Scandi is like pretty much dead against this opening Novelty by Neural Networks.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/advanced-attacking-books?page=3
I can only see there a stupid blitz game, and nothing resembling a refutation of anything (logic excluded).
But yes, I think that your comments in the other thread are more stupid than the game itself.
Scandi is like pretty much dead against this opening Novelty by Neural Networks.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/advanced-attacking-books?page=3
I can only see there a stupid blitz game, and nothing resembling a refutation of anything (logic excluded).
But yes, I think that your comments in the other thread are more stupid than the game itself.
Do you know the hardware specs? In fact strength of computer = speed x time. Even though it is blitz it is running on 90 cores PC, at 120 million nodes per seconds.
And do you have any reason or refutation? before telling everyone as stupid as usual?
What is your better move for black move? Are you claiming that you can move better than Stockfish! I am laughing at you. Show the audience that a live human can beat current Stockfish not at 90 cores , even at 1 core pc.
Tell me with the reason, I like facts and proof!
I would claim that if IM pfren had access to Stockfish, then yes, he would move better than Stockfish. Humans working with an engine are stronger than the engine on its own, especially when the engine only has a little time to think. Hence why correspondence chess is still a rich and competitive discipline.
To suggest that the Scandinavian is refuted based on a single blitz game is ridiculous.
To suggest that the Scandinavian is refuted based on a single blitz game is ridiculous.
This.
Scandi is like pretty much dead against this opening Novelty by Neural Networks.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/advanced-attacking-books?page=3
I can only see there a stupid blitz game, and nothing resembling a refutation of anything (logic excluded).
But yes, I think that your comments in the other thread are more stupid than the game itself.
Do you know the hardware specs? In fact strength of computer = speed x time. Even though it is blitz it is running on 90 cores PC, at 120 million nodes per seconds.
And do you have any reason or refutation? before telling everyone as stupid as usual?
What is your better move for black move? Are you claiming that you can move better than Stockfish! I am laughing at you. Show the audience that a live human can beat current Stockfish not at 90 cores , even at 1 core pc.
Tell me with the reason, I like facts and proof!
Your 90-cores Stockfish played 7...Be6.
A kid learning how to play, knows that moving the same piece in the opening without a good reason is stupid, and would rather pick 7...Nbd7, or probably stop the intended g2-g4 with 7...h5, or even create a flight square for the bishop with the cautious 7...h6.
Guess what? The kid is right in this case, without the slightest doubt. All these moves are much better than 7...Be6.
Rashid Nezhmetdinov has claimed that "he, who analyses blitz, is stupid" I don't wonder at all what he would claim about someone who "refutes" a whole opening based on s single blitz game.
Oh... and you may laugh as much as you like. A laughter without a reason, is a sure sign of a fool.
Ok, I show you how leela will play!
1. Nbd7 is responded by Nc4, Qd8(only move, if Qc7, Qf3 and Bf4, worse), Ne3.
The same problem with awkward bishop. and even worse.
Artificial intelligence dont care about space and mobility like traditional engines , they care to limit your piece activities.
If you play, h5, then the same Nc4! and kick Black queen away,
In this position, white is significantly better, developed all pieces . Well controlled centre.
Your h5?? just waste one tempo , delayed in development of pieces and give permanent weakness in king side,
Black has two problem now, Nd6+ thread, and also, as soon as Black do castling, there is f3, g4 attack is coming
For black there are solid opening like
1.e4,e5,(multiple opening), e..g Berlin, (white dont have any favorable advantage)
or e4 c5 (Sicilian ), multiple counter play
Scandi and phliidor are just inferior to those opening , they are just passive and very difficult to draw. And AI play white, it is more and more unplayable.
What is your point of showing this BS and trying to elevate it as a higher level of play? It is not!
Have you convinced yourself of this and wish to get others to believe it also?
If so, try annotating one of these games for Black and White. You'll quickly see you're mistaken in your assumptions.
At your level, you should not come to this discussion, you should learn to stop pieces here and there first.
You wont understand this level of positional play, Sorry.
What is your point of showing this BS and trying to elevate it as a higher level of play? It is not!
Have you convinced yourself of this and wish to get others to believe it also?
If so, try annotating one of these games for Black and White. You'll quickly see you're mistaken in your assumptions.
At your level, you should not come to this discussion, you should learn to develop pieces first.
You wont understand this level of positional play.
You've proven your level is misunderstanding development.
If you're insinuating my rating and play online are indicative of anything, you're again making false assumtions.
Instead of making personal attacks, defend your claims and show your high and mighty understanding by annotating (with reasons supporting each move) one of the games you idiolize from start to finish.
You attacking me, re read your posts. I am just telling you that it is not your level ,sorry.
At your level, just look at the board twice before every move and prevent dropping pieces.
No, I'm saying the games and level of play that you're suggesting are "game changing" and inspirational are nothing close.
You refuse to support your claims, because you can't. So you prefer to change the subject.
You think you're a much higher level player than others and imply you have AI/neural network understanding as applied in chess. By posting your choice of game examples and the beginning of your reasoning/support proves enough. I'm curious why you insist on repeating the same things, you've achieved no diffferent results.
But I'll end my discussion on this subject and let the OP/others focus on opinions/reasons for the lines in question.
To discuss about the game changer or not?
First , people need to know what is the traditional move (Book moves)? What is the Novelty? Whether the Novelty is better than the book moves?
