Forums

Historically popular openings that were revealed to be bad later by the engine

Sort:
theRonster456
tlay80 wrote:
MaetsNori wrote:

I'd say the opposite trend seems to be (surprisingly) true: a lot of openings and defenses that were thought to be dubious have been proven to be playable by modern engines.

Yes, very often true. There are some lines though, that are pretty much refuted, though I'm struggling to think of one that was ever particularly popular. One I'm rather fond of that seems, alas, to be busted, is the Polugayevsky Variation of the Najdorf. Last time I played it in a daily game, I lost, and, even looking later with an engine, I couldn't figure out what I did wrong other than choosing to play the Polugayevsky.

Then there are the middle cases, of which the King's Indian is perhaps emblematic. It's not refuted, and I think a lot of people think that engines' high opinions of white's chances are inflated. But it's clear that White has a number of ways to get a position, that, without being fully winning, can make Black's life harder than it needs to be. On the other hand, at the amateur level, it remains popular as ever, and since sub-2000 players are typically out of theory by move 12-14 anyway, those engine problems doen't seem to have any serious negative effect on Black's practical chances.

And this is the crux of the whole situation here. Even top level players are out of theory after 30 to 40 moves, usually much sooner. Engines, of course, are never out of theory; they're incapable of 'forgetting' anything. So an engine that finds a flaw in a line that's 40+ moves long has little relevance for a human player. I remember one time Fabi won some game in a tournament, and afterwards the commentator told him he missed a mate in 24, or some such ridiculous number, that Stockfish had found. He just laughed. He wasn't too upset about missing the move. It was a rather 'human' mistake to make.

tlay80
MaetsNori wrote:

On my laptop, SF 17 says that 15... Qxb2 was the blunder.

Qxb2 looked fine on lower depth, but then White's eval rose to over +1 after a few minutes.

15... Rxd3, instead, seems to hold. Exchanging queens.

16. Nxe5 ...Rd4

17. fxg7 ...Bxg7

18. Nxf7 ... 0-0

I haven't looked past that, but I'm thinking Black is fine from there on out, now that he has avoided the ...Qxb2 line. Black's down a pawn, but he's got the bishop pair on an open board. He'll snag that pawn back at some point.

Wow. Well, you may be right that it's playable. I note that only one human plaer has ventured that queen trade out of 62 database games, and it does look like a sad solution. We're down a pawn, and e6 looks pretty weak, plus White's pieces are more active for the time being. I'm sort of astonishedt he engine calls it as close to equal as it does.

The thing is - do you really want to sign up for learning all this theory just to suffer through a +0.7 position? I mean, you could learn the same amount of theory in the Poisoned Pawn and get a +0.1 position. Still, I admire the folks who take up the challenge.

MaetsNori
tlay80 wrote:

Wow. Well, you may be right that it's playable. I note that only one human plaer has ventured that queen trade out of 62 database games, and it does look like a sad solution. We're down a pawn, and e6 looks pretty weak, plus White's pieces are more active for the time being. I'm sort of astonishedt he engine calls it as close to equal as it does.

The thing is - do you really want to sign up for learning all this theory just to suffer through a +0.7 position? I mean, you could learn the same amount of theory in the Poisoned Pawn and get a +0.1 position. Still, I admire the folks who take up the challenge.

It does look a bit ... undesirable, I agree.

So let's go back to move 15 and see what else we might find.

...Qc7, perhaps?

This actually looks so much cleaner, simpler. I'd probably go with that.

But it's not the top engine choice, likely because the engine doesn't care if a line is easy to understand or not; complications make no difference to Stockfish. If only we humans could say the same!

Jim1
tlay80 wrote:
Jim1 wrote:

I'd say most gambit openings have been proven bad by engines.

But I think theRonster456's point -- and he's right -- is that most of those gambits were defanged by humans long before engines came into the mix.

I can't, offhand, think of a gambit that was put out of business by engines, rather than by earlier human analysis (though perhaps there are some minor ones I'm missing). On the other hand, I can think of a couple of gambits -- the Marshall and the pawn sacrifice lines in the Catalan -- that really came into vogue once engines made clear they were fully sound.

