The soundness of Openings
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
I know I might end up getting a lot of hate for this, but then I had to get it out of my system.
When Gambits like "Danish Gambit", "Smith-Morra", Kings Gambit, Vienna, Von Hennig-Schara are brought up, the general consensus is that they are not sound.
This begs the question. What is sound? To me there are two fundamental attributes associated with an unsound move:
1. It has statistically poor outcome.
2. It has a "theoretical refutation" of some sort. In other words, you could be giving equality or advantage as white or increasing advantage as black.
So lets put these two arguments to test against "1. e4"
Statistically speaking, I have an interesting statistic to share:
Let us examine the results of the modern chess era, meaning the most recent world championships, starting from the year 2000 when Kramnik became world champion.
Theoretically, it can be argued that Sicilian makes things more or less equal for black.
So, does that mean 1. e4 is unsound or busted? To me, it does not. Then extending the same arguments: Why do we argue that Kings Gambit is a "inaccuracy"? Isn't it better than people who don't aspire to become "Experts" or "Masters" play openings they enjoy rather than worry too much about theoretical refutations?
There are also engine evaluations nowadays.
There are also engine evaluations nowadays.
Whats the Engine Evaluation of Black at start of the game. Whats the Engine Evaluation of Black after the Kings Indian Defense Setup?
Whats the Engine Evaluation of White at the start of the game. Whats the Engine Evaluation of White after Kings Gambit Accepted, Nf3?
Also, is the opponent an Engine or a human? If so, why does Engine Evaluation matter more than Human's Evaluation? An Engine Evaluates "Lolli Attack" as a slight advantage for white. How would a "slightly stronger" human black fare against another human white - when both are below 1600?
… Let us examine the results of the modern chess era, meaning the most recent world championships, starting from the year 2000 when Kramnik became world champion.
Are world championship results necessarily a reliable indication of future world championship results? Nonworld championship results?
… Let us examine the results of the modern chess era, meaning the most recent world championships, starting from the year 2000 when Kramnik became world champion.
Are world championship results necessarily a reliable indication of future world championship results? Nonworld championship results?
They are not. Similarly - results at GM level are not necessarily indicators of non-Master/non-Expert level games.
… Why do we argue that Kings Gambit is a "inaccuracy"? Isn't it better than people who don't aspire to become "Experts" or "Masters" play openings they enjoy rather than worry too much about theoretical refutations?
"... If you really want to be great at chess someday, or want to be above 2000-2200, you will greatly help yourself by playing main lines and serious openings. If you don't have these ambitions, you can basically play whatever you want as long as you know something about it. …" - IM Greg Shahade (2012)
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php&f=24&t=16827
In 89 games 1.e4 was used 25 times resulting in: only one win
In the Carlsen - Anand match 2014 1.e4 won twice.
So your statistic which claims to represent every world championship match since 2000 is ridiculous.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1778628
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1778864
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1778970
… Why do we argue that Kings Gambit is a "inaccuracy"? Isn't it better than people who don't aspire to become "Experts" or "Masters" play openings they enjoy rather than worry too much about theoretical refutations?
"... If you really want to be great at chess someday, or want to be above 2000-2200, you will greatly help yourself by playing main lines and serious openings. If you don't have these ambitions, you can basically play whatever you want as long as you know something about it. …" - IM Greg Shahade (2012)
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php&f=24&t=16827
First: Thats an opinion, not a fact. Dan Heisman on the other hand recommends that Beginners must play gambits to learn attack, strategy and tactical vision.
Second: Not everyone - irrespective of what they claim, wants to become 2000-2200.
Most if not all the IMs, GMs start out as a bunch of aggressive kids who play. But yes you are right.
In 89 games 1.e4 was used 25 times resulting in: only one win
In the Carlsen - Anand match 2014 1.e4 won twice.
So your statistic which claims to represent every world championship match since 2000 is ridiculous.
Yes, it is quite common that people talking statistics in chess, don't understand much about chess. What is more comical is how bad their mathematics usually is.
… Why do we argue that Kings Gambit is a "inaccuracy"? Isn't it better than people who don't aspire to become "Experts" or "Masters" play openings they enjoy rather than worry too much about theoretical refutations?
"... If you really want to be great at chess someday, or want to be above 2000-2200, you will greatly help yourself by playing main lines and serious openings. If you don't have these ambitions, you can basically play whatever you want as long as you know something about it. …" - IM Greg Shahade (2012)
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php&f=24&t=16827
... Thats an opinion, not a fact. ... Not everyone - irrespective of what they claim, wants to become 2000-2200. Most if not all the IMs, GMs start out as a bunch of aggressive kids who play. ...
None of that is news to me.
... Dan Heisman on the other hand recommends that Beginners must play gambits to learn attack, strategy and tactical vision. …
"... At this point you can also start to learn some opening lines. I would start by picking some lines that are either tactical or suit your style. ..."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
An opening for white is unsound if black has or is likely to have some advantage. An opening for black is unsound if white has a large advantage. No openings which lead to a fine position are unsound.
Indeed. For me, ultimately what proves the soundness of an opening is in the compensation received. Which more often than not, is based on human subjectivity: whether in hindsight, research, systematic testing in real-time. Benko's gambit was once thought unsound for example. But anyways, that's my take. Thanx
When Gambits like "Danish Gambit", "Smith-Morra", Kings Gambit, Vienna, Von Hennig-Schara are brought up, the general consensus is that they are not sound.
This begs the question. What is sound?
It also depends on the level of competition. Beginners can play practically anything in the opening, it really doesn't mater.
The better your competition is, the fewer openings you can play i.e. the more openings become unsound.
For the top 10 players this is taken to an extreme because their opponents are preparing for them all year, every year. If a 2700-2800 player is preparing for 12 months to face the king's gambit, they're goin to do very well against it... but if you and your opponents are 1700-1800 then the king's gambit is one of many good choices.