Almost everybody is ignorant wrt omniscient DeirdreSkye. 
How do I counter the Smith-Morra Gambit?
Sort:
m_n0 wrote:
I think the fact that you've decided to censor the word "stupid" speaks for itself.
+1
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Yeah, 3rd most popular, but not first, so this implies it is definitely not considered best.
While it is!
So, in a single game, opening theory has changed.
You are implying that because something is played more it means people evaluate it to be "the best". That is an assumption on a massive scale. Theory has not changed. In fact, you can even argue that (given how Alpha Zero "taught" itself) that the decision it made was not even the "best", but simply allowed it to get into a situation where it had a better understanding of the position than a brute force engine (which is the same problem many engines have with many opening lines, by the way)
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
The point is HOW those moves are ordered and assessed, I think this is clear.
And here things change very much.
The order for moves in most opening lines has not changed much in the last 100 years. They were playing QGD, Italian, Ruy Lopez, and many lines in the Sicilian 100+ years ago. Sure, Steinitz played a few openings that we do not see played much these days (the Vienna, for example), but that is not due to them being unsound (at least not all of them), but rather the preferences of modern players are different.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
No one uses opening books to test engines nowadays, mostly 2 moves-long or so, for variety.
You are very much behind on engine testing theory.
These statements are so freaking idiotic that I could write an entire post just on them. One of the big complaints about the Alpha Zero vs Stockfish results was that (wait for it ...) Stockfish was running without an Opening Book (and without an endgame tablebase and odd time controls - which you like to put to shame with your even more absurd time controls)! Why was that a complaint? (drum roll ...)
To state that "no one uses opening books" with engines anymore is asinine. From the Komodo 10 release notes:
Komodo can use Polyglot opening books. When playing with a book, Komodo will move instantly if it finds a legal move leading to a position in the book. We have a free book with lots of variety on our site on this page
Stockfish also uses Polyglot opening books, FYI.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
If ALL is written down in the holy scriptures of chess databases, why then no one knows what the best first move is?
Why?
Tell me just that very simple thing, looking it up into your extremely useful opening databases:
what is the best first chess move?
Then we can discuss about second moves.
You certainly understand finding a novelty on move 30, when you are unaware what the best first move is is stupid, right?
You are confusing opening lines with chess being solved. The latter is not the case. There are no "best first moves" in chess. e4, d4, Nf3, and c4 are all quite good (probably slightly better than the rest), but you are not likely to lose a game based on your first move alone. Hell, even a3 can be a decent first move when used appropriately:
Your obsession with centipawns at the opening is amusing, but that is about it. Now, please go back to complaining about how you don't have time to play OTB while spending hours upon hours trolling forums online with half-baked ideas.
I wondered if I should comment on this at all, as it is such a trollish post.
Just briefly:
B. Talparov: "THERE IS NO BEST FIRST MOVE." ....
.....
Really, so, all first moves are equal.
Why is then that everybody is searching for the best move in each and every position?
Why is then that ALL chess engines are searching for the best move?
Alpha-beta is based on finding the best move, right?
A quote from Komodo site Komodo could use opening books......
.....
Of course it can, but they mostly test with shorter, 2 moves book.
SF also tests almost exclusively with very short 2 move/5 plies book.
Fact: top engines already DON'T rely on their testing on books.
Another fact: you are completely unfamiliar with what is going on in computer chess.
Btw., it was ME the reason for SF and most top engines switching to using shorter books.
I suggested to them this is the way forward to scientific testing and they soon got convinced.
4 or 5 years ago I released a short 2-move book, fully unbiased, that formed the basis for future developments in the area.
Order has not changed.
Man, are you serious?
Look at those 2 links, the games of Steinitz, and those of Carlsen:
http://www.chessgames.com/player/wilhelm_steinitz.html
http://www.chessgames.com/player/magnus_carlsen.html
First 5 favourite openings for Steinitz with the white pieces: Vienna Opening, French Defence, King's Gambit Declined, King's Gambit Accepted, Evans Gambit
First 5 favourite openings for Carlsen: Sicilian, Ruy Lopez, Queen's Pawn Game, Nimzo-Indian, Slav Defence
Not a SINGLE common opening between the 2!
