London Accelerated specifically does well.
Ok look at this then.
The main line London is slightly worse for white and is mostly a draw.
The main line Najdorf is scoring massive wins for white.
It's not even comparable. It's immensely better than the London.
@ the op:
I disagree with a lot of it, but I respect the fact that you tried to come up with reasons on your own instead of looking at an engine (which will not give you the correct answers).
Whatever you say OP.
EX Tier:
1. c4 (The best first move, controlling the center with no risk to White)
2. Nf3 (Second best, the perfect waiting move)
3. d4 (Traditionally considered to be the best or second best move)
4. e4 (Best by test)
A Tier:
5. b3 (A great waiting move, but there are better options out there)
6. g3 (A good waiting move, but entirely redundant when Reti exists)
7. b4 (Like e4 and d4, slightly too committal to be the best, but great)
B Tier:
8. c3 (We begin to see the first truly odd openings here)
9. e3 (Just play Queen's Pawn like a normal person)
10. d3 (This move does essentially nothing at no cost, a perfect middleground)
11. a3 (The ultimate waiting move, unfortunately White is now playing Black)
12. Nc3 (White's options are limited, but the remaining options are still playable)
C Tier:
13. f4 (When the best move against a gambit is to transpose to the King's Gambit, you know something has gone horribly horribly wrong, somehow some variations are playable)
14. g4 (You live for the Fritz Gambit and have never won a Classical game in your life)
15. h3 (A waiting move that does exist)}
F Tier:
16. a4 (The better of the two rooks to develop, this is a terrible opening)
17. h4 (The worse of the two rooks to develop, this is a terrible opening)
18. Na3 (The better of the two knights to develop, this is a terrible opening)
19. Nh3 (The worse of the two knights to develop, this is a terrible opening)
20. f3 (The worst opening in chess, a waiting move that actively invites an attack on your king and will never support anything later on, often wastes a tempo for f2-f3 f3-f4 later in the game)
Your ranking is pretty nice also. The main thing I disagree with is h4. It won't work against a gm, but it is certainly playable, and can cripple black's kingside structure while you castle queen side.
1. h4 sacrifices kingside castling rights, and if Black castles queenside it was just a waste of a move. Besides, every single opening above it is far better and every opening beneath it is far worse, so debating the merits of the move is inherently useless, as you'd have to find me an opening move you think is worse than 1. h4 to replace it. I stand by 1. h4 being worse than 1. a4.
I just want to thank the OP for expanding my horizons. Before today I played almost exclusively e4 or d4 as White, but I agree those openings are pretty well worn. For a change of pace I tried a couple games with Nf3, first the Reti and then the KIA and I won both games. I noticed a long hesitation from my opponents like they weren't sure what to do. Also to prepare I went to the chess.com openings lesson for Nf3 so that probably gave me an edge. I may try out g3 also for a change of pace, but definitely more Nf3 games in the future for me.
@ the op:
I disagree with a lot of it, but I respect the fact that you tried to come up with reasons on your own instead of looking at an engine (which will not give you the correct answers).
Thank you, I did look at the engine too, just to make sure I wasn' tmissing anything obvious, but yeah. The problem with engines is that they don't understand how openings like Grob Gambit are good against an average player, as they don't tend to have the same knowledge on opening as others.
I just want to thank the OP for expanding my horizons. Before today I played almost exclusively e4 or d4 as White, but I agree those openings are pretty well worn. For a change of pace I tried a couple games with Nf3, first the Reti and then the KIA and I won both games. I noticed a long hesitation from my opponents like they weren't sure what to do. Also to prepare I went to the chess.com openings lesson for Nf3 so that probably gave me an edge. I may try out g3 also for a change of pace, but definitely more Nf3 games in the future for me.
Glad I could be of help.
@ the op:
I disagree with a lot of it, but I respect the fact that you tried to come up with reasons on your own instead of looking at an engine (which will not give you the correct answers).
Their reasons are not based on analysis or facts though. It's based entirely on personal bias.
"I like it so it must be better"
"d4 is best because London is my favourite opening"
"London is my favourite opening so it's best"
They misuse data and don't look into the lines properly. Like they say black chooses to open or close the position in e4 openings which is completely wrong.
Like they say e4 is worse by looking on the database superficially and saying it has a lower win rate without considering that the London (their favourite opening) has a significantly lower win rate, while many major white openings within e4 have a significantly higher win rate than a lot of major d4, c4, Nf3 openings.
The reasons they come up with are pulled out of nowhere.
London Accelerated specifically does well.
Ok look at this then.
The main line London is slightly worse for white and is mostly a draw.
The main line Najdorf is scoring massive wins for white.
It's not even comparable. It's immensely better than the London.
To be fair to OP, there are far better lines in the London (especially when considering the Jobava London), but you are most definitely correct when saying the Najdorf is far far better than the London. If I could face a London every game guaranteed, I'd be in my second IM norm right now.
Their reasons are not based on analysis or facts though. It's based entirely on personal bias.
"I like it so it must be better"
"d4 is best because London is my favourite opening"
"London is my favourite opening so it's best"
They misuse data and don't look into the lines properly. Like they say black chooses to open or close the position in e4 openings which is completely wrong.
