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.
The Colorado gambit
Sort:
Nov 6, 2017
0
#43
lolurspammed wrote:
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.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#44
KoenSchaakmans wrote:
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.
There was a debate between aww_rats and pfren a couple of years ago, but I can't find the thread. All of aww_rats posts is nonsense. It would be wise to avoid that NM, or any coach that would recommend such a losing line.
Actually you are missing the point, the NM and others are not recommending it because it is sound, but because from move two your opponent will need to think for themselves. It creates an unbalanced position right from the outset. This of course is doubled edged but it might be exactly what a club player who likes irrational positions is looking for.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#46
robbie_1969 wrote:
Actually you are missing the point, the NM and others are not recommending it because it is sound, but because from move two your opponent will need to think for themselves. It creates an unbalanced position right from the outset. This of course is doubled edged but it might be exactly what a club player who likes irrational positions is looking for.
Still don't get it. Not sure what the point of deliberately putting yourself in a bad position is. Aww-rats said it is a great move, but it is not. Why not play sound moves?
Nov 6, 2017
0
#47
Derekjj wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
Actually you are missing the point, the NM and others are not recommending it because it is sound, but because from move two your opponent will need to think for themselves. It creates an unbalanced position right from the outset. This of course is doubled edged but it might be exactly what a club player who likes irrational positions is looking for.
Still don't get it. Not sure what the point of deliberately putting yourself in a bad position is. Aww-rats said it is a great move, but it is not. Why not play sound moves?
The Colorado gambit is sound, it does not lead to loss.
I am still undecided about the label one should attach to the Colorado: "Plain ugly nonsense" or "A bright idea which loses"?
Some sketch which should be enough to discourage anyone with two grams of brains:
Robbie, what does a blitz game prove? I can show a ton of blitz games where white is busted after 1.e4 h5!
Nov 6, 2017
0
#51
Pfren's acerbic comments hold some truths:
The Marshall is considered a drawing weapon that is mostly avoided by the +2750 fish. There are players here who seem to know more than those poor fish. I have no clue how those elite players can play professional chess with such a poor understanding of chess.
The Colorado Gambit is really bad. I wish Colorado had a better representative than a losing gambit.
Perhaps mcris could share his lines that show the Colorado Gambit is sound.
Pfren's lines are a good place to start. Where did Pfren go wrong in post #58?
Nov 6, 2017
0
#52
SmyslovFan wrote:
Pfren's acerbic comments hold some truths:
The Marshall is considered a drawing weapon that is mostly avoided by the +2750 fish. There are players here who seem to know more than those poor fish. I have no clue how those elite players can play professional chess with such a poor understanding of chess.
The Colorado Gambit is really bad. I wish Colorado had a better representative than a losing gambit.
Perhaps mcris could share his lines that show the Colorado Gambit is sound.
Pfren's lines are a good place to start. Where did Pfren go wrong in post #58?
7...g6 is not ok. Instead 7...Nf6
Nov 6, 2017
0
#54
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
Actually in my database which has 1.7 million games all from fairly recently there are 138 instances. White has won 57, draws 35 and black wins 46. I agree that its objectively bad but it has shock psychological value, whatever that is worth.
pfren wrote:
Robbie, what does a blitz game prove? I can show a ton of blitz games where white is busted after 1.e4 h5!
Indeed it proves that in blitz in may have shock value, even at the very highest level. I agree with you its a horrible move and objectively bad but what does that matter among patzer players like me? Its almost meaningless. For titled players like you it has significance, but otherwise for us wood pushers its well playable, although again, I personally would never play such a move because it makes no sense to me.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#57
robbie_1969 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
Actually in my database which has 1.7 million games all from fairly recently there are 138 instances. White has won 57, draws 35 and black wins 46. I agree that its objectively bad but it has shock psychological value, whatever that is worth.
Really?
Your database has 138 instances of 7...Nf6 in that position? And you only have 1.7 million games? Really?
I'm curious as to where the games are from in that 1.7 million game database originate from ? My database is significantly larger and only have 7 games.
Nov 7, 2017
0
#59
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
I am ready to play you 7, 8 or 9 moves and I assure you that the resulting position will not be bad for Black.
What human players evaluated is inherently subjective and not objective. For this you need a scientific evaluation or much stronger player, like an engine. While engines can fail in some closed positions, this is open game like most accepted gambits.
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.