I think it would be better to use human games. Engine games are interesting but they don't simulate what could happen in a real game. People still play this opening.
King's Gambit Blitz showed that it is still a good opening
Sort:
ruben72d wrote:
I don't know if he said this or not, but if he did, it must be about human blitz, because computers can calculate fast and far. Try to defeat Stockfish taking as much time as you want and give it just 10-15 minutes. In general, it is not possible to win, unless your computer is slower than you. Here each engine was on same pc. And those games still deserve to be analysed because I didn't notice any blunder or any engine losing on time, even on mate. They just resigned.
"he who analyzes blitz is stupid", as said by the great nezhmetdinov
TitanCG wrote:
You are right, but engines are much more immune to blunders. And the world now runs on computers.
I think it would be better to use human games. Engine games are interesting but they don't simulate what could happen in a real game. People still play this opening.
May 21, 2014
0
#6
It doesn't matter whether i can beat it or not in those time controls, the point is an engine will still make inferior moves compared to a situation given more time. So please tell me how is it possible to reach a conclusion if it wasn't played on optimal strength?
ruben72d wrote:
I stated that, but take it again:
Both had same time limit, and an opening is that which gives position, position helps to win against equal opponent, both had same time to think(again) so both would play same strength moves(their strength still matters) and if white wins, it's a good opening.
It doesn't matter whether i can beat it or not in those time controls, the point is an engine will still make inferior moves compared to a situation given more time. So please tell me how is it possible to reach a conclusion if it wasn't played on optimal strength?
May 21, 2014
0
#8
can't you understand that this is completely irrelevant since both engines weren't playing at ful strength? If i, playing white, play the KG against another human of similar strength ( or take 2 engines playing at 1700 if you prefer this scenario) and i rise victorious, it says nothing about the power of the actual opening because im just 1700!!!
Among humans the KG is still quite playable for both sides . Look at the results Spassky had with it , or Bronstein .
Bronstein and Spassky are hardly the latest in chess theory.
i quit the kings gambit because despite liking it it was quite a bit of work to keep up with and not many people play 1.e4 e5 so i felt i wasted studytime, and the few times someone actually entered the kings gambit they played 1.e4 e5 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 d5 or something and i didnt get the thrill i was after
rdecredico wrote:
Reb wrote:
Among humans the KG is still quite playable for both sides . Look at the results Spassky had with it , or Bronstein .
50 years ago !?!
With very few exceptions, I really don't think we going to see it played by people of that calibre in meaningful games today.
Thats because today's players are more concerned about the money than they were in Spassky's day and the KG is very risky . In Spassky's day they often played to create beautiful games that would outlive the players themselves and you dont see that as much today . Today's elite players are more afraid to take risks than the elite players of Spassky's generation .
Maybe but when money starts to overshadow the game it doesn't look good.
If we assume it as risky, though I accept that playing it is not easy, the English is also risky in case your opponent is prepared and Alekhine's Defence, is also risky in case your opponent gets the wide complete center. But yes, money has taken away a nobleness from mankind and people like that awkward queen's gambit.
May 22, 2014
0
#15
Masterjatin escribió:
If we assume it as risky, though I accept that playing it is not easy, the English is also risky in case your opponent is prepared and Alekhine's Defence, is also risky in case your opponent gets the wide complete center. But yes, money has taken away a nobleness from mankind and people like that awkward queen's gambit.
What kind of non-meaningful sentence is that? The english risky if you're opponent is prepared? By that definition every move in the book would be a risky one since it's part of opening preparation and the only solid moves would be the ones like 1 a3 or 1 h3. Furthermore the alekhine defense is considered a risky opening for exactly the reason you give.
Reb wrote:
Thats because today's players are more concerned about the money than they were in Spassky's day and the KG is very risky . In Spassky's day they often played to create beautiful games that would outlive the players themselves and you dont see that as much today . Today's elite players are more afraid to take risks than the elite players of Spassky's generation .
Well, that justifies it
ruben72d wrote:
What kind of non-meaningful sentence is that? The english risky if you're opponent is prepared? By that definition every move in the book would be a risky one since it's part of opening preparation and the only solid moves would be the ones like 1 a3 or 1 h3. Furthermore the alekhine defense is considered a risky opening for exactly the reason you give.
Sometimes it happens that sentences may feel awkward, though to me it was okay. What I meant is that English opening is full of traps that opponent can play. And furthermore, it is not that flexible so getting out of book is risky, though noone will call Larsen's a risky one.
Alekhine's is still played, and even I play it many times.
But actually which opening you choose depends highly on how you're feeling on your first move, and I hate queens gambit in any colour.
May 23, 2014
0
#18
You are seriously calling the english a risky and unflexible opening??? We're talking about 1 c4 here, right? As i recall the english is is played much more on top level then the alekhine becuase of it's flexibility and it's total abscence of risk this in contarary to the alekhine...
ruben72d wrote:
You are seriously calling the english a risky and unflexible opening??? We're talking about 1 c4 here, right? As i recall the english is is played much more on top level then the alekhine becuase of it's flexibility and it's total abscence of risk this in contarary to the alekhine...
It is unflexible in the sense that all moves can not fit in it. There are some narrow mainlines and typical variations. Four Knights is too calm, and has almost no traps(there are some like fried liver). When we talk about English, I have never seen it leading to closed positions. Just because I never go through opening book(not exactly never), maybe due to that there are some problems. But if that is the case, I wouldn't think that it is flexible. And not exactly risky I mean, that most of traps are in english only, if you are very well prepared and analyzed(maybe it takes s after y) its moves, there are no problems, else it is not flexible enough when compared to even 1.g4 or 1.f3, the worst openings I've ever seen/tried.
I held a blitz championship of King's Gambit with best engines and results show that it is still a good opening. It is not complete though, but result so far seems good for white players. Engines to participate are:- 1. Alaric 707 2. Critter 1.6a 3. Stockfish DD 4. Rybka 2.3.2a 5. Gambit Fruit 4 and maybe 1 or 2 more. If anyone wants pgn, I'm going to put it here asap on demand. Details:- Starting position is King's Gambit Only best free engines from my previous championship have been chosen Time control is 5 0