Interesting Way To Transpose into the French Defense from the Owen Defense

@darkunorthodox88 you just played the move the engine suggests, 5... d6, but that position has been reached 1 single time in all 2200+ rapid and blitz games ever played on lichess. Although e5 itself has only been played like 30 times. It's usually a mistake... yet it really isn't. But furthermore... after d6 it's not dead equal, it's +0.08 by leela, which is... the same eval as the London. But now I'm in prep - are you?

It's a very lopsided way you have of doing analysis since you justify moves the engine considers dubious for yourself (i.e. Owens) through... all kinds of practical and human arguments, but when I post a response to the Owens... you act like the Owens player is playing the game with the engine in front of him. I don't find this educational...

My goal is not to study 20 moves of prep against the Owens which I reach in 1% of games while my opponent has this prep practiced every time they encounter 1. e4, I will just never out-Owens the Owens player. Unless I start playing Owens, but I don't plan on it.

Bro i am an owens master, i played this stuff since i was a kid, and i NEVER seen this idea you mentioned. d6 is common sense, black fully intends to play bxc3 so d6 is played to isolate the e pawn. This idea im just spouting engine lines is silly. Your 2nd position is covered in lakdawala's b6 book and he suggest the d5 variation.
how do you think a modern master prepares a repertoire? he needs to learn all the critical variations to his opening 10-30 moves deep depending on the variation. None of the lines you mentioned are critical.

if you want to get a weaker owen's player out of prep, the nd2 variation is not a bad try because it is so new, but the d5-ne5 is quite common in a lot of owen's lines, for example same side line, instead of nd2, qe2, d5, e5 ne4 is theory , you also see a similar idea vs the nge2 variation.

Again, the Owens itself is not critical, your thinking about the opening is unidirectional... But you've just proven my point perfectly - you're an Owens master, you've played it since you were a kid, and yet you have never seen the position I showed you. You're making a very compelling argument for my case here! Though you don't seem to realize it.

Btw - we don't have to speculate about what move is obvious or likely, we can just look at the actual data. Out of like 30 games d6 is played one time there. So there you go - that's how often I expect people to play the "refutation" you've posted, about 3% of the time. You know what over half of players played? Bxg2. Which anyone could have predicted. And you know what the eval here is? After Qg4 it's +1.69 according to leela. Actually this seems perfect to me.

Yeah I'm just gonna walk into your prep you've played since you were a kid and I literally never see, sounds like a terrible idea to me!

On the other hand, am I willing to play a position that evaluates about equal to the London 3% of the time, in exchange for a) getting the opponent out of their prep (the biggest issue), b) getting a winning advantage immediately over half of games? Yes... I am more than willing to make this trade.

the sample size you are using is 1. way too small to be of any value but more importantly, its based on a database of all lichess players not just high rated players so its worthless. the most that could be used for is to learn what traps noob fall for. What use is it to draw conclusions from 7 random noob games? even worse, the database also includes BULLET GAMES. its 100% useless. You think its a concidence that not a single game from the master database in lichess plays e5 there?

no one is stopping you from playing this way but no one that knows what they are doing will be challenged by these curious sidelines.

No, it's actually just 2200+ blitz / rapid games, not all lichess players. I know I said that earlier but I never include low level players in my analysis... unless the sample size is really small and I just want to get a feel for peoples instincts, but I don't take that data very seriously.

These are good players - 2200+ players and they're not bullet games, people are not responding d6 there en mass. They're playing Bxg2 and I get a 1.68 advantage immediately over half the time at 2200+ level. I am fine with that. It's a great victory actually, I'm very happy about it.

incorrect, all 7 games from the database from that position are listed, half are super low rate games. It is the master database that selects that way not the lichess database.
bxg2 is a noob mistake, it literally takes less than a minute to spot that the move fails to qg4, only in bullet where you have seconds to spot the idea or in low level blitz will that ever happen. not even an 1800 FIDE player in rapid would bxg2.

It's in the database of 2200+ rapid / blitz lichess games, these aren't noobs. 56% of these players in 30 games played Bxg2. The move Bxc3 is at 9%, that's a +0.30 eval by leela, so right on par with other lines in the Owens... I've lost nothing. And then 19% of players play Ne7, where the eval is about +0.18. But actually I can followup with Qg4 here too and it's a sharp line. Other than that, f5 and d5 are both more common than d6 at 3%, and both lead to positions objectively right on par with other mainline Owens positions. But again, the nature of the position is changing and I'm out of the Owens typical prep which is really what I want. But for 56% of the time getting 1.68 at that level... that's a winning advantage, it's a fine tradeoff.

We can expand the sample to include 2000 rated players, but the numbers actually are just as good there.

