Smarter than a patzer?

Yeah I know. In this case I used "forced win", meaning against best play white wins, according to Fritz 12 apparently, not me. That's just how I use "forced" sometimes, in the most extreme sense.

Of course they can't. 70 moves was just something I threw out there, meaning that we can't see the forced continuation that far, but if any position is winning, that is what will of course eventually happen with perfect play.

How do you know? Fritz 12 never said that white wins. Fritz 12 said that white has a 1.5 point lead in the opening.

Kupov, I know those positions are drawn, but those positions aren't forced when you're up a healthy pawn out of the opening. Anyway, 1.5 is SUPPOSED to be winning (that's just how the scoring system works, it's not necessarily perfect though, ),so in fact it's supposed to translate into "white is winning" so often I just trust the strong computer. But that 1.5 evaluation muskiamole posted seems rediculous. It also says certain position out of the french winawer, claimed to be about equal or even better for black are often +1.00 or more in the computer eval. Doesn't fritz just say 0.00 for those positions, or does it really say +3.00 for the bishop one?

Yup, in the b vs k position fritz 10 indeed says 0.00, as well as the two knights vs king position. What cpu are you using?

Bolded: What exactly are you talking about? Nobody is up a pawn.

As for "perfect" play leading to a win for white - that's total bogus. Not only does Fritz have no clue about perfect chess, but in the trillions upon trillions of possible resulting moves the position could even be a theoretical WIN for BLACK; possibly even a FORCED win (a few hundred moves down the line).

No the computer analyses it as 0.00 (I think, I'm not actually using a computer, I know these positions to be drawn). I'm just showing you how REAL material advantages can't necessarily win the game. With that said, Why would a theoretical advantage in the opening lead to a forced win? It could easily lead to a drawn K/P vs K endgame, or a K/B vs K endgame, or anything else.

Well said.

1. Qh4? or Qh4??

"A sacrifice is simply an intentional loss of a valuable piece. (An unintentional loss of something of value is called, technically, a blunder)" - Chess for Dummies

I will now only assign the mark (??) to material which can be captured for nothing. The queen on h4 could not be captured for nothing, therefore, (Qh4?).

2. Evaluation numbers help me. I'm a beginner and don't always know a good move from a bad one. Last summer, I didn't think pushing the e-pawn two squares was a bright idea! Too dangerous. What will protect 1.e4?  My big enlightenment came mid-summer when I was introduced to the four center squares.

The purpose of this thread is to show the best move to counter the patzer's bad opening move or moves. The goal of every opening is to reach a playable middlegame. When faced with a patzer move, a strong reply could prove decisive! 

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Qh4? 3.Bd3!

I had four different engines evaluate Qh4 and Rybka does the best job of not only pointing out that Qh4 is a bad move, but considers it complete rubbish. 

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Qh4? 3.Nc3!

Nc3 was Rybka's number two choice (+/= 0.50). I prefer Bd3 over Nc3 because ...Bb4 follows, pinning Nc3. The trade on the c3 square leaves White with doubled pawns on the c-file.

---

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Qh4? 3.Bd3! Bb4+? 4.c3!

If the patzer follows up with Bb4+, hit him with c3! Nc3 is not a direct threat. After White plays c3, Black has no counterplay and must retreat his bishop to either f8 or d6. That's two wasted moves by Black. Enjoy the gain in tempo!

Here is Rybka telling Qh4 where to go!    Depth=21

Example 2

In this second example from my blitz matches Black makes a strange pawn move - f6.  (+1.37) MISTAKE - Your opponent made a mistake! Better was 3... Nc6.  

Computer Analysis (~2500 strength) from this site.

The opening sequence goes as follows: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 f6? 4.0-0 c6 5.Nc3 Ne7. I felt that 4)...c6 was strange as well, but who am I to argue with a 2500 elo engine? This player prefers to move pawns over pieces in the beginning. Does this go against any opening principles?

All of my engines, including the one at this site agree that there is only one good move to play after 5...Ne7. This move beats all other possible moves by a large margin. I missed it! In blitz you only have a few seconds to decide. What is it? Be quick!

1. "Now don't get all wimpy on me."

2. I can't stand 2.Qh5! If Nakamura ever invites me to play a game of chess with him, I will decline the offer.  

3. "Nothing favors these sorts of moves more than the attitude that dismisses them outright." Those words can only come from years of experience. Thank you!

1.f3 e5 2.Kf2? Is this the "silly opening"? I've seen a friend beat many others by moving his king around in a circle until it arrives at it's final destination: d1.

I kinda doubt you got the silly treatment. Well, just about any move by Black would be fine. What is White's plan? Below is what Rybka and Fritz believe is the best move for Black. They both agree. Hint - Black's move is based on irrefutable opening theory.

BTW...I didn't need an engine to find the "correct" response.

2. ... Bd4+ looks fine. But honestly, it makes a lot more sense to learn how to respond to crazy openings in general rather than each one specifically. There are, after all, 400 possible openings two ply deep, and over 150,000 four ply deep. You will probably never in your entire life encounter 1. f3? e5 2. Kf2??.