However, in this game 7.... h4 is out of book (Novelty).(I know that immediately cos I know most of mainlines of opening ECO 500 up to 10 moves). That novelty leads to significant disadvantage to black player which is a surprise to me.
Note. There are games where Stockfish played out of book and suffer immediate dead within 12 moves. I have no interest in such loss as I know it was Stockfish' mistake. No need for theoretical discussion.
For example.
However in Scandi game Stockfish played book moves corretly up to move 6 until he was outplayed by 7.. h4 (Novelty).I have argument with IM pfren as he assumed that black loss was due to stockfish' mistake.
Rashid Nezhmetdinov has claimed that "he, who analyses blitz, is stupid"
Rashid was right in the 1950's.
In 2019, Stockfish can play a game in 60 seconds that is objectively far stronger than any game he or anyone else in recorded history to that point had ever played in their lives.
He was talking about how worthless it was to analyze a game where players hadn't had time to think or calculate. Really not the case for a player who can calculate trillions of moves per second. This stuff was all sci-fi when that outdated quote still meant anything.
Rashid Nezhmetdinov has claimed that "he, who analyses blitz, is stupid"
Rashid was right in the 1950's.
In 2019, Stockfish can play a game in 60 seconds that is objectively far stronger than any game he or anyone else in recorded history to that point had ever played in their lives.
He was talking about how worthless it was to analyze a game where players hadn't had time to think or calculate. Really not the case for a player who can calculate trillions of moves per second. This stuff was all sci-fi when that outdated quote still meant anything.
Show a game in 60 seconds that's even slightly stronger than anyone in history and you might have something. You should use a Black win/draw for any game you chose. What would a White win prove? You won't though. Because whatever you attempt will be refuted by revisting a choice made early in the game (given more time).
I guarantee you, the best moves are not calculated (for an entire game) in a second or two.
So, the same conflict exists. How much time do you need/allow vs how much can you afford?
Even in 60 secs, we know the strength of Stockfish, by looking at the number of nodes SF searched.
Around 1 billion nodes per move is a good sweet point for stockfish cos SF strength is a bell curve. (what I mean is although SF does a lot of mistakes in less than 1 billion nodes per moves, SF reached to a high standard at 1 billion nodes per move)
In cccc, 5+2 blitz, the speed was 120mnps, 8 secs per move hit 1 billion nodes per move, that hit the sweet point of SF.
Note, although 1 core SF hitting 1 billion nodes per move is much stronger than 45 cores SF hitting 1 billion nodes per move, I dont want that detail technical discussion (too much technical jargons)
In comparison, 2800 human does much much more mistakes than SF in 1 billion nodes per move., SF in 1 billion nodes is much much more reliable than a human.
Ok, I show you how leela will play!
1. Nbd7 is responded by Nc4, Qd8(only move, if Qc7, Qf3 and Bf4, worse), Ne3.
The same problem with awkward bishop. and even worse.
Artificial intelligence dont care about space and mobility like traditional engines , they care to limit your piece activities.
If you play, h5, then the same Nc4! and kick Black queen away,
h5 is interesting. My engine said Nbd7 draws 100%. But when you get away from the CCC garbage computer chess, h5 was played in game 47.1 Season 14 TCEC....result draw(which SF saw all the way). You said white would reply 8 Bf4, but Leela played 8 Nc4.
Now granted this is the same Leela version that in game 21.1 went from winning to losing. Leela as white's move plays Kf1 with an eval of +1.77 while SF eval went from +.18 to -4.46. Leela then went to -6.39 eval....or an 8 point swing.
Qd6 strikes me as the most interesting and possibly the best. Someone (maybe it was Sadler) wrote something interesting about the way Tiviakov has employed it and developed a repertoire around it with varying degrees of risk/safety depending on game situation, etc.
I own Lakdawala's book on Qd6 scandi repertoire from blacks perspective. It's probably the best queen retreat, on the GM level white gets a relatively big edge, but on the lower levels, the way white has to play is pretty counter intuitive to get that large edge and players on the lower levels simply don't have it memorized...the book is fantastic, teaching you tactics and strategy of scandi on almost every page, using whole games to learn from!
The "edge" that one side or the other receives doesn't depend on the level of play. Maybe likelihood of it being realized does.
Actually I'm sure white should be better somehow in the Qd6 Scandinavian but I'd love to hear what line you think is such a "large edge" and why you think it's only exploitable at GM level if that is the case.
Basically the 6.Ne5 line is very strong for white but most non-titled players don't play it. Possibly because lesser rated players develop a new piece in that position, thinking more dogmatically, instead of thinking about the specific needs of the position. Hope that makes sense.
That's not enough information. Are you claiming the Shirov stuff with f4 g4 is the problem, or Bf4, etc. Ne5 is a complex which includes some variety of variations within.
FWIW if I were facing the Qd6 Scandi I would play the Nf3 g3 stuff as Caruana has done.
Once again have a look at GM Lakdawala's analysis of the line! I'm a 1800 at best so my analysis wont do you much good
Lakdawala isn't a GM but anyhow AFAIK Kotronias had the most complete material on this opening. I'm neutral about how good of a practical opening it is for black, but it's probably not so bad and there are only a couple really critical lines.
Qd6 strikes me as the most interesting and possibly the best. Someone (maybe it was Sadler) wrote something interesting about the way Tiviakov has employed it and developed a repertoire around it with varying degrees of risk/safety depending on game situation, etc.
Wasn't it David Bronstein who championed 3... Qd6? Maybe my recall is incorrect.
I prefer 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6....