The black choices are similar.
So, completely the opposite to what you claim: opening theory changes TREMENDOUSLY.
Does it really make sense to argue any more.
3 suppositions, ALL 3 fully WRONG on substance.
Please, get your basic facts right, then we can argue again.
We all understand that this is the same guy who said that the Advance French is won for White and thinks he is 3500, why is anyone arguing with him? This is a hopeless case.
m_n0 wrote:
1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4?! may or may not be strong against computers, but it's useless against humans. In fact, multiple 2600+ players have played this position from the Black side a tempo down (1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 e4 e5!?).
Also, what about 2...Nc6 - ? There, I suspect e2-e4 is even worse, as ...Bc5, ...d6, ...Nge7 and ...f5 is a pretty coherent plan (that I learned from facing 1 e4 e5 2 c4?! a couple times as Black).
1. c4 is the English Opening. It does not transpose to the Smith-Morra.
Thanks. Surprisingly, I actually knew that. I was responding to LT's claim that 1 c4 is White's best move, based on the line 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 a few posts prior.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
MetalRatel wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
MetalRatel wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
The best line of play is to play d6, e6 and a6, getting to some kind of a hedgehog position, so the white pieces can not make use of their better development to penetrate, and then develop, retaining a full central d pawn more, which is a lot.
My lines are good, very good indeed, in the opening and everywhere, it is a pity people treat me in that way.
This is a very solid line for Black, but I could not find any advantage against 13.Na4:
I don't know.
I looked into it very carefully, and it is a very complicated tactical play in almost all variations, but black gets on top almost always.
One possible line after Na4 is this one, Nh4, to displace the bishop, followed by Bd8, guarding the b6 square.
SF reaches 50-60cps black edge.
A pawn more is a pawn more.
I don't know if that is sufficient for a win though.
As said, very complicated tactically, you need days to analyse it, but black will always retain a clear edge.
Thanks for the response. This looks interesting, but couldn't White also try to force a perpetual with 21.Bf4? 21...e5 looks a bit risky to play on.
This is just a sample line.
I would hate to see what happens after e5, as this is too tactical, certainly white can not get an advantage.
The move played by SF before that, 20...h6, is more or less meaningless.
Black has better with 20...Nf6.
That is what SF gives: clear advantage for black.
Black has 2 central connected pawns for the rook, more than a comfortable advantage.
Again, I can not check each and every move, but the point is black wins or gest large advantage in some 80% of cases I have tried.
Statistically, that means a lot.
Thanks for clarifying. Honestly, I did not understand 21...h6, but the repetition stood out to me on first impression. Of course, you can't include everything and I agree Black seems to get strong compensation in the center with that line, but I'm stuck at 17.cxd5 when White breaks the center first. I agree that Black is not worse after 13.Na4, but now it looks very dangerous for Black to me.
I also found an interesting alternative 9...Nh5!? in another move order (Taylor Defense) that has been tested by three strong grandmasters in the last year:
As a human player, I often feel I need to content myself with a draw against best play in these sharp positions to keep my sanity. 
m_n0 wrote:
Thanks. Surprisingly, I actually knew that. I was responding to LT's claim that 1 c4 is White's best move, based on the line 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 a few posts prior.
Which means that we're kinda getting a bit off-topic here.
@BobbyTalparov
Actually I believe a number of younger GMs do evaluate positions in terms of centipawns (or rather decipawns). (I think this came up in one of Aagaard's training books. Also read the new edition of Dismantling the Sicilian. )
You think the Sicilian today is similar to what it was 100 years ago? Really??
Explaining the development of the major lines of the Sicilian is like a 20th century chess history lesson. I could say the same for the Ruy Lopez as well. The Berlin re-emerged to popularity after the Kasparov-Kramnik match, but a lot sure happened in between.
