Gioachino Greco playing the
7.Bd2 variation
Giouco Piano, opening analyse
Sort:
batgirl
Apr 2, 2008
0
#21
Apr 2, 2008
0
#22
Gioachino Greco again playing the
8.O-O Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Qb3 variation,
Black responds differently, loses differently
Thanks for these great games!
lol, still only 13 and he has already refuted the ruy lopez, and the giuoco piano! 
sstteevveenn wrote: lol, still only 13 and he has already refuted the ruy lopez, and the giuoco piano!
Who are you referring to?
Reb wrote: sstteevveenn wrote: lol, still only 13 and he has already refuted the ruy lopez, and the giuoco piano!
Who are you referring to?
yea! Who is this 13 yr old master!?
erm, killabeez. I guess the link was less obvious because batgirl posted some worthwhile stuff in between
Apr 2, 2008
0
#28
Reb wrote: Nimzo33 wrote: Reb wrote: KillaBeez wrote: Bd2 is sounder than Nc3. Prove otherwise
7 Bd2 scores 51 % and 7 Nc3 scores 55% according to chess assistant..is this enough proof for you beez? Do you have a database to check such things? A little more break down on this :
7 Bd2- +481 =448 -448
7 Nc3- +670 =263 -535
Database statistics can sometimes be unreliable. The moeller attack can lead to tight-rope walking positions for black, which, could beef up the win percentage even if the opening itself does not lead to anything good theoretically.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O Bxc3 9. d5 Bf6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. Bg5 Bxg5 13. Nxg5 h6 14. Qe2 hxg5 15. Re1 Be6 16. dxe6 f6 17. Re3 c6 18. Rh3 Rxh3 19. gxh3 g6 *
This is one of black's best defenses against the moller attack; white has some compensation for the pawn, but is it enough? Not for me, I'd say.
While I agree data base statistics are not 100% reliable I ask you what is better? Provide me with something better to go by than results based on millions of games and I will happily consider doing so, until then I dont know what is more reliable than database statistics. My point is here that beez often makes such statements without providing anything at all to back him up....I think he just expresses his opinion as fact and even challenges others to "prove otherwise". Well, I think the facts I just provided proves otherwise and am waiting for his response.
I apologize if your were offended by my post. The only reason I posted that reply was because I believed you were defending attaxk's notion that 7.Bd2 is a "mistake" while 7. Nc3 is the "best" move, which, I'm sure you would agree is not true. Database statistics are there to help but should not be absolute is what I'm implying and I didn't know you were simply trying to correct killabeez.
Karazax wrote:
There are some pretty good analysis articles on the Giouco Piano here:
September 2001 Swansong of the Giuoco Piano (Part 1)
October 2001 The Giuoco Piano (Part 2): The Case for the Defence
February 2002 The Giuoco Piano on Trial (Part 3): The Summing-Up
March 2006 The Giuoco Piano Revisited
Amazing stuff, thanks!
Reb wrote: Nimzo33 wrote: Reb wrote: KillaBeez wrote: Bd2 is sounder than Nc3. Prove otherwise
7 Bd2 scores 51 % and 7 Nc3 scores 55% according to chess assistant..is this enough proof for you beez?
Database statistics can sometimes be unreliable.
While I agree data base statistics are not 100% reliable I ask you what is better? Provide me with something better to go by than results based on millions of games and I will happily consider doing so, until then I dont know what is more reliable than database statistics. My point is here that beez often makes such statements without providing anything at all to back him up....I think he just expresses his opinion as fact and even challenges others to "prove otherwise". Well, I think the facts I just provided proves otherwise and am waiting for his response.
Providing no analysis as to why a move is sound is the worst argument you can make for a move. However, I don't believe database statistics is the best. I am convinced that the best argument that can be made as to the soundness of a move is thorough analysis: Comments as to the various logical features of the move followed by critical variations.
If I were to say that database statistics are unreliable, I would mean something like "Good place to start, but incomplete." If we had four candidate moves, where three scored from 45%-55%, and the fourth was an outlier at around 25%, then we would toss out the fourth, assuming that some feature of the position refuted this move. However, we would not simply pick the best scoring of the remaining moves. Further analysis would be required to find which move would be the best objective move.
You point out that the results from your database are based on millions of games. This is misleading, however, as the results for these two moves is only 2800 games. A four percentage difference seems far from sufficient out of only a couple thousand games with imperfect players. Again, it is a good place to start, but incomplete.
