HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
Nope, you haven't.
have too!
got a current game that opened 1.Nh3 and had a game against a friend a few months back (not on my games list) that was one of my most memorable games.
What's wrong with 1.b4?
Sort:
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
thechessplayer31 wrote:
If the game was always the best move, people would just memorize Rybka lines and every game would be the exact same, cause those are the "best moves". The Sicilian is the best defense to 1.e4, so then why does anyone play the French, 1...e5, the Caro-Kann, or the Pirc?
Wrong, 1...e5 is the "strongest". It gives White an advantage about +8 to +13, Sicilian gives White +33 to +40. And nowadays is by far the most popular at master-top level.
Advantage? What are your refering to? Percentage of played games?
For GMs 1...e5 is regarded a little passive - good enough for a draw (e.g. Petrov also called Russian Defence).
Sicilian is so popular because Black wants to play for a win as well.
Mar 17, 2013
0
#264
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
thechessplayer31 wrote:
If the game was always the best move, people would just memorize Rybka lines and every game would be the exact same, cause those are the "best moves". The Sicilian is the best defense to 1.e4, so then why does anyone play the French, 1...e5, the Caro-Kann, or the Pirc?
Wrong, 1...e5 is the "strongest". It gives White an advantage about +8 to +13, Sicilian gives White +33 to +40. And nowadays is by far the most popular at master-top level.
What are these nonsense figures you're spouting now?
Of course Sicilian (at any level) is the most popular Semi Open Game.
As Ruy Lopez (= Spanish) is the most popular Open Game at any level. However many GMs who like to draw with Black chose the Petrov (= Russian Defence) because it's very solid.
(By the way I didn't say Petrov is most popular - I only gave an example of an Open Game.) 
peterleeflang wrote:
Just make sure you learn to understand the opening, its strategic and tactical opportunities as well as risks. Don't just 'parrot it' like others in the past.
Precisely, starting with 1.b4 is against the general opening rule to control the center (which I think you agree it has some utility), so it needs precise lines to be backed up. And the least I can say is that I am not convinced with the lines provided in this thread.
Nothing wrong with it. It can be played up to 2700. Excellent opening. Thoush beginners shouldn't use it cause it is quite complex.
peterleeflang wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
The objective problem with 1.b4 is that it throws away white's opening advantage as demonstrated by it's rather poor results on ICCF. The reward in OTB chess is original positions that the opponent might no be familar with. That's all 1.b4 has going for it, and it objectively is worse than 1.e4 for example.
Those who continue to parrot other people's opinions, without first getting to know and try the opening, just lose a great opportunity. Asserting that there is objective proof that white throws away his advantage does not make it so. Parroting those who say that players merely score points because of the 'surprise element' does not make it so either. The fact that titled players do not play the opening very much, does not mean that they are authorities in the opening and we shoudl just blindly follow them, far from that. The proof is in teh pudding. I won and drew with it against titled players. The reality is that a real 1.b4 player looks at the game differently. For example, I do not look at the control of the center being merely done for the 4 central fields. For me the center is really comprised of 8 central fields, and b4 controls one of them, plus it opens up an avenue to control more central fields quickly via the next move of Bb2. Additionally the opening allows often for gaining substantial space on the Queen's side and the extra tempo is in a way used to 'head for the promotion line quicker than black can head for it on the King's side. White thus uses the extra tempo to develop a long term gain instead of a short term one. Additionally the b-pawn opening first is oenm of the least 'king vulnerable' moves as oppose dto opening with pawns around the King, which is usually a two edged sword of a direct center control, but opening up one's King for attacks. Another benefit of b4 mis the denial to black to develop his knight to c6, which often gets b5 as an answer. That limits blacks options. Of course b4 is also a twoedged sword, but so are ALL openings.
You seem to lack objectivity. Do you realize it's possible to like and win with a bad opening? Do you understand that people can form their own opinions and in the end agree with the majority?
I'd have to guess Firebrand's knowledge of the opening through CC chess is a greater authority than your "I beat players with it and I like it" ...
waffllemaster wrote:
peterleeflang wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
The objective problem with 1.b4 is that it throws away white's opening advantage as demonstrated by it's rather poor results on ICCF. The reward in OTB chess is original positions that the opponent might no be familar with. That's all 1.b4 has going for it, and it objectively is worse than 1.e4 for example.
Those who continue to parrot other people's opinions, without first getting to know and try the opening, just lose a great opportunity. Asserting that there is objective proof that white throws away his advantage does not make it so. Parroting those who say that players merely score points because of the 'surprise element' does not make it so either. The fact that titled players do not play the opening very much, does not mean that they are authorities in the opening and we shoudl just blindly follow them, far from that. The proof is in teh pudding. I won and drew with it against titled players. The reality is that a real 1.b4 player looks at the game differently. For example, I do not look at the control of the center being merely done for the 4 central fields. For me the center is really comprised of 8 central fields, and b4 controls one of them, plus it opens up an avenue to control more central fields quickly via the next move of Bb2. Additionally the opening allows often for gaining substantial space on the Queen's side and the extra tempo is in a way used to 'head for the promotion line quicker than black can head for it on the King's side. White thus uses the extra tempo to develop a long term gain instead of a short term one. Additionally the b-pawn opening first is oenm of the least 'king vulnerable' moves as oppose dto opening with pawns around the King, which is usually a two edged sword of a direct center control, but opening up one's King for attacks. Another benefit of b4 mis the denial to black to develop his knight to c6, which often gets b5 as an answer. That limits blacks options. Of course b4 is also a twoedged sword, but so are ALL openings.
