Does tempo matter in the QGA?
Sort:
Aug 29, 2011
0
#42
Well I have played only sometimes against the QGA, and never in my recollection OTB. So this is probably why I haven't put in the DB study time. But one thing I've learned is that one should go into those DB study sessions with an open mind, to maximize learning. In this context, "open mind" is synonymous with recognizing, reducing, and eliminating the various mental biases that one has. From this thread, it seems that they are different for everybody.
try kia
Elubas wrote:Your way of wording things is a little confusing:
1) To strengthen the idea about the nature of drawishness in QGA, in comparison to Petroff for example. In QGA there is no forced Queen exchange, no forced diferent color Bishop, no three-fold repetition, no stalemate, but still many thinks that it is drawish. A game is indeed drawish when it is equal and no complexity can be enforced."
Like here it seems like you're saying people only think the QGA is drawish, but you mention reasons why it wouldn't be in your second sentence. But then later in your post you go on to say that it is in fact drawish. So which one is it?
Ozzie thought/heard that QGA is drawish. BlackWaive used the QGA to draw. I'm not in a position to agree or disagree.
The nature of the drawishness of QGA. Not because it contains many variations of forced drawish line. But because it is equal and non-complicated. All within context.
Elubas wrote:
Again, it's totally ignorant and naive to think that there is nothing to fear just because the game looks all equal; just look at the game Anand played against Topalov in the WC match, where he wins with the Lasker Defense of the QGD, an opening with a 50-60% draw rate
Anand was leading with 6-5, he needed a draw to win the championship, so he choosed a drawish game.
On the other hand, Topalov is in a must win situation to get a tie break, so he must take any risk to win. We all know how this technique works.
Of course if I had to play Rybka I wouldn't win even if the opening is the most drawish, even if we play a theoretically draw endgame (the complex one) I wouldn't win. But that's not relevant as we are not discussing about how strong I am 
It kind of is relevant, because it illustrates that it's the ideas the player comes up with that wins you the game. If black really had no chances, you would draw easily. Compare this to a truly drawish position, like king and rook vs king and rook with nothing else on the board. You probably could draw that against Rybka, because the ideas in such a game are so limited -- don't lose your rook! In the QGA, you could not do this because it's nothing like that.
Aug 29, 2011
0
#46
Elubas wrote:
Again, it's totally ignorant and naive to think that there is nothing to fear just because the game looks all equal; just look at the game Anand played against Topalov in the WC match, where he wins with the Lasker Defense of the QGD, an opening with a 50-60% draw rate (and about a 10% win rate for black) according to the database here. Look at some of Carlsen's games; see how he can do so much (against the strongest players out there) by playing, oftentimes, rather "equal" openings! I saw a game in the QGA where black (Nisipeanu) played the normal moves and ...c5 soon enough, and guess what Carlsen did? He exchanged on c5, along with the queens! And he won convincingly! If you think it's so drawish, try drawing a computer from the white side and see what black comes up with.
I think it depends on what variation you choose. I posted some variations above and I find the 3.Nf3 e6 4.e3 type line much more drawish. Here are 2 games from the database that show no lack of complexity or equality, in fact they are very imbalanced.
Here is one of the other games I think you were referring to.
The top level is nothing like what the rest of the chess world would use. Perhaps tempo is important when dealing with variations when black tries to keep the pawns.
Elubas wrote:In the QGA, you could not do this because it's nothing like that.
If you mean there is no opening that can give a forced draw like K+R vs K+R, not KGA, not Lasker Defense, then who can disagree?
BTW, thanks for showing me the Lasker Defense. I learned a lot from it, especially the queenside pawn structure. Unfortunately I don't play 1.d4 so I cannot use it to my advantage.
Your way of wording things is a little confusing:
"I mentioned "stalemate" for two reasons:
1) To strengthen the idea about the nature of drawishness in QGA, in comparison to Petroff for example. In QGA there is no forced Queen exchange, no forced diferent color Bishop, no three-fold repetition, no stalemate, but still many thinks that it is drawish. A game is indeed drawish when it is equal and no complexity can be enforced."
Like here it seems like you're saying people only think the QGA is drawish, but you mention reasons why it wouldn't be in your second sentence. But then later in your post you go on to say that it is in fact drawish. So which one is it?
Again, it's totally ignorant and naive to think that there is nothing to fear just because the game looks all equal; just look at the game Anand played against Topalov in the WC match, where he wins with the Lasker Defense of the QGD, an opening with a 50-60% draw rate (and about a 10% win rate for black) according to the database here. Look at some of Carlsen's games; see how he can do so much (against the strongest players out there) by playing, oftentimes, rather "equal" openings! I saw a game in the QGA where black (Nisipeanu) played the normal moves and ...c5 soon enough, and guess what Carlsen did? He exchanged on c5, along with the queens! And he won convincingly! If you think it's so drawish, try drawing a computer from the white side and see what black comes up with.