Question about white opening advantage

I think that Xplayer sometimes over-reacts to criticism and adopts a sort of hostile, opposed view. This is what happened to me when we had our differences about a bit of analysis. There's no reason to get upset and if a person does, he or she has to accept that someone else might very well get upset at them. But people are coming from different angles and different ability levels. We should probably try to get along and make this a forum from which everybody can learn, which means accepting that people may have different angles and different ability levels but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong from that angle and maybe within that ability level. Even when I just got confused about what side of a position someone was supposed to be playing, that was my stupidity but it isn't a very big deal.

I am sorry but I disagree with some of what you said.

"Bobby Fischer" played 1.e4 almost exclusively. He did play 1.c4 before and I believe on very very few instances he played 1.d4.

He understood the Kings Indian Defence as black very well. Does that mean he had to play it from white's point of view? No it does not.

As a chess player, you can figure out from the black side what white is planning to do with his moves.

Which is why they tell beginners to pay attention to their opponents moves.

I do agree with your idea. Your idea of learning the position from both sides can help in knowing your line better. Yet It does not mean it is forced/impossible to learn it only from 1 side.

Which goes back to the notion that learning from 1 side is possible and can be done.

Some players in chess play unsound openings. I frankly do not wish to learn their unsound openings as white to better understand it as black? An I do not have to.

However, In saying all of this I believe this disagreement we have is totally irrelevent to the thread.

The question is about whites opening advantage.

Which I believe white can have. Since white has the advantage of the first move.

I am use to criticism and no I am not hostile. I simply just state my point of view. I can be blunt sometimes but I'm just that type of person.

As for ThrillerFan, I have always seem to have gotten along with Thriller. He knows what he is talking about most of the time and isn't a troll.

I just believe sometimes he says statements which are sometimes questionable.

His view that a person must learn a position from both sides to fully understand it seems like an objective opinon. The reason why is becuase every person learns differently. Some people get more confused when they try to do such methods. Others understand better. It really is a controversal statement.

However, it is a controversal statement better left I believe to people who are not beginners. My original statement was directed to people who show how to play a line as black from a white view point for beginners.

I believe beginners have enough issues when learning chess. Showing them a line for black with the white pieces might simply cause more confusion. An some beginners might even get confused and start calling the Opening with the White pieces the wrong name etc.

As for the following statement " This is what happened to me when we had our differences about a bit of analysis."

I was not hostile to you. I was just annoyed. I was annoyed becuase you never had ambition of changing your mind. You was content on playing a Sicilian Kan/Paulsen type of position. Which If you had said that from the beginning I would of been ok with that. The Sicilian Kan/Pauslen is very respectable.

However, the way it went down it seemed as if I was being lead on as if you was hiding some secret continuation which you had made up or something of that nature.

My analysis was not a wasted of effort though. I did learn something the final positions looked similar to Sicilian Najdorf type of positions.

I never objected to getting different angles or prespectives.

My objective is learning a whole line from the white side in which you have no intension of playing.

Thrillers agruement is its impossible to learn a line from the black side with out learning the whole thing from white side?

Which simply is not true.

He is using an absolute statement. An absolutes corrupt absolutely.

@X PLAYER JX Haha, I think the phrase you're referring to is "absolute power corrupts absolutely", which doesn't seem relevent to the discussion. It's funny that you tried to make it work though :)

However, the way it went down it seemed as if I was being lead on as if you was hiding some secret continuation which you had made up or something of that nature.>>

Yes, I play
1 e4 ..c5
2 Nf3 ..a6
3 d4 ..cd
4 Nxd4 ..Nf6
5 Nc3 ..Qc7

So far as I know, that is completely my own creation and also completely sound. I think it's stronger than 5 ...e5, which I don't like because it lacks flexibility.

What I object to is the insistence that 3 d4 is bad for white. But it isn't any worse than 3 c3 or 3 c4. I'm saying that 5 ...e5 is weaker than its reputation, which is why I play Qc7. Sure, I sometimes play 5 ... e5 in blitz but I'm convinced that 6 Nb3 has been wrongly evaluated. We've had enough experience of engine analysis to know that we can't trust that when evaluating an opening, especially as it can be given code to automatically bias it against 3 d4. Do you understand that?

