Marshall is lost in 90% of lines, I will have to check the other 10%.
The Benko is more than lost, of course.
For reference, you might want to check TCEC and other high-quality top engine databases.
White scores tremendously, way way above the average, in them.
Marshall is lost in 90% of lines, I will have to check the other 10%.
The Benko is more than lost, of course.
For reference, you might want to check TCEC and other high-quality top engine databases.
White scores tremendously, way way above the average, in them.
Can you show me why Marshall(or Benko) is lost?
You certainly understand that is impossible to do on a forum.
Stats are simply pointing that way, a great number of high-quality games between
top engines, what concerns the Benko, and my humble analysis with Stockfish on the Marshall,
but I am not complete with it.
As said, I have checked most lines, but some of the remaining might still hold.
Anyway, it is not good to play an opening, where most lines lose.
It is for a reason that Capablanca beat Marshall.
PS. In those innocent-looking +1 pawn Marshall endgames, with engine scores hovering around +50cps at the start of the line, Stockfish frequently manages to hold the pawn, increase the score to + 100 cps, slowly, and then convert.
But again, no one can be certain 100% in a system that involves trillions of lines.
Marshall is lost in 90% of lines, I will have to check the other 10%.
The Benko is more than lost, of course.
For reference, you might want to check TCEC and other high-quality top engine databases.
White scores tremendously, way way above the average, in them.
Can you show me why Marshall(or Benko) is lost?
You certainly understand that is impossible to do on a forum.
Stats are simply pointing that way, a great number of high-quality games between
top engines, what concerns the Benko, and my humble analysis with Stockfish on the Marshall,
but I am not complete with it.
As said, I have checked most lines, but some of the remaining might still hold.
Anyway, it is not good to play an opening, where most lines lose.
It is for a reason that Capablanca beat Marshall.
He was a better player.
Marshall is lost in 90% of lines, I will have to check the other 10%.
The Benko is more than lost, of course.
For reference, you might want to check TCEC and other high-quality top engine databases.
White scores tremendously, way way above the average, in them.
Lost in 90% of the lines? What are you smoking?
I have played the Marshall Gambit 3 times in tournaments, with three wins in all.
Its playable among amateurs
Marshall is lost in 90% of lines, I will have to check the other 10%.
The Benko is more than lost, of course.
For reference, you might want to check TCEC and other high-quality top engine databases.
White scores tremendously, way way above the average, in them.
Lost in 90% of the lines? What are you smoking?
I have played the Marshall Gambit 3 times in tournaments, with three wins in all.
Up until now, I have been smoking hard stuff, but as of late I am considering switching to marijuana.
Marshall is lost in 90% of lines, I will have to check the other 10%.
The Benko is more than lost, of course.
For reference, you might want to check TCEC and other high-quality top engine databases.
White scores tremendously, way way above the average, in them.
Can you show me why Marshall(or Benko) is lost?
You certainly understand that is impossible to do on a forum.
Stats are simply pointing that way, a great number of high-quality games between
top engines, what concerns the Benko, and my humble analysis with Stockfish on the Marshall,
but I am not complete with it.
As said, I have checked most lines, but some of the remaining might still hold.
Anyway, it is not good to play an opening, where most lines lose.
It is for a reason that Capablanca beat Marshall.
PS. In those innocent-looking +1 pawn Marshall endgames, with engine scores hovering around +50cps at the start of the line, Stockfish frequently manages to hold the pawn, increase the score to + 100 cps, slowly, and then convert.
But again, no one can be certain 100% in a system that involves trillions of lines.
I think that no ene ever before said "I have no idea" with so many words.
Still an achievement, ground-breaking work, record-setting attempt.
To my poor knowledge, white's only chance for something resembling an advantage in the Marshall is returning the extra pawn and achieve something like that:
Me guesses that UM (AKA Ultimate Master) Lyudmil_Tsvetkov knows much more than those lousy 2750+ amateurs (about 30 games played the last 3 years from 18.Bd4 on, and Black is scoring just fine), but he does not want to reveeal his top secret...
