It's rude, and unfortunately it's true.
When I was much weaker (although much stronger than most of the people here who spam engine lines and database results), I realized I had absolutely no clue what I was doing when reading an engine. It's almost comical to think about.
At least now I understand enough to put the engine away most of the time.
No, you do this all the time. You make arguments about positions without actually talking about the position, and instead you discredit the other person's chess analysis ability.
The lack of annotations in the game you posted seems to indicate (probably correctly) that you just found some game that you had seen where black outplayed white and posted it as evidence. Fact: people outplay people from slightly worse positions all the time. Proves absolutely nothing.
Are you actually going to argue that Nc1 is the best move? Lol
It's rude, and unfortunately it's true.
When I was much weaker (although much stronger than most of the people here who spam engine lines and database results), I realized I had absolutely no clue what I was doing when reading an engine. It's almost comical to think about.
At least now I understand enough to put the engine away most of the time.
But, and this is key, even if it's true, that doesn't suffice as an argument. You can't use your opinion that the other person doesn't understand engine evals as proof that he's wrong. The discussion strays completely away from the variation itself in such case.
I was just making a general statement. I actually don't know anything about the line being discussed right now.
gawwwd. @Jengaias "you obviously do the same every day.You evaluate positions you don't understand from the numbers of a database or an engine.Well , you are going to have some very nasty surprises losing positions that the engine shows as better." I suppose you know all about the way I think from interacting with me a small handful of times over the internet. Congrats on being omniscient. Shame your only tool seems to be the ad hominem attack.
Also gotta lol @ all the exclamation points and question marks in your third paragraph. No need for any internet freakouts here. This is a chess forum. lol
If you're claiming black has fully equalized, the onus is on you. Because you're making such a bold claim. In most theoretical positions white is a small bit better. That's just true. And if you claim that this is anything different from that, you're the one who needs to back it up. Providing one game in which white totally got outplayed doesn't do it at all, especially when you can't be bothered to annotate it. Database statistics and engine evaluations don't tell the tale too well. But even if that's all we had, which it isn't, it would be more compelling evidence than anything you've provided.
Your argument about the Najdorf is pretty irrelevant to this discussion...don't know why you brought it up. I guess to say that you have claimed "victory" over someone who doesn't understand the Najdorf...well congratulations, pal.
White has a slight plus, and if it had no practical value, then white wouldn't score better than black. White does.
"You obviously live in the 18th century." Do you make this many ad hominem attacks when you're talking to people in real life?
"In all theoretical positions white is a small bit better." I didn't even say that...I said that the default assumption for a normal theoretical position is that white has a slight advantage, and when all other signs point that way (statistics, engine), you have to provide some argument for why it's not true. You and ThrillerFan are making the argument that the position is practically 0.00. Then back that up! lol. It's really simple.
^Great you found a game where he outplayed an opponent 200 points weaker than he is. Congratulations. If I played people 200 points weaker than me every game, I'd make all my openings look great, too. And lol, you reposted the same game twice, since the top one is the same one you already posted. Before 16. Nc1, do you really think it's 0.00?
If the advantage has no practical value, then a logical conclusion would be that the statistics shouldn't favor white then. Hm...not to mention you even admit that Qxd5 is the main move now.
Of course at amateur level there's not a huge practical value of a tiny objective advantage. We know that. When one player plays poorly in comparison to his opponent (i.e. white in both of the games you posted), it also doesn't matter. But most of the time that won't happen.
The Exchange for starters. I play the French defense faithfully. I actually have to think in some exchange lines...
The nature of the french player usually prefers structure and balance...
Create imbalances thru gambits as well...
Or Kings Indian Attack is excellent always.
@Jengaias "If you weren't engine-confused you would be able to see how rich the position is for both sides."
Stop being obnoxious. When did I say the position wasn't rich? When did I even bring up a single engine evaluation? You have a major problem with ad hominem attacks, which you seem to think are a valid substitute for logic. All I said was white has some slight advantage- drawn with best play, but if you have to pick a side, you pick white. Even though I think you're older than I am, you come off as immature on these forums sometimes- why can't you ever be civil in discussion? lol
"I am talking about the position for which it is obvious you are fully unable to say even a small bit."