I worded my statement using the word "proven". Humans may have long suspected a gambit or opening was bad but I don't think humans can prove anything. Only an engine can prove something in chess.

Uhohspaghettio1
Jim1 wrote:
tlay80 wrote:
Jim1 wrote:

I'd say most gambit openings have been proven bad by engines.

But I think theRonster456's point -- and he's right -- is that most of those gambits were defanged by humans long before engines came into the mix.

I can't, offhand, think of a gambit that was put out of business by engines, rather than by earlier human analysis (though perhaps there are some minor ones I'm missing). On the other hand, I can think of a couple of gambits -- the Marshall and the pawn sacrifice lines in the Catalan -- that really came into vogue once engines made clear they were fully sound.

I worded my statement using the word "proven". Humans may have long suspected a gambit or opening was bad but I don't think humans can prove anything. Only an engine can prove something in chess.

What a ridiculous statement. An engine can't "prove" anything anymore than a human can, if it could it would be called a tablebase.

What an engine can do is predict what the continuation and outcome of a game will be when played at a high level of analysis, and they're usually very good at doing it. But they can't prove anything. And even if a computer gives a score of 0.0 as it probably does the Fried Liver, what does that tell us about it being sound? It doesn't mean it's sound much less prove it, it's a hopeless opening, nobody would play it. Computers only assist.

Jim1
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

What a ridiculous statement. An engine can't "prove" anything anymore than a human can, if it could it would be called a tablebase.

What an engine can do is predict what the continuation and outcome of a game will be when played at a high level of analysis, and they're usually very good at doing it. But they can't prove anything. And even if a computer gives a score of 0.0 as it probably does the Fried Liver, what does that tell us about it being sound? It doesn't mean it's sound much less prove it, it's a hopeless opening, nobody would play it. Computers only assist.

If it verifies something that humans have suspected about an opening then I'd say that's strong proof the human was correct. But I wouldn't take the humans word alone. The claim was that humans proved a gambit was bad long before engines existed. Humans suspected it but it took the engine to confirm it. In other cases the engine showed that openings or lines thought to be bad by humans are actually quite playable. If you think an engine cannot prove anything then I guess someday if engines would show that the game of chess is a draw in all games with best play for both sides you'd say "That's no proof!"

Uhohspaghettio1

No, that's not how it works.

insane

Most gambits

darkunorthodox88

i been mostly the same repertoire since i was a scholastic player (with far more knowledge now, and more sidelines of course) with one major exception which was the mainline of the declined nimzowitsch defense.

this line which GM tony miles played with much success back in his hayday has now sadly been refuted by the h3, d5 idea by white(eval at like 1.7+!). I find it funny because of all the offbeat stuff i still play, it wasnt my 1.b4 or owens defense or 1.d4 nc6 that ended up busted but this defense which at first sight looks like perfectly reasonable moves.

actually, after h3, bxf3, is almost payable (if d5 right away with no h3, ne5 is also borderline playable), but one line leads to an equal endgame agaisnt a bishop pair with no compensation and after one crushing loss agaisnt a master friend of mine otb, decided to quit on the variation.

5...e5 has also been tried but i never been convinced , even as someone who likes the philidor and the old steinitz , i find the position difficult after bb5

luckily, schyuler's "the dark knight system" provided the alternative nimzo pirc where you play 2.d6 but go for a pirc/KID structure and its quite sound.

I know this tecnically doesnt quite count as a popular opening, but this was a main line of a side opening not long ago.

darkunorthodox88
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Jim1 wrote:
tlay80 wrote:
Jim1 wrote:

I'd say most gambit openings have been proven bad by engines.

But I think theRonster456's point -- and he's right -- is that most of those gambits were defanged by humans long before engines came into the mix.

I can't, offhand, think of a gambit that was put out of business by engines, rather than by earlier human analysis (though perhaps there are some minor ones I'm missing). On the other hand, I can think of a couple of gambits -- the Marshall and the pawn sacrifice lines in the Catalan -- that really came into vogue once engines made clear they were fully sound.

