@Pacific, your ability to reason is embarrassingly lame.
It's surprising you play blitz chess as well as you do. Whatever.
Have a Nice Day.
Scandinavian "Declined" 2.e5
Sort:
Arrogance (typical for many "advanced chess" players) does not make you more convincing.
By the way there are several ways to "decline" the
Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2. d4 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 1. e4 d5 3. Nf3 to name three. I am not sure "declined" is the right word as at least I associate "decline" with declining gambits?
alexlaw wrote:
@firebrand @zborg you've both felt i felt eh?
Don't try and stir things up, sonny, stick to chess.
ponz111 wrote:
By the way there are several ways to "decline" the
Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2. d4 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 1. e4 d5 3. Nf3 to name three. I am not sure "declined" is the right word as at least I associate "decline" with declining gambits?
2.e5 seems to be very correct and solid to compare with BDG (transposing after 1.e4 d5 2.d4). But chess statistics fanatics will disagree of course as BDG has higher results. 
melvinbluestone wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
By the way there are several ways to "decline" the
Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2. d4 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 1. e4 d5 3. Nf3 to name three. I am not sure "declined" is the right word as at least I associate "decline" with declining gambits?
2.e5 seems to be very correct and solid to compare with BDG (transposing after 1.e4 d5 2.d4). But chess statistics fanatics will disagree of course as BDG has higher results.
I see your point. However, it's hard to argue "correct and solid" vs "higher results". But statistics in DBs can be misleading.....
My point exactly. Statistics can be misleading, especially if the move is not popular and usually played between players of different strenght.
vs the 2. Nf3 line Black probably should play 2. ...dxe4
3. Ng5 Bf5
thehedgehog2000 wrote:
yeah, I guess e6 is even better than Be4 (only slightly) because it keeps the position solid whereas with Be4 White could still have some tricks up his sleeve.
In other words you were wrong and Be4 wasn't "much better" as you stated earlier...
thehedgehog2000 wrote:
I have fritz 11 (I'm outdated) but it seems to think that Be4 is slightly better then e6.
I don't know anything about chess engines/computers, but e6 just looked the natural move, even just on pawn structure.
1. e4 d5 2. Nf3 dxe4 3. Ng5 Bf5 4. g4 Bg6 rtc.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Looks like allowing White to take the a8 Rook is the best option for Black?
Aug 6, 2012
0
#115
@pellik (post 113) I don't think you can/should classify it as either the French Advance or the C-K Advance, because the defining feature of each is missing, the closed-in c8 bishop, and the tempo-losing c6-c5. Now I think we all know that the whole discussion is academic because the serious try for white is exd5, but it is a good discussion nonetheless. How to approach analysis, and to a lesser extent classification, of similar but off-by-a-tempo branches is very important for the opening repertoire. My example from earlier I will reuse. If someone is an expert in the C-K Panov attack, will this expertise translate to the Tarrasch defense of the QGD? If not, why not? How important is tempo to those evaluations? I say the opening theory is completely non-transferable... just look at the popular critical variations which are very different from each other. What does transfer is how to play the position if your opponent "just plays normally" and avoids the topical lines. Also, a lot of the thematic attack and defense would transfer. Another position which has the same question is the Caro-Kann exchange with Bd3. How similar is that to the QGD? On its face, you wouldn't think the two positions after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5, and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.cxd5 exd5, are all that different. And if you were a novice or intermediate player, you would be excused for not realizing how important a single tempo is in those positions, which is the same fundamental question as "colors reversed".
Aug 6, 2012
0
#116
FYI Considering 2.e5 as "hope chess" I wouldn't agree with either. I must admit I didn't read the link, but if I had students I would tell them that hope chess is when you make some move hoping your opponent falls into some trap, or hoping they don't see your [clever] threat. Now 2.e5 is not the best opening surprise to prepare, but it seems at least acceptable to me, in certain circumstances, like if some guy exclusively plays the Scandanavian and has a great record with it. He'll obviously have faced the 2.e5 lines many times, but as you all have pointed out, usually against weaker opposition. A couple of weeks of preparation would give white a good (computer-checked) grounding in all the main branches. A note on terminology: I wouldn't call 2.e5 "weak", but rather non-critical. Actually "weak would be something like 2.f4. To me, "weak" implies a worse move than just "not the critical variation". Also, to a certain extent, many gambiteers engage in "hope chess", but they have fun. This is not my style, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
Aug 6, 2012
0
#117
If you're wondering whether a position is winning, play an engine match. If you can't do that or don't want to download the needful, post some evals please.