Like they say e4 is worse by looking on the database superficially and saying it has a lower win rate without considering that the London (their favourite opening) has a significantly lower win rate, while many major white openings within e4 have a significantly higher win rate than a lot of major d4, c4, Nf3 openings.
The reasons they come up with are pulled out of nowhere.
I'm a guy, you don't need to refer to me as they. And I didn't say I like London, only London Accelerated. Also, the ranking was purely my opinion...I never said it was a fact.
To be fair to OP, there are far better lines in the London (especially when considering the Jobava London), but you are most definitely correct when saying the Najdorf is far far better than the London. If I could face a London every game guaranteed, I'd be in my second IM norm right now.
It's not just that the Open Sicilian is immensely better for white than the London but also pretty much every major e4 opening is better. Like if you look further into the lines instead of just move 1 then white is scoring far better with e4.
To be fair to OP, there are far better lines in the London (especially when considering the Jobava London), but you are most definitely correct when saying the Najdorf is far far better than the London. If I could face a London every game guaranteed, I'd be in my second IM norm right now.
It's not just that the Open Sicilian is immensely better for white than the London but also pretty much every major e4 opening is better. Like if you look further into the lines instead of just move 1 then white is scoring far better with e4.
I'll always recommend 1. e4 as the actual best move in chess. According to supercomputers, it's the fourth-best move in chess, but it's by FAR the most intuitive, the most instructive, the most tactical, and it's for these reasons that it's the best. The engines all over-value short-term tactics, de-value gambits, and don't take into account the human element, and so I think they're most likely mistaken.
I'm a guy, you don't need to refer to me as they. And I didn't say I like London, only London Accelerated. Also, the ranking was purely my opinion...I never said it was a fact.
Whenever anyone talks about London these days, they clearly mean Accelerated London as it's the most common move order.
When I say London I mean this, 1. d4 Nf6/d5 2. Bf4.
Their reasons are not based on analysis or facts though. It's based entirely on personal bias.
"I like it so it must be better"
"d4 is best because London is my favourite opening"
"London is my favourite opening so it's best"
They misuse data and don't look into the lines properly. Like they say black chooses to open or close the position in e4 openings which is completely wrong.
Like they say e4 is worse by looking on the database superficially and saying it has a lower win rate without considering that the London (their favourite opening) has a significantly lower win rate, while many major white openings within e4 have a significantly higher win rate than a lot of major d4, c4, Nf3 openings.
The reasons they come up with are pulled out of nowhere.
I'm a guy, you don't need to refer to me as they.
++Noted
And I didn't say I like London, only London Accelerated.
++They're the same thing with a different move order.
Also, the ranking was purely my opinion...I never said it was a fact.
++The post above acknowledges that, but disagrees.
I'm a guy, you don't need to refer to me as they. And I didn't say I like London, only London Accelerated. Also, the ranking was purely my opinion...I never said it was a fact.
You didn't say it was purely based on opinion in the post. You said it was based on realistic potential.
You also stated that it's a fact that it's black who chooses to open or close the position in e4 openings. I can show you a million examples which prove this wrong.
You also stated that it's a fact that white doesn't do as well with e4 openings as the other 3 moves based on move 1 stats but didn't look at the stats of the actual main lines within these moves.
You didn't say it was purely based on opinion in the post, you said it was based on realistic potential.
You also stated that it's a fact that it's black who chooses to open or close the position in e4 openings. I can show you a million examples which prove this wrong.
You also stated that it's a fact that white doesn't do as well with e4 openings as the other 3 moves based on move 1 stats but didn't look at the stats of the actual main lines within these moves.
How much realistic potential, and how logical it seems. Both of those have at least some subjectivity.
Black does have more say than white in how open or closed e4 games are. Does that mean they can make it 100% open or 100% closed without white's consent? No, but they do get a lot closer to their way than white does. And don't use the Sicilian as an example, I already said I agree that this move does benefit white, and is therefore an exception.
How much realistic potential, and how logical it seems. Both of those have at least some subjectivity.
Black does have more say than white in how open or closed e4 games are. Does that mean they can make it 100% open or 100% closed without white's consent? No, but they do get closer to their way than white does.
You just misinterpret the opening. Obviously whether the position is open or closed is determined by the play of both players but this applies the same to any other move. Black can choose to play open positions in queen's pawn openings as well. We already saw this with the Catalan, Tarrasch and Grünfeld as examples.
Even though there are some instances in e4 openings where black can choose to enter an open position, it's almost always white who decides this. Against e5, c5, e6 and c6, white decides to open or close the position. I tried to show you but you didn't acknowledge it.
And don't use the Sicilian as an example, I already said I agree that this move does benefit white, and is therefore an exception.
It's not that the Sicilian benefits white. The Sicilian is one of the 2 strongest moves against e4, e5 and c5. This is just normal for e4 openings that white has way better winning chances than the other 3 moves. This is the same against the other defences like French, Caro-Kann, etc.
The Petrov's Defence is not bad for white. It's not the most interesting game but there are plenty of openings like that in d4.
The stats when you look at a move on the surface are not as relevant. If you look at a move on the surface and then look at certain openings within that move, the stats will change.
You only look and judge on the surface without investigating any of the variations at all.
London Accelerated specifically does well.