I normally don't spend much time on discussions like these, since I find engine evaluations of the first move to be incredibly boring and useless to me, but this caused me to do a double take.
I think we are doing well here if 10% of the posts are actually about the Morra. Keep up the good work!
Friendly tip, if you're looking for a serious opening discussion, you're better off posting on another forum (which I'll probably be banned if I name). Less active, but also less general trolling and nonsense.
Yeah - people don't think or talk about positions in terms of centipawns unless specifically referencing an engine evaluation (e.g. I checked this line last night, after Ne5, it's +0.2). It's the same thing in Illingsworth's book (and, even earlier, Kaufman).
@BobbyTalparov
As an NM who teaches chess, I usually start with #2 and #3, especially with beginners. Many are tempted to look at captured pieces and I tell them to look at what's on the board. What is the same? What is different? Then use #3 to calculate the difference. I explain these are guidelines and we need to look at the activity of the pieces, the health of the pawn structure, the king safety, etc. I focus on comparative analysis of statics and dynamics in the position. How stable is the position? Are there any other forcing moves to consider? Should we calculate further?
One of my friends is a college student from China in the upper 2300s USCF. When we talk evaluations, he'll often say things like, "I think it's about +.6." I don't think there's anything really precise about it, but when you're used to using engines a lot, you begin to build an intuition about these things from experience. It's like judging something on a scale from a 1 to 10. Larry Kaufman actually writes about centipawn calculations in his books, but for most, I think it is mostly intuitive.
In terms of the opening books I had before 1997, the theory itself is mostly useless to me now. Sure, there are many instructive games that are useful to study, but the nature of opening research has radically changed since then.
I think AlphaZero confirmed the strength of a few openings that were already popular in modern chess (Berlin, QID 4...Ba6 5.Qc2 gambit ideas) and showed there are still many miles to go. The revival of the Polugaevsky Gambit was a pleasant surprise. I can't say what works best for an engine, but I still find the evolution of chess ideas in human history to be interesting.
One suggestion I want to make is that I don't think it is so useful to rely on engine evaluations in the early stages of an opening. There is still a lot of digging to be done!
@BobbyTalparov
Yeah, but that's how we check all of our analysis, so it is actually not so unnatural to talk in this way.
"It looked pretty equal to me - maybe he was even a little better."
"Well Stockfish gives me +.6!"
"Oh? Huh..."
I completely avoided engine use until 2012, but that wasn't until I really started to get serious about becoming a master. It's a necessity these days. Of course, you have to translate findings from the engine analysis into your own methodology, but I think it certainly has had an influence in the way people evaluate, even if it is difficult to clearly pinpoint where it affects intuition. From my own experience, I think it has sharpened my play significantly.
When I was a Class A player, I think many people considered me to be a conservative, positional player. ("He's solid!") A little to my surprise, a couple of local NMs have recently said things like "It surprised me that you exchanged the queens. I think you have an attacking style." and "You play a lot of crazy computer lines!". I think engine use in analysis has definitely influenced my play.
By the way, I'll often fiddle around with Stockfish on my iPad to test ideas. I don't do Monte Carlo simulations like a lot of the computer experts, but it is a messy process with many failures. I don't think someone should be criticized for talking in centipawn evaluations. It has become a part of the culture today. From my superficial understanding of his work, I believe Tsvetkov has many heuristics that he has formalized into concrete point values from work with engine analysis. It seems like a more elaborate version of what I saw in Kaufman's books. Maybe it is not so crazy to think chess may be shifting more and more in this direction...
I never heard anyone saying:
"This posion is 50 centi pawns better for white".
Well yeah, a good lecturer normally wouldn't do that. If they had a strong quantitative angle like Kaufman, maybe they would justify a centipawn calculation somehow. When you look at evaluations like:
=, = / +/=, +/=, +/= / +/-, +/-, +/- / +-, +-
which you can easily put into words, we're often talking about margins no bigger than 2 or 3 decipawns, so it's not too great of a stretch for players to roughly estimate decipawns. I don't do this often myself and I wouldn't dream of doing this during a lecture unless I was referencing an engine evaluation. At the same time, I wouldn't speak to a beginner's class in the same way I would to a friend near my level.
