How to surprise white in the italian

because you are arguing with me for no purpose.

you claim d5 is the problem behind nc6, this is not some highly complex critical line masters cant calculate this is a straightforward idea. this is a simple idea only seen in barely over 1 game of 20 in master praxis. It is deemed to be strategically incorrect to release the central tension early.

your point has been refuted. Simple as that.

Well there was not even a shred of relevant logic in that response, but I suppose you are free to insist there is... there are an endless number of dogmatic imbeciles on this site and I can't be bothered when they just mindlessly insist they're correct, it seems to be a common occurrence on here.

we imbeciles call it data

It's a completely mindless, moronic reading of the data when you look at a position that's reached 150 times in 70 years of chess, you look at how people instinctively respond in a way that's consistent with other kings pawn positions they're used to playing, and argue based on that alone there is some broad and serious consensus about how to play the position correctly while contradicting / ignoring the engine eval. And actually I didn't notice but the position we're talking about scores far better than the KID, because white hasn't played Bc4 yet - so you're basically arguing that an improved KID is some positional mistake. Yes, I'm sorry you're talking and thinking like a moron but I didn't make you do this. Maybe your approach to the game is to just automatically copy what most masters do even when they're thrown off in obscure positions that never happen, but that's not my approach. If all the masters were doing that you'd just have some completely mindless group think as the core basis of the chess metagame at that point.

get back to me when you dont suck at the game.

you know what that "mindless" group concensus is called? THEORY. im telling you the general features of theory in king pawn positions and WHY the engine recommended line is only seen 6 % of the time despite being preferred by overpowered engines, but you dont know how to listen to your betters.

lichess database for example has 10 games after 4.d5 all from the last 25 years , and from the looks of it, with no rating significant discrepancy in blacks favor ( like black players 200+ rating higher than white) has black scoring 40% wins . higher than virtually all other variations.

but im done. i dont argue with pigeons.

There is not an established theory in this obscure position that has been reached 150 times, you dunce. Go into the corner and put on the dunce cap. And at this point theory is more driven by modern engines than anything else. If the 150 masters players who wound up in that position actually had studied it beforehand there is no doubt whatosever that some larger percentage than 6% would choose d5 as their move there, simply because it scores 0.1 higher by the engine and all other moves, and a very significant number of players go by the engine or at least consider it... furthermore, other kings pawn positions generally do not evaluate d5 as highly. If they did... it would be played. If there was a position in the Ruy Lopez where d5 scored 0.1 higher than other moves - that position would be played. Try pointing to any mainline opening where the top engine move that's rated 0.1 higher than all moves is completely discounted and ignored, there isn't one. The players you're looking to did not study the position beforehand, therefor what are you basing your logic on...? Nothing but the natural instinct of players in a position they have never seen. That is not a critical way of evaluating a position. 
I hope this makes sense and you can just shutup at this point.

By the way - I may be 300 points lower than you at chess but I've only taken chess seriously for a year or so, but I've played a dozen strategy games over my life and competed at a very high level, including games such as SC2 where I'm actually grandmaster. So I know what it takes to compete at a high level and win, and how to reason about strategy games. Which is why, when it comes to actually thinking strategically about the game, I easily run circles around you and reveal what a dunce you actually are. it is quite sad that you have spent such a giant amount of time playing chess and yet basic reasoning about the game eludes you. What this shows is that it's possible to get highly rated while having very little actual critical thinking ability just by following theory. But as we can see, when you're actually required to think for yourself you are very bad at it, and just mindlessly look to other masters to figure out what to do. Maybe this is why you've never gotten higher than national master. One of the real key differences between a player that's good but can't really break through vs. a player that is top level is this tendency to just mindlessly conform with the metagame, it's actually not a good approach.

Carry onward!

"but I've only taken chess seriously for a year or so"

QED, i rest my case.

you wish you were 1900 uscf. your game averages accuracy in the 50s and 60's and you wish to lecture me on chess theory XD

When a person starts making an argument from authority it's basically surrendering the debate at that point.

Carry onward!

an hominem is only a fallacy when it purports to take the place of an argument. There is no argument to be had here. You are a weak player. Thats a fact, not an argument.

Oh there is clearly an argument, there is a giant wall of text right up there detailing the argument. Seems you're confusing an argument being "invalid" in your view with it not existing... Yet another fail attempt at logic from you.

Keep trying dunce

haha funny forum

This thread is an abomination.

I may have disagreed with NM Dark Unorthodox, but I do respect him.

NM Dark Unorthodox is an honorable and phenomenal chess player.

We may disagree on the name of chess line, but that is very minor issue.

—————————————

You should really be ashamed of yourself OP.

You should apologize.

Try to make a mends.

—————————————

Leela?? That’s your counter argument.

Horrible!

Put the engine down, until you become more chess qualified to use it.

D5 isn’t the most played move.

You need to accept it!

Your playing against other Humans and other Humans are not playing d5 a lot.

Look at it - Soak it in

Bc4 - 9 Games Better Win & Draw rate for White

d5 - 10 Games Black is got higher winning chances vs. above

————————————

I know you and Leela are just so in love with d5 move.