I think they both work becuase you understood what I ment. In this case we are not talking about power we are just talking about his absolute statement.

I do agree that using engines should not be the only source of learning. I believe they can sometime mis-evaluate openings. Which is why I took precautions. I used other resources along with my analysis.

Objectively speaking the engines found the positions mostly equal with some positions given a microscopic edge to black. However, the Human databases I used filled with 2200+ players and above gave huge evaluation readings to black. So in truth it wasn't the engines hating the position it was human title chess players getting better results with black in the positions.

I think 3. c3 is the best move and better than 3. d4.

3.d4 is not a "bad" move as White maintains an advantage. However White gets a better advantage with 3. c3 for fairly obvious reasons.

Often engine analysis is correct, even in the early opening.

Optimissed is talking about a different line completely. One I did analysis on a couple of days ago with him. He objected to my analysis of course lol. He is talking about the O'Kelly Variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6

However, I do play the Fischer-Sozin Attack as white.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6

Have you ever tryed 7.0-0 by any chance?

serving in tennis cannot really be compared with first move in chess.

Much more of an advantage to have serve in tennis. This can be seen by looking at percentages.

Are there any stats to show that as the ratings get higher in chess, there is a bigger advantage in having the first move?

Hi hayabusahayate16. Thanks for your post which I've only just noticed. Firstly, don't worry about what Xplayer is saying. Although it's now obvious that he means well, he does seem to get slightly confused occasionally.

The purpose of 5 ... Qc7 is that it is VERY testing. It is a high-class waiting move, just like a6. I'm not looking for the initiative because, basically, the position doesn't warrant it. I'm absolutely clear that white has an edge just as in any Sicilian. GM results that seem to contradict it will be due to the fact that GMs don't know how to play against the O'Kelly, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It has been assessed wrongly and white does best playing positionally. This is anti-intuitive because white may have a broken pawn formation. But white also has more mobility. This is why I don't play the e5 lines, because at our levels, around 1800 to 2100 FIDE, players are by their very nature more positionally minded than stronger players. So the logic I'm using is very sound and correct and maybe it's a pity some GMs can't use logical principles as well as they play chess. But then, no-one is perfect and to assume that they are is silly. Hero-worship of GMs is just as childish as hero-worship of pop stars. They are human and they make logical errors.

As for 6th moves, f4 is quite strong. I consider Be2 very correct and that is indeed the most popular move. Be3 is poor and a3 is just asking for me to play b5. That also is poor. Bd3 is not all that good because the Nd4 is no longer supported so I can play Nc6 and here Nb3 is more or less forced since if white plays Nxc6, black is up a whole tempo on the main lines of that variation, because he can play e7-e5 in one move. Bg5 is OK for both sides. If f4 then that's quite sharp. I can go ahead and play e6. Maybe I could play e5. I need to take a look at that. But after e6, if 7 e5 then black can proceed with Bb4, which is fairly comfortable for black, although it can be a bit sharp.

I think we can probably agree that despite what Xplayer claims, we're not really talking about the O'Kelly variation. I wrote an article on it 20-odd years ago and called it the Modern O'kelly. But whatever.

Incidentally, if someone plays 6 g4 I usually get extremely worried, and then I usually win because it's premature. Black can leave the king in the centre or castle Q-side. Also all my moves are geared towards striking at the centre with either e5 or d5, which is correct against a flank attack.

XJX's post are of a much higher quality than Octopussed's.

When an individual has to stoop to backstabbing like that, you know he is just full of hot air.

Should have been muted ages ago. Having said that though, hairybush and Octopus could well get to be good mates.

Who exactly is your audience? Begone.

You certainly seem to be male rather than female. Hairybush was a Freudian slip. A dead give-away.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BGAryS37oo

Crikey she's ugly.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eewmqr-nqnY

petrip, any stats on what happens when top engines play one another? If engines are better than humans, then white advantage should be even more pronounced for top engines? But that seems weird.