I worded my statement using the word "proven". Humans may have long suspected a gambit or opening was bad but I don't think humans can prove anything. Only an engine can prove something in chess.

What a ridiculous statement. An engine can't "prove" anything anymore than a human can, if it could it would be called a tablebase.

What an engine can do is predict what the continuation and outcome of a game will be when played at a high level of analysis, and they're usually very good at doing it. But they can't prove anything. And even if a computer gives a score of 0.0 as it probably does the Fried Liver, what does that tell us about it being sound? It doesn't mean it's sound much less prove it, it's a hopeless opening, nobody would play it. Computers only assist.

come on man, thats so pedantic, for all intends and purposes what engines say 98% of the time in the opening is proof enough. ESPECIALLY when you are talking about gambit lines with super high evals and no fortress/locked positions.

WCPetrosian

The Portuguese Gambit in the Scandinavian was considered kinda suspect but yet interesting and possibly good enough to throw the dice with.

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6 3 d4 Bg4 (Portuguese), and then after 4 f3 everyone and their uncles since the dawn of time went 4...Bf5. However, Stockfish says black needs to go 4...Bd7 when white is 0.80 better, but that is hardly the disruptive super active game black was seeking. After the 'book' 4...Bf5 SF has white at 1.35 better, that number seems like a bust does it not?

darkunorthodox88
pcalugaru wrote:

Good thread...

I just watched an interview with Magnus Carlsen where he was stated the main lines of historically popular opening, most now lead to a draws. Sometime back, I listen to a pod cast where the World Correspondence Chess Champion said they now are only using 4 openings... The top correspondence guys use serious computers, running the strongest chess engines... and all 4 openings are now leading to a draws. (all others lead to a loss)

OTB.... If anything... Openings that where once thought to be inferior... because of the rise of chess engines, look to be less inferior and playable OTB

The top 100 players in the world... the guys rated 2675 and up... (side note: Due to the Ukrainian War.. a 3rd of them are missing from the world stage, being Russian... are banned for political reasons) all of them have photographic memories.

They can recall the computer lines... Carlsen's photographic memory is legendary... he once stated he can recall 10,000 games. Side comment: when is he actually playing? , is it him..... or he's making moves based on page 78 of the latest evaluation of the Berlin defense in the Ruy lopez?

That goes for all the elites...

And... IMO why it's frak'in stupid to make your opening repertoire based on what these elites are using. 

they DO NOT have photographic memories, these people forget their opening lines all the time (not the stuff they play all the time mind you, usually rarer seen things)

Uhohspaghettio1
WCPetrosian wrote:

The Portuguese Gambit in the Scandinavian was considered kinda suspect but yet interesting and possibly good enough to throw the dice with.

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6 3 d4 Bg4 (Portuguese), and then after 4 f3 everyone and their uncles since the dawn of time went 4...Bf5. However, Stockfish says black needs to go 4...Bd7 when white is 0.80 better, but that is hardly the disruptive super active game black was seeking. After the 'book' 4...Bf5 SF has white at 1.35 better, that number seems like a bust does it not?

At the end of the day all that really matters is if it does well or not - preferably taking into account the average ratings of black and white players so you know if it's only winning due to high rated players using it against low rated ones. If you look at mainline Benko/Benoni variations (openings very playable among the elite today) they get up to 0.8-0.9 at times but obviously are extremely active to compensate. I would guess that's probably around the cutoff for when something is just bad for black. Having said that if you put the portuguese defence into lichess (where they use precalculated cloud depths for some positions) it's giving 0.9 to 1.2.

StevieG65
It’s only a slight exaggeration to say the Queen’s Indian. In the 90s it was super-solid. First Topalov then Alpha Zero changed that.
darkunorthodox88
StevieG65 wrote:
It’s only a slight exaggeration to say the Queen’s Indian. In the 90s it was super-solid. First Topalov then Alpha Zero changed that.

you mean that annoying d5 line?

Uhohspaghettio1

It isn't an exaggeration to say it so much as a joke that shows everyone you know absolutely nothing about chess.