It's an example, which was my argument that although there are piece up position that are drawn, when one is up say two pawns for nothing out of the opening it should only go into some drawn piece up situation if he allows the opponent to trade off most pawns and sac his pice for the rest. However in most positions when one plays correctly that won't work (perhaps there will be still 5 pawns to three or something, when saccing a piece won't get rid of them all)

Yeah I've thought about this before, but that would probably only happen if the win of a pawn was maybe compromised by some bad feature in your position. The opponent doesn't have full compensation, but enough that he will be successful in a defense, and indeed get to that drawn position. These are all apporximations made by grandmasters and it seems to make enough sense. Right now I have a game where I have an extra central pawn, where that pawn can also gain space. But if I had a flank pawn instead and inferior king position at the cost of winning it maybe it's drawn. That would be a compromised pawn win. I'm sorry Kupov but I can't prove it, but it seems right. If it doesn't seem right, then I'd love to hear your take on it. I'm no expert on computers so I don't want to get into that, but all I'm saying is the way it works they make 1.5 (or 1.3 or something) means fritz thinks that it's winning, which is mostly useful in tactical positions where material gain is possible, as well as technical endgame positions.

But I don't want to debate on the details of that so much. I'm much more concerned for more pure chess discussion, like my second paragraph on why I think a pawn won in the opening without any compromise in the position has at least excellent winning chances.

A pawn was never won in the example.

I still think you completely misunderstand the meaning of "forced." +1.5 is "winning," yes, if you believe the chess engine. In fact, nearly every good player would agree that this position favors white, at least the way humans play. That doesn't mean that white will necessarily win, or that a true evaluation of the position can be determined. While you may think that if neither side makes a mistake, white will win, you can't prove it. Maybe the game could go perfectly and black could still checkmate in the end. The win is NOT forced.

Besides, black does have some compensation. She has developed her queen. Sure, that doesn't seem to be anywhere close to equal, but how can you know for sure? Obviously you can't.

 What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the original post. It's my own example, that I'm imagining in my head.

Obviously something happened with that CPU when it said 1.5 here, and as I said my computer said something that seemed to make sense, +.5. I don't think at all that's correct, there had to be something wrong with the computer.

If one is actually, 100% winning, then of course the win is forced as no matter what one does checkamte will happen eventually, maybe because of a pawn promotion, whatever. Black would be bascially forced to lose eventually against correct play if he has a lost position. But I agree there are probably better times to use "forced", like a mate in 4 with checks. But in the extreme sense winning (if we are 100% sure anyway) should mean the same thing as forced win. Of course there's no point in talking about this, but next time I'll use a change of words. You could have easily replaced my "forced win" (which I did NOT actually think, but what I thought the computer thought) with "winning" and I at least would have meant the same exact thing.

I don't know..

I just assumed you guys could relate to a moment where you win a clear pawn, who hasn't experienced that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Gambit

Forced win for black confirmed :P

I know what you're trying to say Elubas, but it's wrong.

King's gambit is anything but a clear pawn. I mean, by clear pawn I didn't mean "definitley up material", it was more like "the other side gets no counterplay for it". Plus the pawn is doubled. Ask any strong player they will say an extra center pawn at least one for nothing with many pieces still on the board at least gives the player excellent chances.

So what you're saying is that a position where your opponent loses material and has absolutely no counterplay is good for you?

Okay I agree. Glad we cleared that up.

Out of curiosity, why did you play KID against that? I mean, I like the KID, but it seems a little unambitious when white is giving you the whole board.

@Elubas, look, the whole point is that we cannot know that white is "100% winning" unless we can solve chess. The best we can say is "White looks better to me, and in most games played from this position, white wins." But that doesn't necessarily mean white is objectively better.

Let me give a counterexample. Before endgame tablebases were calculated, several endgames, such as KBBvKN, were believed to be draws. Everybody believed this. In fact, in some cases, there were published analyses that people thought had proved some of these positions were draws. Yet when the tablebases were calculated, we discovered that some of these endgames were actually winnable, but in a very large number of very precise moves. So our intuition and analysis was wrong--objectively wrong. There is no reason it can't be wrong again here.

I agree. General principles are necessary for winning at chess. There are far too many move sequences for memorization to work. With that said, in blitz play, my chess teacher can nail the best move in a wide variety of openings 10+ moves deep. This buys a person time on the clock. The Fritz 12 interface provides real time opening tree analysis while viewing others playing blitz at playchess.com. I've watched him do it as well as GM's. It's pretty amazing.

Memorization plays an extremely important role in winning at blitz, imo. I think of it like I think of be-bop jazz. I've devoted my life to the study, practice and performance of this style of jazz. Those blitz speed jazz lines that you hear are 95% memorized. It's the other 5% of real time invention/improvisation that creates the infinite amount of variations in any given memorized line.