My rating's slowly going up :)
Defeating the Petroff Defense
Sort:
benedictus wrote:
Bystanderz: I also think you stopped posting arguments because, so far, there is more evidence that this opening is not bad, than there is evidence that it is bad. In my analyses, I have come to find that generally, the position is about even. I'd even say white has a slight advantage due to the fact that black has a higher chance of screwing up.
And just what makes you think that?! Yet another unwarranted assumption.
Of course you are free to have your personal opinion on the opening, but do note that the fact that black has a higher chance of screwing up doesn't mean the position is, objective, better for white. What if black just doesn't screw up? The opening could be a good choice for amateurs, since they screw up a lot, but GMs and strong computer programs rarely do.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Zugzwang means whoever has the move is at a disadvantage and makes their position worse.
In the position I gave, this was indeed the case, that whichever side deviates from the drawing sequence accepts a slightly disadvantageous postion.
Again that makes no sense. The side who gets a disadvantage in a zugzwang postion is the side that has the move, and any move he makes, not just moves that deviate from the drawing sequence, should yield a disadvantage. If not every move, but only moves that deviate from the drawing sequence yield a disadvantage, then it shouldn't be called zugzwang position. Even if it is, the move right before what you gave as a zugzwang position (10 ...Qd6 11 Re1 Nd4 12. Qd1 Nc6 13. Qe2 Nd4 14. Qd1 Nc6) is a black move, which means white would be at a disadvantage since it is now his move, which in turns means the position is not "absolutely equal" as you claimed.
I wonder if you really have done this computer analysis or if you simply made it up.
Anyway, I think I shouldn't be wasting my time arguing with some ignorant narcissist who thinks she is "the host of the show" and uses this as an arkward excuse for being reckless, who can make no logical arguments but only irrelevant insults, and whose words are full of contradictions.
But I would certainly be interested in seeing how somebody who doesn't even know what zugzwang is can "collect checks for winning events" (perhaps $0 checks and under-500 tournaments?).
Agreed, it's not zugzwang. It's a close relative though. Perhaps you can call it a ko fight.
Zugzwang is when the position of a player gets worse with any move. I think it can be generalized to "passing, if legal, would be the best move".
Bystanderz wrote:
benedictus wrote:
Bystanderz: I also think you stopped posting arguments because, so far, there is more evidence that this opening is not bad, than there is evidence that it is bad. In my analyses, I have come to find that generally, the position is about even. I'd even say white has a slight advantage due to the fact that black has a higher chance of screwing up.
And just what makes you think that?! Yet another unwarranted assumption.
Of course you are free to have your personal opinion on the opening, but do note that the fact that black has a higher chance of screwing up doesn't mean the position is, objective, better for white. What if black just doesn't screw up? The opening could be a good choice for amateurs, since they screw up a lot, but GMs and strong computer programs rarely do.
I didn't say that white's position was better due to black's chances of screwing up. I said that black's chances of screwing up meant a better chance of winning for white, which basically means a slight advantage for white. Also, don't say it's only a good choice for amateurs. In this forum topic, we have discussed and shown that many GMs have successfully used this opening. Also, white doesn't need black to screw up. The final position is about even, meaning that if both sides play well, the game should result in a draw. However, that's the case in most Petrov games anyway, so I don't see how this opening could possibly be as bad as you claim it is.
benedictus, do you think that Nxf7 is better than Nf3?
benedictus wrote:
I didn't say that white's position was better due to black's chances of screwing up. I said that black's chances of screwing up meant a better chance of winning for white, which basically means a slight advantage for white. Also, don't say it's only a good choice for amateurs. In this forum topic, we have discussed and shown that many GMs have successfully used this opening. Also, white doesn't need black to screw up. The final position is about even, meaning that if both sides play well, the game should result in a draw. However, that's the case in most Petrov games anyway, so I don't see how this opening could possibly be as bad as you claim it is.
I see your point. But black's objectively good position balances (or, in my opinion, outweighs) his chances of screwing up in the fight. And I don't think the fact that white can make a draw with best play necessarily makes the position even. In my opinion, it'd be more or less an uphill struggle for him. But of course, if you disagree, that's fine with me. Also, I don't think "many GMs" have used it, in this thread we only mentioned four GMs, and none of them uses it often in serious games. Lastly, just how bad did I claim the gambit per se was? What I called very bad were the lines you gave on the first page. The gambit, starting with 4.Nxf7, in my opinion, is not losing but unsound/highly dubious.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
benedictus, do you think that Nxf7 is better than Nf3?
No, I don't think that Nxf7 is better than Nf3, but I think that it isn't nearly as bad as what many people say it is and that a lot more analysis and games with it are needed to see just how good (or bad) it is. Also, Nf3 leads to a somewhat boring game.
Wow... I thought this topic died out long ago.
Umm... how is that black's victory?
For rating it counts, but for the purpose of determining whether the opening gives a player good chances of winning, losing on time like that doesn't count.
After the Crochane Gambit (e4, e5, nf3, nf6, nxe5, d6, nxf7, Kxf7) and the natural followup...Bc4, Black has the defensive pawn sack d5! Whites best move is to take with exd5 and black can follow up with Bd6 which gives black a slightly better position with no major concessions. The Cochrane Gambit is a an ok weapon only to avoid deep theory, and possibly have a slight edge in having prior experience.
I notice you are not so good at actually having any supportive evidence for your sloppy opinions. Offering words and generalities without concrete lines and variations in chess is simply slapping Mr Happy.
What?! I did give some lines and ideas in my earlier posts, again don't just ignore them. Of course I know and can pick out names of GMs who condemn the gambit, but why bother? The fact that 4.Nf3 is the main line and 4.Nxf7 isn't is the strongest evidence that the Cochrane is dubious. Are you trying to tell me your mere 30 years of experience beats the theory on the main line?! And just where are your "concrete lines and variations"? Yea, you got one line from your computer analysis and that's it. Not to mention I raised some questions about it in post # 58, which you have yet to answer. I wonder how someone who doesn't even know the meaning of "zugzwang" could have so much knowledge to discuss opening theory.
And can you stop using phrases like "slap away baby", "get off the high horse before you Madonna yourself", "your scary set of skillz", "tightly holding on to one's poop", etc.? They are at worse insulting and at best undesirable and completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. If you are so discontented that some of us have been effectively thrashing your arguments and have personal issues with us, you can send us private messages. The presence of these rude phrases in the forum helps nothing and yet can disturb other users who want to take a serious look at the topic.