"white is 0.6" means nothing.
Openings are Established for a Reason!
Sort:
Your downvotes also mean nothing DarkUnorthodox, ridiculous habit you have.
Jun 21, 2025
0
#24
pfren wrote:
There are dozens of "truly acceptable openings".
This.
What's my own take on the question?
The initial position before White's first move is slightly in White's favor but not even close to a winning advantage. Just a pull. As the game proceeds, Black gradually catches up in development and White's advantage gradually shrinks toward equality. After all, an advantage in development of five pieces out vs four is smaller than an advantage in development of two pieces out vs one.
So White starts with a slight pull but the game tends toward equality as both players develop their game. The biggest difference between "good" and "barely acceptable" openings is in how long it takes Black to equalize. Against a "good" opening, Black might not attain equal chances until move 25. Against a "bad" opening, he might already have equal play by move 6.
ThrillerFan έγραψε:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
OP's statement is too abstract to mean very much. There are bad novelties, there are good novelties... there are bad moves that you didn't plan in the first place... OP doesn't play any novelties, just the same opening for 40 years or however long it is at this point. That's not how chess is played at the top levels, they play novelties there almost every game... and it's obvious why, so that just shoots down the OPs entire point, end of discussion.
I have not played the same opening for 40 years. The French isn't even my main defense to 1.e4 any more, but there are still ways to get me into a French.
And I never said novelties don't exist, but when I asked after the game "Why 7.c4? Why not 7.d4?", I was given the response that he simply didn't want to transpose and intentionally played a different move just because it was not d4. I never said novelties don't exist, and if he gave a rational reason behind 7.c4, that would be different, but if the only reason is intentional main line avoidance and you can come up with no reason at all for your move, it is NOT a novelty, it is just bad.
A novelty is more like what I played 2 months ago below:
The immediate 8...Ne5, while not the main line and probably not best, has a reason behind it at least. If White ignores and castles, Black can wreck the pawns and he has not committed to going kingside, he could castle queenside. If he plays what I thought was best, 9.Nd4, the game goes on as normal, I likely will castle kingside, and he has no early Ng5. If he trades (or she trades, in this case), which is what happened, I get a Exchange Ruy pawn structure with colors reversed. That is what happened, we got to 2 bishops each in an endgame, I advance the kingside, force off one set of bishops, then the other, and win the pawn ending.
There was rational logic to that novelty. A reason different than "It's not the main move" If that is your only reason, it is not a novelty, it is a bad move. BIG difference.
Hardly a novelty, as it has been played succesfully at ICCF since quite some time ago (let alone Jon Speelman who played this plan back in 1980). Plus, you can add that the 8...Ne5 idea is analysed in quite some depth in a Chessable course by my friend Nikos Ntirlis: The 3-hour Petroff.
Nikos suggests to get the knight there via d7, not c6, because he isn't very fond of the line 7...Nc6 8.Bd3 when 8...Ne5 is somewhat problematic, and 8...Be6 is answered by 9.Qe2.
Of course 8.Bd3 is absolutely no problem after 7...Nd7, as Black can play ...Nc5 either immediately, or after castling.
Um, no? The computer literally says white is much better after snatching the pawn, and I would 100% of the time have snatched that pawn. I don't see any big attack coming at all. Plus white still has their own light squares bishop.
darkunorthodox88 έγραψε:
ThrillerFan wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i fundamentally agree with thriller on this but i find it ironic that he says that while playing the obviously inferior 3.bb4 lol, without the pin, you have no winawer just the invitation of one . 4.a3! promises white a pleasant edge. 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3! nf6 6.e5 gives white a large advantage compared to normal french lines. In trying to return to main lines you invented a bad wagon lol.
5...dxe4 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Ng5 Ke7 and Black is fine. Not better, just fine.
im talking about white here. White is clearly better. 0.6 , bishop pair in endgame position. playing for two results basically. This is not what a winawer player is hoping for . not many games in master database to no one's surprise but from 12 games, white scores 58%.
it is well known that endgame positions like this agaisnt bishop pair, are miserable to defend unless black can force a trade of one of the bishops.
And what I am saying is you are claiming White is better based on an inferior Black 5th move. Your claim is 3...Bb4 is a mistake based on 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 Nf6 6.e5, and I am saying White is not clearly better because Black plays 5...dxe4 instead of 5...Nf6 and White's advantage is negligible.
Your claim about endgame bishop pair stuff assumes healthy pawn structure for the Bishop pair. This is more like an exchange ruy ending with colors reversed. Give me Black after 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 dxe4. It's equal, but Black is easier to play there.
the comparison to the exchange ruy is silly. that is a well known 0.00 position. This is a 0.6 position with terrible statistics for black in master games. idk where you get the idea this is equal. an eval like that in an early endgame position, especially from a static advantage like a bishop pair that can avoid exchanges is a whole another deal than a 0.6 in a dynamic position with most pieces still on the board. a strong masrer will happily grind such a position with white anyday.