You seem to lack objectivity. Do you realize it's possible to like and win with a bad opening? Do you understand that people can form their own opinions and in the end agree with the majority?
I'd have to guess Firebrand's knowledge of the opening through CC chess is a greater authority than your "I beat players with it and I like it" ...
Except Firebrand has never played with it or against it (b4) so think somebody's opinion that actually plays the opening should be respected waffle?
Give up on fighting cancer?
So this isn't about a chess opening. One way or another you've tied this highly unique/individual opening choice in with your identity as a person... which explains your completely irrational arguments e.g. "the statistics are flawed because I know the skill and thoughts of the players making up those statistics." Fantastic argument.
1.b4, as many have already argued gives black an opportunity to quickly equalise in central control and development.
Though I have seen much higher rated players such a move to almost lure black into playing into their repetoire, so tactics tactics 
peterleeflang wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
You seem to lack objectivity. Do you realize it's possible to like and win with a bad opening?
..
There seem to be soem people contradicting themselves here. On the one hand they would love to use statistics as proof of b4 not working, on the other hand they reject my statistics (just merely here, haven't even showed games at other venues over 35 years) of 87% wins with b4, even beating or playing draws against titled players. And some of the very few games I did not win even deserve further review, as they contain a late stage error that can be corrected. Make up your mind. Are stats proof or not, or only when it is concvenient?
They reject your statistics, because they are on a N=100 statistical sample, and between players far from master level ; but not the stats for a whole bunch of games (N > 1 000) that was played at high level (correspondance centaur). There is no contradiction here.
This being said, I agree with you that statistics do not mean much to assess the value of an opening.
Otherwise, your whole cancer analogy is lousy. The two huge differences are that
1- fighting cancer with sport etc. has effect on the evolution of it as opposite to staying passive, take medicine and be depressed ; whereas no matter how cheerful you are about your chess position, if it's a bad one and the opponent knows how to play it you will get butchered - so no placebo effect here;
2- cancer is depending on "random" factors. If you are detected at the same stage for the same type and subtype of cancer as someone else of similar age , and perform the same actions (taking drug X instead of Y, practicing sport Z, etc.) it might still happen that either of you cures and the other dies fast. If you have the same position and you play the same moves, the same outcome will occur (duh).
And eventually, the "I can choose myself what is good for me and even if the experts have their opinion it doesn't mean I should follow it" is immature. It's partly true though : you can attach homemade wings to your arms and "fly" off a cliff because, well, if the plane engineers deemed it unfeasible that's just they don't know you. Yes, it's your choice. But do you think it is better because you made it against the expert's opinion ?
1.b4 c6 2.Bb2 a5 is very funny (furthermore, it is what Fritz suggests 
)
Patones wrote:
1.b4 c6 2.Bb2 a5 is very funny (furthermore, it is what Fritz suggests )
I think you should check your engine's settings...
As a side note, in the recent book The Dark Knight System ( 1...Nc6) the author doesn't like using it against 1 b4.
peterleeflang wrote:
To some, keep at ridiculing and trivializing the arguments for b4. If that is all the objectivity on offer, I'll stick with my own data, since winning games and enjoying them is what I seek for myself, not debates. I just hope some who read these threads will get their own brains working and find something of interest to try 1.b4. Really knowledgeable b4 players are a great asset for all those who play it.
Am I the only one to read this :
Those who don't agree with me, keep providing argumentation I won't even try to refute. If that's all the approval I can get, I will keep on doing my way, since I am not looking for divergent opinions, but for applause at my performance. I just hope misinformed people will trust my opinion because I asserted it hard enough, and find interest in following it. Doctors that still bleed their patients as in the Middle Ages are a great asset to those who still believe bleeding is a good cure.
Apr 8, 2013
0
#277
peterleeflang, I am interested in playing Black against your 1.b4 and am hoping for a mutual learning experience. I have sent you a challenge at three days per move and hope you will accept.
Apr 8, 2013
0
#278
Hmm, I read something more subtle:
After winning so many games during 35 years I think I have a very thorough case that b4 works for me. No matter what arguments people will bring into the discussion.
Furthermore was I not interested in debating anyhow, because I wanted to show to people that contrairy to the opinion of the general public, that this opening can lead to good results and has merits of its own. Don't let you restrain by common opinions, think and judge for yourself.
Not many people are experts in this opening. In other openings there are a lot more experts and the results for white are better, because it is played by experts. The b4 opening on the other hand is not commonly played by people, hence is the influence of non experts playing this opening rather big. (In the land of the blind is one-eye king.) If you would learn this opening, then you should try to look only at games played by experts and not let your judgement on this opening be biased by the abundant games of the unexperienced. (You would not do this for the Ruy Lopez, do you?)
I guess, a strong success is because the opponents were mostly weaker then the whiteplayer. I am ready to play it with black against everyone.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that 1.b4 is a bad move and gives black a considerable advantage.
Aliekhine gave in my opinion the best assessment, in saying that the move b4 does not threaten itself AT SUCH EARLY STAGE , hence Black can react appropriately to it. I can only quote Petrosian who once said we should remember that a pawn cannot go backward, meaning White has to justify b4, and cannot change/give up his plan of expanding on the queenside.
I agree with some people here who claim that if Black plays correctly, it is rather him who will have an opening initiative than White.
As support of my claim I take the analysis of several opening books, AND engine evaluations of these lines, and more precisely, the two lines
1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 Bxb4, 3.Bxe5 Nf6, and
1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 d6, with a King's Indian setup:
Nbd7, Ngf6, g6, Bg7, 0-0, Re8 etc.
I gave the reasoning of my claims in earlier threads.
The most popular? But does everyone use it?