There are certainly at least two (Dismantling the Sicilian 2ed and Sabotage the Grunfeld), but my point was that nobody thinks this way naturally, i.e. without the engine running in the background.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
MetalRatel wrote:
I never heard anyone saying:
"This posion is 50 centi pawns better for white".
Well yeah, a good lecturer normally wouldn't do that. If they had a strong quantitative angle like Kaufman, maybe they would justify a centipawn calculation somehow. When you look at evaluations like:
=, = / +/=, +/=, +/= / +/-, +/-, +/- / +-, +-
which you can easily put into words, we're often talking about margins no bigger than 2 or 3 decipawns, so it's not too great of a stretch for players to roughly estimate decipawns. I don't do this often myself and I wouldn't dream of doing this during a lecture unless I was referencing an engine evaluation. At the same time, I wouldn't speak to a beginner's class in the same way I would to a friend near my level.
And how many books have you seen using evaluations in centipawns?
I haven't seen even one(but I guess there must be at least one , we live in crazy times).
So almost no lecturers , no authors and almost no players(except the crazy ones).
Both of Kaufman's books (The Kaufman Repertoire and Sabotage the Grunfeld) and Illingsworth's Dismantling the Sicilian frequently refer to centipawn evaluations. I remember Aagaard commenting that this was a developing trend with younger players in conversation, so it is more mainstream than you may think.
MetalRatel wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
MetalRatel wrote:
I never heard anyone saying:
"This posion is 50 centi pawns better for white".
Well yeah, a good lecturer normally wouldn't do that. If they had a strong quantitative angle like Kaufman, maybe they would justify a centipawn calculation somehow. When you look at evaluations like:
=, = / +/=, +/=, +/= / +/-, +/-, +/- / +-, +-
which you can easily put into words, we're often talking about margins no bigger than 2 or 3 decipawns, so it's not too great of a stretch for players to roughly estimate decipawns. I don't do this often myself and I wouldn't dream of doing this during a lecture unless I was referencing an engine evaluation. At the same time, I wouldn't speak to a beginner's class in the same way I would to a friend near my level.
And how many books have you seen using evaluations in centipawns?
I haven't seen even one(but I guess there must be at least one , we live in crazy times).
So almost no lecturers , no authors and almost no players(except the crazy ones).
Both of Kaufman's books (The Kaufman Repertoire and Sabotage the Grunfeld) and Illingsworth's Dismantling the Sicilian frequently refer to centipawn evaluations. I remember Aagaard commenting that this was a developing trend with younger players in conversation, so it is more mainstream than you may think.
True enough. Players might say that “this position looks about +0.4”, but that has a human meaning attached to it: it means White clearly has more than White’s usual opening edge, but they aren’t so much better that Black will have to defend a bad position.
amigo62 wrote:
Überleitung in Alapin, nach after1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3.c3 Sf6! ist gut für Schwarz und lässt Morra Gambit spieler verzweifeln-
Gut und Verlustnah...
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Yigor wrote:
Almost everybody is ignorant wrt omniscient DeirdreSkye.
Everybody no , everybody who looks for best first or second move , yes.
Fischer has played 1. c4 actually very much.
In his later years.
As someone pointed out on a thread, 2 of Fischer's 3 wins as white in the WC match versus Spassky featured 1. c4.
What is the Fischer-Larsen Attack?
Basically, 1. c4, coupled with 1. f4 - both semi-central pawns attacking the center.
carlsen WILL PLAY 1. c4 in his later years, this is a very positional move and requires some distance.
In the same way, Botvinnik and Kasparov - 2 of the 3 or 5 best theoreticians - switched to regular 1. c4 only in their later careers.
1. c4 requires wisdom.
I have it, Fischer had it, but you?
Überleitung in Alapin, nach after1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3.c3 Sf6! ist gut für Schwarz und lässt Morra Gambit spieler verzweifeln-