What I try to do is to promote discussion in the forums. I like seeing various opinions come out in discussions and I try to start a debate over the subject. I am here to learn. I never asked anybody to criticize me and to make fun of me. I want to learn by letting other people express their viewpoints. I make controversial posts not because I am ignorant, but because I would like feedback from others. I do not want computer analysis or just a big slap in the face. This is about the Giuoco Piano and which line is better.
How do you say Giuoco? That's the question.
Ok, i wasnt meaning to make fun of you, but your post "Bd2 is sounder than Nc3. Prove otherwise" to me read 'i'm right, you're wrong, and i demand you explain yourself' and not so much 'why do you think Nc3 is better than Bd2? I believe it to be the other way round'.
Bd2 is, perhaps 'safer' but i dont really think white gets anything from it, as i think black can get in d5 and just solve all his problems. You might say Nc3 is less sound, but really this isnt correct. It is probably a better try for an advantage, just it's more complicated, and less solid. It would be a bit like saying the exchange french for white is more sound than 3.Nc3. The exchange is simpler, and kinda symmetrical, but really white's advantage is small, whereas 3.Nc3 in the french is more complicated, and you might think black has much better counterplay, but really this is probably white's best chance for advantage here too.
and, Gee-oko i think
Thanks
Both Bd2 And Nc3 are valid.
IT's a question of taste and both have been played by successfully by GMs.
None of them is a "mistake", as attaxk said he thinks about Bd2.
Nc3 is no better either in the sense that when you check currently known lines of theory, both in the Bd2 line and in the Nc3 line end with the same assessment:
black should equalize. In the Nc3 variation he will not even have problems if he knows the theory, but it is a lot easier to get into SERIOUS trouble if you don't know it.
Conversely, in the Bd2 line, white has certain minor positional advantages, black needs to have a certain level of position understanding to neutralize this, although if he's not bad at that, again there shouldn't be any serious problems.
(For those wondering what could possibly be the problems after the ...d5 variation for black (Bd2 Bxd2 Nxd2 d5), refer to games featuring the combined ideas of Qb3 , pawn to a4, (and a5 if possible), and placing the knight on the e5 post. It's a small issue, but can be a hassle if black doesn't handle it well).
So it depends on your style, your opponent's style, and what do you expect out of the game. None of the two moves is a mistake.
Fine. I'll show you a variation with Bd2. I admit that Bd2 is rather drawish, but it gives White a slight endgame advantage. Nc3 is a perfectly viable option, but has complications and requires lots of theory to learn. I believe this is one of White's best tries to take an advantage with the Bd2 line.
TonightOnly wrote: Reb wrote: Nimzo33 wrote: Reb wrote: KillaBeez wrote: Bd2 is sounder than Nc3. Prove otherwise
7 Bd2 scores 51 % and 7 Nc3 scores 55% according to chess assistant..is this enough proof for you beez?
Database statistics can sometimes be unreliable.
While I agree data base statistics are not 100% reliable I ask you what is better? Provide me with something better to go by than results based on millions of games and I will happily consider doing so, until then I dont know what is more reliable than database statistics. My point is here that beez often makes such statements without providing anything at all to back him up....I think he just expresses his opinion as fact and even challenges others to "prove otherwise". Well, I think the facts I just provided proves otherwise and am waiting for his response.
Providing no analysis as to why a move is sound is the worst argument you can make for a move. However, I don't believe database statistics is the best. I am convinced that the best argument that can be made as to the soundness of a move is thorough analysis: Comments as to the various logical features of the move followed by critical variations.
If I were to say that database statistics are unreliable, I would mean something like "Good place to start, but incomplete." If we had four candidate moves, where three scored from 45%-55%, and the fourth was an outlier at around 25%, then we would toss out the fourth, assuming that some feature of the position refuted this move. However, we would not simply pick the best scoring of the remaining moves. Further analysis would be required to find which move would be the best objective move.
You point out that the results from your database are based on millions of games. This is misleading, however, as the results for these two moves is only 2800 games. A four percentage difference seems far from sufficient out of only a couple thousand games with imperfect players. Again, it is a good place to start, but incomplete.
I think the funniest part of this post is the remark about "imperfect players". I wasnt aware that there are any perfect players so wouldnt that make all of us imperfect? As for analysis , I believe this line and the two particular moves in question have both been analysed deeply at a very high level, if you want analysis at a high level you just have to search for it, if you want analysis by "perfect" players I wish you luck and hope you will share with us when you find such analysis. Are you referring to a certain rating range when you refer to "imperfect players"? Do you think "perfect players" exist? If they don't then wouldnt that make all chess players "imperfect" ?