No, you're actually just making an argument in direct contradiction to the data at this point. And the masters database - that goes back 80 years, this is a move newer engines like leela detect, I wouldn't expect it to show up in the masters database. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to show up at all, infact. As engines advance they discover new moves and sometimes if they're the 5th or 6th engine move, while still viable, they may not be picked up and played immediately. Infact... the Nd2 line I showed you earlier - that's by far leelas preferred move, and yet that's played in 3% of games, people are still playing the other lines. Point is you can't look at stats in the masters database and just assume players must have correctly refuted the idea, and let that alone be your basis of refutation. Very flawed methodology there.

the basis of refutation is that its a subpar move. you drop your eval advantage by like half and the only thing your line promises is one easy to see trap. Its terrible. A move needs to be measured relative to the best thing one side can play if your advantage goes from 0.7 to 0.2, to claim the position is fine because its 0.2 is to miss why the move isnt that great lol.

as for the nd2 move, yes, its the preferred engine line by both leela and stockfish but thats because this specific way of playing agaisnt the owen's (bd3, nc3, nf3) is fairly harmless. It is well known in owen's theory that none of the critical lines involve playing both nc3 and nf3,the challenging lines either go nf3, nbd2, or nc3, nge2, or go bd3, qe2, c3, nf3. nd2 is an engine concoction in a harmless variation.

you dont use the database (esp one that doesnt remove blitz and bullet games) to look up refutations to virtually never seen sidelines, thats what the engine is for. You use the database to look up ideas and trends when you either dont like the engine and want a 2nd opinion from master games

I ask you to show me critical lines that would give black trouble and you give a a bad sideline that practically equalizes and an engine move that in the master database scores better for black 56% win rate among 9 OTB master games. You are not making my case difficult hee.

Again there's this unidirectional reasoning. Try to, just for a moment, apply your exact same argument to your decision to play the Owens defense itself. You gave white that engine eval in the first place. Now you're arguing that white should never give it up. Your argument is incoherent. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but your style of argument is to ignore what's said to you and repeat yourself, it's very... mindless, it doesn't lead to anything, it's not educational, it's not interesting...

Again, I've told you my motive - the "trap" (more of a favorable continuation, it's not an immediate trap) is a very nice bonus, however the primary motive is simply that it's a line you've never seen, it has been played 30 times. Leela considers it viable, it's her 6th move. It's a new leela line, it was dismissed as losing on its face for quite a long time however it isn't... that is the motive.

You can use an engine to prep for a sideline, however when it's a line that's been played 30 times it's simply not going to be part anyones prep, hence that point is totally irrelevant, isn't it dunce? And furthermore, when 3% of players respond with the correct engine move... this is no reason whatsoever to refrain from the line.

The fact you're having a spaz over this while acknowledging you've never seen it is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

they are good practical reasons to play certain offbeat openings, there is no good reason to play your sideline. They are already good replies by white that are both objectively good and black must know what he is doing to not be much worse. Your line is a 1 trick cheapo which you vindicate by saying "its objectively ok". Yes, its called playing the white side. White can play subpar and still have a tiny advantage. You can throw a random a3 in a pirc defense and still be better too.

its just bad chess man. They been gms who have owen;s as a favorite weapon from tony miles to pavel blatny, thats vindication on its own but going for cheapos like this with white is not conducive to good chess.
"You do not use an engine to evaluate or refute sidelines since you can't use an engine in game, dunce". What the hell you think masters do? We memorize lines . Shocker i know. Super Gms literally have files in their computers of hundreds of memorized lines to prepare agaisnt their super GM opponents. They literally memorize and review over and over because its not easy to keep it all on your head. 

You can use an engine to prep for a sideline, however when it's a line that's been played 30 times it's simply not going to be part anyones prep, and since you can't use the engine in game... your point is totally irrelevant, do you understand? Your move d6 is played in 3% of games, I am not worried about this move, and I have no reason to be. FFS you are dense. I am playing in an online setting, do you understand? That's where we are, that's what this is. People are not prepping for this line against me.

I don't see why I should waste my time with someone who just ignores whatever I say and repeats themselves loudly and insistently. How many times have I provided you reasons, and how many times have you completely ignored them and just repeated yourself mindlessly?

Do you know why you typically see the 6th most common engine moves played in WC games nowdays, and not the most common main lines? Literally the same reasons I've been giving, which you're arguing is "bad chess"... because... you actually don't understand chess. We've had debates like this before and they always boil down to the same thing. I've said it before, you are living proof that it doesn't require a really deep understanding of the opening to reach a high elo level. Many great players have said the same thing before, they are correct, and you prove it.

your line is a one trick cheapo that only costs you most of the opening advantage. You cannot compare a sideline played in the WC with this crap lol. They played sideline because they are prepped to the teeth in main lines and want an actual game. your line doesnt require prep . it literally requires looking at the board for 5 seconds XD the move has surprise value....for a bullet game.

a) it's actually not a tactical trap, it's a favorable continuation. i.e. you can't just look at the board and easily decide not to play the move. This is why at 2200+ the majority are playing the move, and this is rapid / blitz I'm talking about. I don't understand why you're emotionally incapable of contending with this fact, I've told you this is the rapid / blitz database at least 5 times and here again you come back and say this will only work in a bullet game. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is based on the data in the database.