12. d4 is much better, of course.
Stockfish(with some assistance on my part) is holding the pawn, and then converting in some
90% of lines, but it requires more than 20 full moves precise play, so that might be one of
the reasons neither engines, nor analyst analysing for less than 20 moves see the win.
This is a sound full pawn advantage. Black might be more active, and in some lines get the bishop pair,
but the white pawn structure is extremely compact, that more than compensates the temporary black activity.
Please note, that I did not claim that the Marshall is necessarily lost with perfect play, only that
in the vast majority of obtainable positions white should score very well, way above a standard opening.
90% of lines, but it requires more than 20 full moves precise play, so that might be one of
the reasons neither engines, nor analyst analysing for less than 20 moves see the win.
Please note, that I did not claim that the Marshall is necessarily lost with perfect play, only that
in the vast majority of obtainable positions white should score very well, way above a standard opening.
Is it somekind of Guiness record you try to break?Why so many words to just say "I have no idea"?
I have a very good idea, Stockfish has very good idea, me +Stockfish have very good idea:
'It is dangerous to play the Marshall', to say the least.
Wow! 12.d4 that is...
Congratulations!
You may announce your findings, and be worldwide famous for refuting the Marshall.
I guess that Penthouse will gladly publish your hard work.
The findings are later on, in refuting all of black's nonsensical draw attempts.
I have a very good idea, Stockfish has very good idea, me +Stockfish have very good idea:
'It is dangerous to play the Marshall', to say the least.
You have a very good idea?Then show us.
No line , means "no idea".
No time for stupid experiments now.
It is obvious there are countless lines to check.
You tell me how black fully equalises after 12. d4, and I will tell you why this is not possible.
I suggest you simply take Stockfish, and do a manual check of the most interesting lines.
I have a very good idea, Stockfish has very good idea, me +Stockfish have very good idea:
'It is dangerous to play the Marshall', to say the least.
You have a very good idea?Then show us.
No line , means "no idea".
No time for stupid experiments now.
It is obvious there are countless lines to check.
You tell me how black fully equalises after 12. d4, and I will tell you why this is not possible.
I suggest you simply take Stockfish, and do a manual check of the most interesting lines.
You have to rely on engines 24/7 don’t you? Well, if engines mean everything to you, then why do humans play in chess tournaments, or play any games of chess at all!?! Why can’t we just have the engines do that for us, we poor, lazy Homo sapiens!
Stop blurting out rubbish. Engines aren’t everything. We have to use our brains at some point. You’re probably expecting engines to find the line that makes chess a solved game.
I am using engines 'reasonably', exercising my discretion, giving them free reign in positions they are good at, and adding in my opinion, where I know engines don't play well, to only then again give them free reign...
Of course, uncritical trust on engines is stupid, but no one is doing that.
12. d4...the move that's been exhausted to death and analyzed to a draw? D3 is the main line for a reason
Will ramify a lot, so much, that the memory of this forum will hardly suffice...
Again, this is not a topic to resolve on a forum, besides, my computers are currently busy with other stuff, I will have to abort everything, to only post some lines that could extend and ramify endlessly.
Just tell me what precise position after 12. d4 is dead draw, and I will tell you why it is not.
I can do that without having to resort to computers.
It's not a dead draw, but GMs have analyzed it to death and there's no advantage at all for white, there's play left if you're not an elite GM. Which is all that should really matter. However trying to find a winning advantage in theoretically sound openings is a waste of time.
It's not a dead draw, but GMs have analyzed it to death and there's no advantage at all for white, there's play left if you're not an elite GM. Which is all that should really matter. However trying to find a winning advantage in theoretically sound openings is a waste of time.
THANK YOU. SOMEONE WHO USES LOGIC AND REASON.
NM Aww-rats has also done much and great work on the Colorado gambit in his Nimzovitsch defense series on youtube. It's the unsoundness of it that attracts me. I love to win with it against players that criticise it.
Does that mean (using your logic) that you hate to lose with it against players that support its use?