Like the movie Frozen - You need to just “Let it go”.

W

if anyone of you have read the great jeremy silman book reassesss your chess, this man with this comment reminds of mr.metallic in the introduction chapter lol

The funny thing is I'm looking at most of your opening repertoires and most of you just play the most common, boring mainline theory that has been played millions of times before as your main openings - literally e4 e5 on both sides, you could not get less original if you tried, yet you're lecturing me about not following the engine, meanwhile I literally play the Van Geet Closed Scandinavian as my main white opening which is -0.14. Being aware of what the engine says and blindly following it are two different things, however there is no mainline opening that any one of you can name where the top engine move which a neural net scores +0.11 higher than any other move is universally rejected on principle. Try naming a single opening in chess like that - you can't. Furthermore, I have provided plenty of rationale other than merely "leela says it" - paragraphs and paragraphs of rationale. For example, it's a position almost identical to the KID, there is no developed theory since it's a very rare position... plenty of rationale. I know it's hard for you chickens with your heads cut off to actually think rationally about the opening like this, but I still wait for any single one of you decapitated headless chickens to actually make a valid rational point. Sadly I still have not seen one.

No, the word "leela" wasn't the argument. That is just your moronic way of summarizing and mischaracterizing a very long conversation, but no, not even close actually. 
If you want to relitigate the conversation then quote something I've actually said and respond in a way that's rational and coherent, do not poorly paraphrase and misrepresent the conversation like an ignoramus.

By the way, if you had even the most basic understanding of statistics you would know that a sample of 9 is not large enough to base meaningful statistics on, and furthermore when we're talking about a transposition what matters most is a players knowledge of the position they're transposing to, and considering this is a completely rare and unknown position we would not conclude the players knew what they were doing. 
I've said all this obvious crap before and it was completely ignored then. And I'm sure it will be ignored now...

"-0.14", "+0.11 higher"

HOW IS THAT NOT LEELA. IF IT ISN't LEELA OR SOME KIND OF COMPUTER, THAN WHAT IS IT

The position isn’t rare or unknown.

It has been played a lot for many years.

I told you previously the line is very popular.

The picture I showed with only 9 Bc4 games is from a Masters only Database. Title players database.

High level players don’t play this position a lot.

Low level players do play this position a lot.

Millions upon millions of games have been played.

———————————

I told you the reason you don’t see tons of games from title players playing this position is because the move Nc6 was considered a bad move.

NM Dark gave other reasons on why lines don’t get played such as fashion, personal preference, etc.

He gave a list of reasons which can also be true.

Here is screenshot:

Master only games had about 163 because the move Nc6 as I said was considered bad.

All non-Master games is close to 11.93 mil games.

It’s not rare, uncommon, or unknown.

————————

Keep in mind, I am not saying the move Nc6 is blunder or some outrageous error.

I’m just saying that is what people a long time ago thought.

‘They thought it was bad so that is why you don’t see a lot of games in it.

it’s part of chess evolution.

You're conflating two different datasets and drawing a conclusion from one justified by the other... The masters dataset contains master level FIDE games from 1952 to present day, over 70+ years. The lichess dataset you're looking at now only contains games from the last 15 years at all time controls & levels. You're ignoring the fact that on lichess d5 is the 2nd most played move in that position. You're correct it's uncommon in the masters database. The process of developing a repertoire has changed alot in the modern engine era. Thus it is not a surprise that in the lichess dataset the move d5, an atypical move in the kings pawn opening (but common in plenty of other positions), is one of the most played moves (37%), as these games were all played in the last 15 years. Meanwhile the masters games stretching all the way back to 1952 is going to be full of games played before modern engines were available / had greatly influenced theory. The reality is that modern engines are a critical part of what drive theory these days - when a person prepares a position they're going to be using an engine, looking at stats and combining this with their intuition about the game. There are virtually no players, not at any level, who do not use engines when preparing a repertoire. Thus when players in the modern engine era see that d5 scores 0.11 above all other moves in the position they've chosen to play it in large numbers. This is a departure from in the past, where generally bad moves were rejected based on principle, and not examined much further - principles derived from the prevailing theory at the time - in this case the theory based on how to play common kings pawn positions.

I'll give you two examples. 
Here is a recent game from the master database. This game was played in 2017. Low and behold, what does Ian Nepomniachtchi play here? d5. 
Nepomniachtchi, I. (2729) vs Andriasian, Z. (2585): Philidor Defense • lichess.org

So this game right here shreds your argument in yet another way, since Ian Napponmniachtchi is playing the move and this is the highest rated game in the position.

On the other hand, here's a game taken from 1977 where d5 isn't played, but rather a more typical philidor style move is played- 
Kurajica, Bojan (2530) vs Mestrovic, Zvonimir (2435): Nimzowitsch Defense: Williams Variation • lichess.org 
And these are just the first games popping up from the masters database. But yes, theory does evolve over time and engines are most of what have driven the evolution of it in the last 15 years or so as they've becoming increasingly reliable.