First, this ending does have many similarities to the Ruy exchange queenless middlegame. Main difference is that Black is temporarily cramped a bit due to the presence of a pawn at e6, not e5, but this also means that it is more difficult for white to open the center completely for his bishop pair.
I don't think that a computerish +0.6 means something special, but in any case it is rather a modest +0.4 here after Black's most natural move 8...Nf6.
And of course this line does not have a terrible record at master level, because it is very rarely played by white- every second schoolboy knows the way to get comfortable equality with Black.
Jun 22, 2025
0
#28
pfren wrote:
darkunorthodox88 έγραψε:
ThrillerFan wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i fundamentally agree with thriller on this but i find it ironic that he says that while playing the obviously inferior 3.bb4 lol, without the pin, you have no winawer just the invitation of one . 4.a3! promises white a pleasant edge. 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3! nf6 6.e5 gives white a large advantage compared to normal french lines. In trying to return to main lines you invented a bad wagon lol.
5...dxe4 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Ng5 Ke7 and Black is fine. Not better, just fine.
im talking about white here. White is clearly better. 0.6 , bishop pair in endgame position. playing for two results basically. This is not what a winawer player is hoping for . not many games in master database to no one's surprise but from 12 games, white scores 58%.
it is well known that endgame positions like this agaisnt bishop pair, are miserable to defend unless black can force a trade of one of the bishops.
And what I am saying is you are claiming White is better based on an inferior Black 5th move. Your claim is 3...Bb4 is a mistake based on 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 Nf6 6.e5, and I am saying White is not clearly better because Black plays 5...dxe4 instead of 5...Nf6 and White's advantage is negligible.
Your claim about endgame bishop pair stuff assumes healthy pawn structure for the Bishop pair. This is more like an exchange ruy ending with colors reversed. Give me Black after 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 dxe4. It's equal, but Black is easier to play there.
the comparison to the exchange ruy is silly. that is a well known 0.00 position. This is a 0.6 position with terrible statistics for black in master games. idk where you get the idea this is equal. an eval like that in an early endgame position, especially from a static advantage like a bishop pair that can avoid exchanges is a whole another deal than a 0.6 in a dynamic position with most pieces still on the board. a strong masrer will happily grind such a position with white anyday.
First, this ending does have many similarities to the Ruy exchange queenless middlegame. Main difference is that Black is temporarily cramped a bit due to the presence of a pawn at e6, not e5, but this also means that it is more difficult for white to open the center completely for his bishop pair.
I don't think that a computerish +0.6 means something special, but in any case it is rather a modest +0.4 here after Black's most natural move 8...Nf6.
And of course this line does not have a terrible record at master level, because it is very rarely played by white- every second schoolboy knows the way to get comfortable equality with Black.
the record im talking about is specifically the line thriller is recommending with dxe4 not not the optimal black reply to the early two knights reply to the french .
its nothing special...except this is not a typical position a winawer player wants. The position is a grind to equality in an early endgame not a dynamic middle game position. The stats from master games im referring pretty much vindicate the idea its a two result kind of position. (based on 13 games, granted a larger number like 50 would be far more dependable, but the results confirm what you would expect from such a position). 0.4 in an endgame variation at depth 65 is not exactly a persuasive vindication, it means white's advantage with precise play is quite nagging even if not decisive. IS this endgame worth getting just because black insists on getting a winawer transposition? based on likely style and the eval of alternatives, i think for most winawer players, the answer is no.
i fundamentally agree with thriller on this but i find it ironic that he says that while playing the obviously inferior 3.bb4 lol, without the pin, you have no winawer just the invitation of one . 4.a3! promises white a pleasant edge. 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3! nf6 6.e5 gives white a large advantage compared to normal french lines. In trying to return to main lines you invented a bad wagon lol.
5...dxe4 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Ng5 Ke7 and Black is fine. Not better, just fine.
im talking about white here. White is clearly better. 0.6 , bishop pair in endgame position. playing for two results basically. This is not what a winawer player is hoping for . not many games in master database to no one's surprise but from 12 games, white scores 58%.
it is well known that endgame positions like this agaisnt bishop pair, are miserable to defend unless black can force a trade of one of the bishops.
And what I am saying is you are claiming White is better based on an inferior Black 5th move. Your claim is 3...Bb4 is a mistake based on 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 Nf6 6.e5, and I am saying White is not clearly better because Black plays 5...dxe4 instead of 5...Nf6 and White's advantage is negligible.
Your claim about endgame bishop pair stuff assumes healthy pawn structure for the Bishop pair. This is more like an exchange ruy ending with colors reversed. Give me Black after 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 dxe4. It's equal, but Black is easier to play there.
the comparison to the exchange ruy is silly. that is a well known 0.00 position. This is a 0.6 position with terrible statistics for black in master games. idk where you get the idea this is equal. an eval like that in an early endgame position, especially from a static advantage like a bishop pair that can avoid exchanges is a whole another deal than a 0.6 in a dynamic position with most pieces still on the board. a strong masrer will happily grind such a position with white anyday.