Oh for Christ sake...What do you know about my understanding of the position? If anything I think you don't understand the position. You pull up two games where white got basically crushed because he played badly, and you think that's evidence of anything?
Here's one line where I would assert white gets a small advantage.
Again, I'm not claiming much. I'm claiming that I'd rather be white in those positions. I think white has a tiny little something. You disagree? Then let's talk about it. And be civil, please.
try d3 c5
try d3 c5
Think 10Nd4 continuation is why Aagaard and Niklos decided not to recommend 5...Nf6 in their "Play the French" book.
Also noticed several games played by Geller before black was supposed to known that 5...Nf6 was playable, i.e one at the famous Zurich 53 tournament.
Who needs the French Defense when you can use the RAR attack?
Join the RAR chess club and view over 15 questionable, but effective methods for winning at chess used by the one and only RAR Master, Joseph Truelson.
Filled with funny posts and valuable tips and tricks, RAR is the club to join!
Join here!: https://www.chess.com/club/classic-rar
Feel like white didn't play the best in the second game. After black got d3, sure, he was in great shape, but I have some ideas for improvement:
An IM player should not be getting completely outplayed in the opening. And the fact that he was thusly outplayed is not a statement about the opening- because it hardly ever happens in games between similar-strength players in this line. This particular player made a series of poor moves. That can happen to anyone. Does not mean anything about the evaluation of the position.
Notice how white hardly ever loses like that in this line. You found one game, where white played very poorly in comparison to his opponent, and believe that this somehow justifies the claim that black is completely equal. Otherwise, the 11. Nf5 line scores well for white, which totally refutes your claim that it is "practically" dead equal. Yes, it is a very rich position. But no, that doesn't give black equality.
I'm not an IM. I'm not even a titled player. Neither are you. Does that mean that neither of us is qualified to analyze games played by player stronger than we are and identify mistakes from those games? No, it doesn't.
@Jengaias You say white has no practical advantage. Sure, people mess up (like white in the game we were analyzing!), but if a variation has some wins for one side, a lot of draws, and almost no losses for that side except when he's vastly lower-rated and plays much worse, that's pretty good evidence to me that it's not practically dead equal. Also, never heard of this chessbites database you're using...
You're reading too much into this. I wonder if your thinking is this impractical/subjective in your actual games. It's a position. I'd rather have white. Objectively, white has a tiny edge. White scores slightly better. If white plays correctly (i.e. as I've shown, I think the lines I showed demonstrate clear, albeit small, edge for white), he should be the only one with any small winning chances. The position should be drawn with best play.
So even according to this chessbites database, after 10. Nd4 white is scoring 30% wins, almost exactly 50% draws and 20% losses.
QGDE statistics indicate that it seems the position practically has turned out better for white in the sum of all the tournament games played in the line. Doesn't mean anything objective about it. Just means that it may be easier for one side to play, or, as you keep saying, practically better.
Look, you said the position was not only 0.00 in objective evaluation but that black has exactly equal practical chances as well. That's an extremely bold assertion and I don't see any reason to go that far. Black is fine. In fact, maybe, if you're okay with a draw (probably doesn't matter much sub-2000, or if your opponent is 200 points weaker than you are), he has a pretty desirable position with black, since it takes a few mistakes to lose and it's not uncomfortable. But if you have to pick someone in that position, you pick white. No question.
Jengaias has some points certainly but I just have to point out, how elitist can you be? Telling someone that they're wrong for reasons that they can't understand and that they have no idea how to understand a position or database statistics just because they disagree with you.
It's easy to tell someone that they're wrong for reasons beyond their understanding, about anything: "Position X is dead equal, and you not agreeing with me shows that you just lack understanding in the position." Anyone can say stuff like that. But it's rude, doesn't make for good discussion, and I've seen this person do it many times on these forums (including to me). Not even a titled player anyway.
And then you post a game with no annotations whatsoever where white just got outplayed and expect that to suffice as evidence white has no advantage?
For the record, 16. Nc1 is where black equalized. And not before that.