Sexy_Sunshine has returned.
French Players: Learn to embrace the Exchange Variation!
Sort:
No one evaluates a position (whether practically i.e. at the board or theoretically i.e. in analysis) by looking at only the position in front of them. When someone asks for the best move or evaluation it's implied that you will consider some reasonable sequence of moves and even from that future position make some sort of assessment of how the game will progress.
That aside, you make a basic analysis error when you say something like: "this position is +/= but black can easily equalize."
You also seem to misuse ad hominem... but I only skimmed the topic, maybe you could point out where it actually happened.
Too bad you did not post a game showing why black need not worry about the exchange variation. Any player who plays the exchange against the french always, doesn't know much theory. The proper plan and thrid move is is 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 and 3.e5; possible 2.d3 is interesting.
Fiveofswords wrote:
(...)
But on move 3 white still has the advantage for the obvious reasons i pointed out...the obvious reasons that many people have a difficult time comprehending....probably because they forget that im only talking about simple facts of the board at exactly move 3....probably not because they are too dense to understand that having the move confers an advantage.
The OP claimed that equality happened at move 3...and obviously this is not the case...and no amount of chess games or ad hominem attacks or whatever other nonsense you clowns can come up with would ever refute the fact that its an advantage to be the first person to move in a symmetrical position when theres a lot of pieces left to activate.
For something so obvious, you have left many posters unconvinced, who provided counterexamples which you have not even considered.
And the part in red is good comedy.
"so i guess you are finally grudgingly admitting that i was correct."
Wait what? No, I'm not admitting a damn thing, lol. You must be in a desert, in need of someone who agrees with you, because you are seeing a mirage, man :)
I say I'd rather have one cent than no cents, and that's supposed to mean that having one cent is amazing? No, it means that one cent has value, but only negligibly so. The same applies for white's move in the exchange variation.
And yes you did claim white had more than a negligible advantage (even if not large) after 3 exd5 exd5. You said white's advantage increases as compared to the starting position. You said that white's chances for an advantage is at least as strong as in other main line french variations.
"Whether you freaks hear what you want to hear and ignore what I actually said is not my problem."
Of course, everyone else are the freaks, not you.
"but really black has a way to equalize against everything. some are harder than others."
Ok, so maybe where we really disagree is here. I find this claim of yours kind of ignorant. It's not at all clear if black can equalize in every main line -- theoreticians are constantly re-evaluating positions, suggesting new moves, or criticizing old moves or even lines that were thought to equalize but actually don't. It's just a very hard thing to verify because opening theory is so constantly changing. With the exchange however, compared to many other positions, it's rather predictable how things will turn out, and it seems to have been that way for quite some time. Sure, sure, some people will use the exchange as their pet line and try to find something... big deal. It's not what the theoreticians are fussing over at all, and if you get acquainted with the position for a little while, it's not hard to see why.
For those who say the French exchange is boring...
This game was played at club level, so it's worth noting that results like this would be unlikely amongst IM/GMs, but I think for other intermediate players, it should speak volumes for the tactical potential of this system.
There is a lot of talk about logic here, so let's inject some:
- Basically all strong GMs agree that chess is a draw with perfect play.
- There is immense empirical evidence that the position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 is a draw with perfect play.
LOGIC:
==> Just objectively from the position, neither colour has an advantage. It is game theoretically drawn.
==> Advantages in terms of winning probabilities only occur from the players' lack of skill
Yeah, chess is a draw so let's just forget about trying to make our position better. "Advantage" is a perfectly relevant term, to us anyway, even in positions where the end result is objectively a draw. And indeed when you add a fair amount of advantages together it does equal a winning position, so they must have some value.
Well. I was not talking strategy, but only stating the obvious truth: No one has the objective advantage just from the position. I only wrote it, because some people stated White's position was objectively preferable.
This statement is independent of how you approach the game in practice. If we had a solution of chess at hand, no one would be talking about advantages, but only about winning/drawn/losing when looking at a position.
Of course, this solution is not available to us (yet), so we approximate to effective evaluations such as space, development, king position etc. - results of our "lack of skill" to calculate everything to the end. So I'm fine with using these approximations - but you have to keep in mind that they are indeed generalisations. For example, in chess, there are enough cases where being a tempo up can be good, indifferent or bad in respect to circumstances...