Aug 6, 2012
0
#118
@FirebrandX At my level, having a ton of computer preparation is a very big advantage OTB. I would rather go for a position that I'm completely prepared for which is objectively equal than go for a position which is "all the rage", so to speak. I'm even likely to be out-prepared in the main lines of something, perhaps not by much, but out-prepared nonetheless.
That being said, I think that your rather purist viewpoint is more correct, in a sense. Especially at a level about 200-300 points above mine, which is IM/GM level, I think that it is very important to play objectively correct, so to speak. But perhaps my opinion would change, if I ever get that high. :-)
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
@FirebrandX At my level, having a ton of computer preparation is a very big advantage OTB. I would rather go for a position that I'm completely prepared for which is objectively equal than go for a position which is "all the rage", so to speak. I'm even likely to be out-prepared in the main lines of something, perhaps not by much, but out-prepared nonetheless.
That being said, I think that your rather purist viewpoint is more correct, in a sense. Especially at a level about 200-300 points above mine, which is IM/GM level, I think that it is very important to play objectively correct, so to speak. But perhaps my opinion would change, if I ever get that high. :-)
Even some top GM`s are not such a purists ar some "advanced chess" players. Take a look at Carlsen, Moro or Naka for example. Carlsen has won many of his games playing not so popular opening lines and having no more than equality in opening. Moro and Naka are well known with their unorthodoux opening play. There are many lower ranked GM`s playing quiet opening lines and outplaying opponents due to better knowledge of typical middle game positions.
These "hope chess" players are the ones who play real chess unlike of arrogant purists unable to reach 2100 level OTB without engine asisstance.
If your opponent is a good opponent, he will be very happy to see the move 2. e5 and even if he is surprised to see the move--it will be "happy surprised"
I have given example what can happen when Black 2200+ player is so "happy surprised".
It's still hope chess. I've already shown the ICCF statistics where white's performance after 2.e5 was a mere 28%. That shows the move is weak no matter which way you slice it. The move shouldn't cause any sort of 'surprise' to an opponent except a pleasant one of equality right off the bat.
Now you can go on about one player losing to another against it, but that's a matter of what happens when a person wins in spite of the opening, not because of the opening. When it all comes down to it, the move is objectively weak. Not tactically, but strategically. A player of your skill should know the difference.
It`s not my problem if you are unable to read definition of "hope chess".
You base your assumption on statistics and at the same time admit that the result may be also in spite of opening. It makes your argument invalid.
Here you can see opening statistics and see how many idiotic conclusions you can make based on your logic. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm
1. You're choosing your own definition and being belligerent about it. Hope chess is playing a move that is objectively poor in the hopes that your opponent can't handle dealing with it. That's exactly what you're doing by supporting 2.e5, because it objectively gives black an easier opening task than the main lines afford.
2. My statistics are taken from ICCF, where the games can take 2 to 3 years to finish in some cases. This demonstrates that a carefully planned game by both sides from 2.e5 benefits black over white by 3-to-1. Your reference is from an OTB game by two barely master level players. My point is that anything can happen OTB, but the situation becomes quite a lot more obvious on ICCF. I know from personal experience on this as I've been playing there for 5 years.
3. In regards to your link, my database is from ICCF, which provides the strongest possible data concerning opening performance. The games from there combine human and computer analysis with time controls of 50 days per 10 moves, so don't even try to debate me with OTB databases where blunders happen all the time. If you really want to get as close to an objective sense as to how ultimately sound an opening is, ICCF is the only way to go.
1. Learn to read - It`s not "my" definition.
2. Many strong players like Tal, Larsen etc. were "hope chess" players, according to your definition. By the way - most modern & strong OTB players will chose "poor" move with a good practical chances rather than "the best" but drawish move, when playing vs weaker opposition. I don`t mind to be in one company with them. :)
3. I understand that for most "Advanced chess" players like you moves are "the best" (giving chances for advantage {White} or equality [Black]) and "poor" (the rest of moves). Fortunately humans playing without engine assistance (here and OTB) can afford more (when faced vs humans of course).
4. I doubt if any strong "advanced chess" player would choose this line playing White. So the result still may occur due to differences in "advanced chess" skills, instead of objective evaluation. All "advanced chess" games would be draws, if engine asissted players would not make mistakes.
5. And even in "advanced chess" you need to show particular lines to prove something to be "poor". Empty claims, based only on statistics has zero value.