This is really not that great.
Be5 isn't playable.
Opening Creation - Novelties + Analysis
Sort:
4...Bd6 could even be called a blunder:
This position is much better for white.
Jul 2, 2012
0
#84
The position shown in your diagram is the normal variation of the Snake Benoni. However, the move order is slightly inaccurate as Black should play an immediate 6...Bc7 before White gets a killer d6-wedge.
Be5 is not playable in that variation, but it is in the 5. e4 variation. At the end of your diagram, Black can get a good position after moves like Ba5, a6, and other regular Benoni ideas.
Jul 2, 2012
0
#85
In your second diagram, you forgot to include the moves ...Bc7 and ...d6. Those computer-generated moves are useless for good analysis.
ChessisGood wrote:
The position shown in your diagram is the normal variation of the Snake Benoni. However, the move order is slightly inaccurate as Black should play an immediate 6...Bc7 before White gets a killer d6-wedge.
Be5 is not playable in that variation, but it is in the 5. e4 variation. At the end of your diagram, Black can get a good position after moves like Ba5, a6, and other regular Benoni ideas.
Those ideas do not work.
6...Bc7 is a losing move. Why don't you let the experts deal with the openings.
There are enough patzers trying to claim crappy novelties as great moves.
About the same position.
White is still better off.
Jul 2, 2012
0
#87
Yereslov, are you trying to call yourself an expert? You have no right to say anything, as you constantly post your own "novelties" that have 1000s of games. This is covered territory. Check the explorer.
ChessisGood wrote:
Yereslov, are you trying to call yourself an expert? You have no right to say anything, as you constantly post your own "novelties" that have 1000s of games. This is covered territory. Check the explorer.
6...Bc7 140 32.9% 24.3% 42.9% 6...O-O 106 48.1% 19.8% 32.1% 6...a6 2 50% 50% 6...Be7 1 Sitnik Igor (SLO) - Savchenko Stanislav (UKR) (1996.??.??)Chess.com has possibly the worst chess database online.
Can you provide a better source?
Most of these games are played by players below 2200+.
You can't argue against computer analysis.
Jul 2, 2012
0
#90
Yereslov, the chess.com database is not all that bad. Even GMs like Miesis have played this line. On another point, you can very well argue against computer analysis. Computers are weak in basic strategy, and you cannot rely on them for everything.
ChessisGood wrote:
Yereslov, the chess.com database is not all that bad. Even GMs like Miesis have played this line. On another point, you can very well argue against computer analysis. Computers are weak in basic strategy, and you cannot rely on them for everything.
How are computers weak in strategy?
It seems you're pullling this out of your ass.
Both Kasparov and Kramnik have lost to engines.
It's obvious that machines are far superior to humans for one reason: they do not "feel", they "think."
Given the chance, my engine would easily defeat every player here.
That's your issue.
Jul 2, 2012
0
#92
Of course, today's computers are stronger than any human alive, but that is only because of their massive powers of calculation. They are relatively weak in strategy, so it is not safe to trust them with opening creations.
ChessisGood wrote:
Of course, today's computers are stronger than any human alive, but that is only because of their massive powers of calculation. They are relatively weak in strategy, so it is not safe to trust them with opening creations.
Calculation is pretty much strategy.
If you can think 20 moves ahead and find a mistake on move 15 you are in effect a strategy master.
If a perfect game is not considered a feat of strategy, than strategy is useless.
Jul 2, 2012
0
#95
Calculation is by no means strategy, and there is hardly a "perfect game." Computers cannot always find the best move in strategic positions, and the ASB qualifies.
This thread is useless. It has become a critique on the very concept of amateurs developing new opening ideas.
ChessisGood wrote:
Calculation is by no means strategy, and there is hardly a "perfect game." Computers cannot always find the best move in strategic positions, and the ASB qualifies.
So apparently being bad in strategy still makes you a 3200+ FIDE player.
Strategy must be useless then. Maybe that's our issue.
It's strange how an engine like X3D Fritz can be bad in stratetgy yet draw against Kasparov.
Let's not forget the fact that bad strategy won against Kramnik.
Isn't ChessisGood brilliant?
By the way, Kramnik lost to Fritz 2/4, and this was in 2006.
Engines have improved a great deal more in the past six years.
It is not true that computers can ALWAYS find the best moves in strategic positions--in fact they might even miss a tactic if the stem line is long enough.
ponz111 wrote:
It is not true that computers can ALWAYS find the best moves in strategic positions--in fact they might even miss a tactic if the stem line is long enough.
Where is your evidence?
In a given position there might be only five decent moves.
It's not exactly rocket science to find the best move by analyzing each line 20-30 moves deep.
It's pointless to argue this.
Computers are and always will be better than their human counterparts.
Now that I checked with Fritz, Bc7 is the only move for the bishop.
Be5 is not possible.
In most lines, Bc7 is the main idea. However, in a few, such as the 5. e4 line, Be5 is perfectly playable. You can't base all of your judgements on the computer's "best" move.