondence players who use books + engines. Nearly everything is a draw, because even if you get advantage of +0,7 according to stockfish, it's still a draw. That is not true when we speak about practical chess - human chess. Why would a GM go for a position where the other side has a big advantage, where one mistake could be fatal and lead to a lost position. If a GM however opts for most ambitious openings like Spanish, the positions he will get into as black will be near equal and a small mistake would not be fatal as it would only lead to small advantage for his opponent.

In conclusion, theory suggests you can play nearly anything if you follow it up with a perfect play with the help of an engine. However humans tend to make mistakes and thus in practice one opts for most ambitious lines that lead to equal positions where small inaccuracies wouldn't be fatal.

     What you say makes no sense and certainly doesn't explain why 9/10 of the top 10 players play 1...e5 as Black.

All main openings are ambitious. They were considered ambitious for many decades and some of the world's bets players employed them. Ambitious players like Botvinnik , Korchnoi , Tal, Petrosian, Fischer , Kasparov and others.

   So why almost everyone today plays Spanish? Because everything else (Caro Kan , French , Pirc) including Sicilian is unambitious?

        As I said , your thinking makes no sense at all!

      Sicilian still is as ambitious as it was when Kasparov and Fischer employed it. French is as ambitious as it was when Botvinnik , Petrosian and Korchnoi employed it. Caro Kan is as ambitious as it was when Karpov employed it. Nothing has changed. It is clearly and obviously a matter of fashion.And fashion today is "safety above all". 

    Spanish is not today's most popular opening in top level because it's more ambitious , its because it's the most safe. Kramnik in his interview clearly says that proffesional players today can't afford to take risks. And ambitious openings means risks. If you want to get a lot of winning chances you have to allow your opponent a lot of winning chances, it can't be any other way. That is why openings like Benoni and King's Indian have almost dissapeared from top level today.

    As Giri said:

"Why play Benoni and risk to lose when I can play Queen's gambit and draw?" 

    So it has nothing to do with ambitious openings. Quite the contrary.

You say players are ambitious, then you say they are not ambitious («they can't afford play risky»)

    Reread it. What I say is pretty clear to everyone with average intelligence. If you can't understand it , is not my fault.

 

 

Newman6
RJFischer960 wrote:
testaaaaa wrote:
RJFischer960 wrote:
BringBackTheRomantic wrote:

Adding to the Carlsen discussion on the previous page, he beat Caruana with the Bishop's opening (e4 e5 bc4) in Norway this year. 

He also beat MVL with the Pirc Defense as Black in the Biel Chess Festival

The bishops is such a nice anti-petrov!

True. I feel it's an underrated opening. Carlsen has won quite a lot of games with it

 

Richard_Hunter

In my observations, there are two main ideas that players adopt in deciding on what opening to use: Either they will simply use the strongest, for obvious reasons, or else they will try an obscure opening which they think their opponent will be unprepared for.

RJFischer960

Well, Caruana just beat Aronian with the caro kann. Guess the caro kann isnt so busted after all

pfren
RJFischer960 έγραψε:

Well, Caruana just beat Aronian with the caro kann. Guess the caro kann isnt so busted after all

 

A rapid game where both sides made several mistakes does not refute, or resurrect, anything at all.

Colin20G

How many openings are refuted for real? There is always room to deviate from bad lines.

 

Richard_Hunter
pfren wrote:
RJFischer960 έγραψε:

Well, Caruana just beat Aronian with the caro kann. Guess the caro kann isnt so busted after all

 

A rapid game where both sides made several mistakes does not refute, or resurrect, anything at all.

It seems unlikely that the second best player in the world would use an opening that was 'refuted' however.

PJsStudio

The Caro is hardly refuted, the French, Sicilian, Open games and Petroff will never be. It’s the Henning Von scharas, Smith Morra’s, Qd6 Center Counter’s, Albin Counters and sub weird variations that are dying off. Main line theory is main line for a reason, no flaws. 

DeirdreSkye
PJsStudio wrote:

The Caro is hardly refuted, the French, Sicilian, Open games and Petroff will never be. It’s the Henning Von scharas, Smith Morra’s, Qd6 Center Counter’s, Albin Counters and sub weird variations that are dying off. Main line theory is main line for a reason, no flaws. 

Main lines many times had flaws , they improved over the years and they keep improving. Main openings are main because they offer many options. The same time a move is refuted another one proves good and vice versa. New options , new strategies , new ways of play are discovered every year. That is what makes these openings main and not lack of flaws.

    

pfren
PJsStudio έγραψε:

The Caro is hardly refuted, the French, Sicilian, Open games and Petroff will never be. It’s the Henning Von scharas, Smith Morra’s, Qd6 Center Counter’s, Albin Counters and sub weird variations that are dying off. Main line theory is main line for a reason, no flaws. 

I don't know a refutation to any of the above. Probably a significant advantage for white in a VERY complex line of the Schara, and an Albin line which isn't so bad, but rather impractical to play as Black. The other two are just fine.

PJsStudio

Impractical! Yes! and a bit dangerous over the board FOR SuperGM’s. 

 

DedreSky, you like to argue. You’re smart huh? You keep proving it here on the message boards... I’m out.