This is understood by modern top GMs so we see them drifting away from general principles more towards playing the concrete position at hand. Also, the opening preparation of World Champion and highest rated human ever, Magnus Carlsen, seems to be very much in the spirit of what I stated. He knows that wins only yield from mistakes, so he doesn't search for some "opening advantage" but simply goes for positions in which he thinks the opponent is more likely to play suboptimal moves.
"This statement is independent of how you approach the game in practice. If we had a solution of chess at hand, no one would be talking about advantages, but only about winning/drawn/losing when looking at a position."
So? Just because (what we call now) advantages would then be useless doesn't mean they don't exist. Something can be useless and still exist :) As I said, a number of advantages do in fact add up to a winning position. Let's say a winning position equals "5 or more," and an advantage equals "1." Maybe one side has 2 advantages, so that's not enough for a win. And two computers in that position would draw just as often as positions with 0 advantages for either side. Fine, but those 2 advantages still contribute, which is why 3 more of them would result in a winning position. 2 is less than 5, but 2 still has value. (This is a very simplified example, but it makes my point)
Your argument is kind of like saying that in bowling, if you can always get a strike you don't need to get a spare. While that's true, that doesn't mean there isn't anything to say about strategies for getting a spare. It's just that its usefulness depends. For anyone that can always get a strike, useless. For everyone else, useful. It exists regardless of its usefulness though.
carnivalia wrote:
Well. I was not talking strategy, but only stating the obvious truth: No one has the objective advantage just from the position. I only wrote it, because some people stated White's position was objectively preferable.
I state with full confidence that in the following position, which is a theoretical draw, Black's position is objectively preferable.
Irontiger wrote:
I state with full confidence that in the following position, which is a theoretical draw, Black's position is objectively preferable.
This is not objectively preferable but only subjectively for those who don't know exactly how this is played out. To exaggerate this: for 2 engines with tablebase assistance it makes no difference whatsoever which colour they choose.
I get your point though, and you're right of course - in practical games, the playability of a position can be a huge factor. But this is, again, a subjective measure - the "advantages" are not in the position itself but in the way the human brains deal with it.
I just criticized the "logical" statement, that White must be slightly better here due to the extra tempo. Even in our understanding, there are still the factors of one tempo of development vs being flexible because White has to show first, which piece setup he wants to choose. The first may outweigh the latter or reverse they cancel each other out, depending on the players and their way how to deal with certain properties of a position. This doesn't change the fact that it's objectively drawn though...
This is also being highlighted by the results that someone posted here. In both databases that he quoted, Black was doing better than White. Does this mean that Black has an objective advantage? Nope, it just shows that the average Black player dealt better with this drawn position than his/her White average opponent.
carnivalia wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
I state with full confidence that in the following position, which is a theoretical draw, Black's position is objectively preferable.
This is not objectively preferable but only subjectively for those who don't know exactly how this is played out. To exaggerate this: for 2 engines with tablebase assistance it makes no difference whatsoever which colour they choose.
I get your point though, and you're right of course - in practical games, the playability of a position can be a huge factor. But this is, again, a subjective measure - the "advantages" are not in the position itself but in the way the human brains deal with it. (...)
Of course, at some point it boils down to pure semantics.
My point was that the black position is easier to play for any human player, so that it "objectively" is easier, as in there is no reason to prefer the white position while there are reasons to prefer the black position. Whether the reasons are good ones in a "best play" framework is irrelevant.
Ok, but we see it in the stats: White is a tempo up - which usually is evaluated as a plus. Well, in practice, White scores worse than Black on a decent-ish sample size. What meaning does this proclaimed advantage have?
Yes, it seems to have no relevance here - even less than the "best play" framework, which can at least teach us that this whole discussion is not to the point on how to choose and evaluate openings. Since no decent opening is preferable to another in "best play" framework, you just choose the opening of which you think it will give you the best payoff against the opponent you're facing. So, if someone thinks the French Exchange accomplishes that: Go ahead and play it! But discussing theoretical advantages here is just not to the point at all. That's why I came in with this.
stockfish really likes the exchange for white, just sayin
As they say a tempo is worth 1/3 of a pawn, except when it's worth nothing, and except when it's worth everything.
Chess and it's annoying exceptions... almost as if this game is difficult.
play e4 e5 and be done with it.