b) the move d6 results in a position that's about +0.08 (by leela), same as the London, but since this move is played in 3% of games this is irrelevant,

c) the move Ne7 is played in about 19% of games and the eval here is like +0.18 (which is still better than the ruy lopez). However, the fact white can followup with Qg4, and this is a new line, makes up for this, since the primary advantage the Owens player has is prep. You acknowledge this by the very fact you choose to play Owens in the first place. (and black keeping the engine eval requires some odd moves from black such as h5 > h4 while ignoring a potential Qxg7, btw)

Now, every other move - f5, d5, Bxc3 - evaluates on par with the rest of the Owens.. so these are novel positions and are just good.

d) in competitive chess nowdays, including in WC matches, playing the 5th or 6th engine move at some point in the opening is the norm, not the exception. Look up any random high level game in the database and you will not find the players playing the main line of the QGD out to move 40 every game, you will find exactly the opposite - weird moves that look terrible and you wonder why these players are even playing them... followed up by precise continuations 6-10 moves deep. That is how high level chess is actually played these days. And the search for new engine lines... like this one, is constant and ongoing.

Keep trying

why do i even bother...

he was a top 10 player in the 1860's... how much top notch can you get?

you keep repeating this but this move order gives white way more options like 3.c4. When i was young scholastic player, i liked 2.e6 because it increased the odds they would play either 3.nf3 or 3.nc3 as bb7 psychologically encourages the critical bd3. but the move order is not superior. 
i dont know of any line within the owens where the bishop doesnt clearly belong on bb7 so delaying it and increasing whites choices is not optimal.

neither the GMs who played b6 regularly (miles, blatny, Bauer) or the top engines agree with this idea that e6 is superior to bb7. How much more proof do you want?

@Optimissed is this the position you're referring to?

As you can see, in the Van Geet I do sometimes reach this via the french defense. Although it's a rare line in both the Owens and the French.
I try to play the odds, but I've played strategy games about 25 years (in different forms), something I've learned is... regardless of whether a move is "good" objectively, the very fact you have the confidence to make a choice, one which is made independently of the mass consensus (they call it the metagame), and stick by it... that actually is going to make it good.

I could tell you stories of "metagames" which went through 2 decades of refinement in the most competitive environments, only to be totally upended and turned on their heads. Conventional wisdom that was universally accepted and repeated for years proven completely wrong. I've gradually developed the wisdom not to trust metagames very far.

I've seen world-class players make almost a paradigm shift in the metagame after testing out a novel suggestion from one of their low-level noob students, a suggestion which the player had previously discounted publicly. It was hilarious because the next week the entire world started copying this player, but literally he was just copying this... 800 rated student of his.

Well Optimissed, you see, in the very beginning of chess time, before chess had been fully formed, there existed an idea of how the game should be played, what the parameters of the game would be. Then the first board was carved out of wood, and all 32 pieces were placed on the 64 squares for the first time, and the first pawn was moved from e2 to e4. But there were no openings, there were no tournament considerations or plans... the chess board was in a state of pure, undifferentiated potential... But then players came along, such as Ruy Lopez, and Paul Morphy, and they taught the world how to play the game of chess. The masses were hypnotized by these great men, and they learned by imitation the Ruy Lopez. Now, certain great men came along who dared to defy the metagame as it currently stood... Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, and many others. In so doing they redefined the metagame. What these men understood is that the chess ideals they were pursuing went beyond the chess board, they understood that chess was reaching for some ineffable ideal of perfection, which this mundane plane with its existing chess strategies could never provide. They were riding the divine chess logos. So the metagame is simultaneously the first chess board, undifferentiated and with infinite potential moves... and that final landing point when chess is either solved, or aliens find our planet decimated before we're able to solve it, with just a bunch of computers chattering to eachother... and simultaneously it is also the divine set of chess moves the masses can only stand in awe of... while at the same time certain brave men stand in defiance of this game and dare to undermine it, and go against it as it stands, in pursuit of its ultimate perfection. Now you may be so inclined to say this metagame does not exist, that this all nonsense... but I insist the metagame does exist, it must exist. We must believe in the spirit of chess, otherwise... the wasteland of chattering computers will be all that remain of us. Now, in some sense you could say the greatest metagame move is to give up chess entirely, to not move a piece at all, just as Bobby Fischer did. But that is an explanation reserved for another time.

you are not at a level of expertise where you can tell the difference between a trick and an objectively interesting move thats not quite objectively best. Your experience in strategy games doesnt translate to chess 
Honestly, our conversation would have been a lot shorter, if i knew your strength level. No offense.
"I've seen world-class players make almost a paradigm shift in the metagame after testing out a novel suggestion from one of their low-level noob students, a suggestion which the player had previously discounted publicly. " false equivalence, when you have mastered all the main lines, you have the luxury to know what sidelines you can productively get away with because as you would say, you both understand the "meta".