Colin20G wrote:
This is like people who say Mikhail Tal was weak because he blundered a lot, by looking at his positions with Stockfish :-D
Misha never played crap openings and early cheapos.
Win with the Halloween Gambit!!!
Sort:
May 10, 2022
0
#103
Colin20G wrote:
Hahahaha lol at people who genuinely the halloween gambit can be busted on the basis of general principles, without knowing it before. Dogmatism gets you too far and yes I can somewhat understand your impression (which was mine when I saw some dude playing it for the first time).
Halloween was playable in correspondence chess until computer centaur chess became the norm and the refutation lines aren't obvious at all (to people who would claim that the lines are logical. What would have you done before the computer era, with your lone brain and your books?)
I've been promised disaster a lot but keep winning against people who are in disgust, why is that?
You make valid points, but it does not mean white is winning. An opening that is playable, or sound on the basis that the position is messy is just a playable opening. You may win, you may lose.
But white is definitely not "winning".
B1ZMARK wrote:
Colin20G wrote:
Hahahaha lol at people who genuinely the halloween gambit can be busted on the basis of general principles, without knowing it before. Dogmatism gets you too far and yes I can somewhat understand your impression (which was mine when I saw some dude playing it for the first time).
Halloween was playable in correspondence chess until computer centaur chess became the norm and the refutation lines aren't obvious at all (to people who would claim that the lines are logical. What would have you done before the computer era, with your lone brain and your books?)
I've been promised disaster a lot but keep winning against people who are in disgust, why is that?
You make valid points, but it does not mean white is winning. An opening that is playable, or sound on the basis that the position is messy is just a playable opening. You may win, you may lose.
But white is definitely not "winning".
Just so we're all on the same page here - you do realize that when people say "winning" they mean has some advantage right?
Chess is the only game in the entire world where for some inexplicable, absurd reason some not too bright people came up with the idea to call a position "winning" means that they will definitely win unless the opponent makes some huge blunder. That is not what the word "winning" means anywhere else in the english language. "winning" means is ahead, that's what winning means and it's a stupid thing some people who probably felt way too smart for themselves decided to apply to it.
While white still may not have advantage against any remotely competent player, just think about how the king's gambit is fantastic at medium to somewhat higher ratings, then falls flat on its face if tried at the elite level. So you may win in this opening as you say, you may lose and him claiming white is ahead for the context of playing against some player is the same as saying white is winning - may be hard to agree with but also not so far-fetched.
I mentioned this before on these forums. Maybe in a certain particular context "winning for white" means white will definitely win, even though it's still a terrible terminology. To say white is "winning" in a position just means white is ahead. I used to even have a handle called "Iamwinning", meaning I am ahead, not I have definitely won. Don't play dumb.
As I just explained Optimissed, that is not how the term winning is used properly.
May 10, 2022
0
#106
Optimissed wrote:
Colin20G wrote:
Hahahaha lol at people who genuinely the halloween gambit can be busted on the basis of general principles, without knowing it before. Dogmatism gets you too far and yes I can somewhat understand your impression (which was mine when I saw some dude playing it for the first time).
Halloween was playable in correspondence chess until computer centaur chess became the norm and the refutation lines aren't obvious at all (to people who would claim that the lines are logical. What would have you done before the computer era, with your lone brain and your books?)
I've been promised disaster a lot but keep winning against people who are in disgust, why is that?
Just play 6. ...Bb4. It isn't a refutation because it doesn't win by force but it did only take me 10 seconds to see it and it gives black the better game, because of better development. I can't believe the gambit would be played by strong players, because any half decent opponent will see that they don't need to work their way through any difficult position where they're only technically winning. All they need to do is play 6. ...Bb4 and they're slightly better..
Thats a good way of looking at it! With 5...Ng6 black may very well be objectively winning, but will have to do some serious defending until around move 30-40. Even with the refutation 5...Ng6 6...Ng8 7...c6/d5, white gets an attack for a long time before black can untangle, and not in the most intuitive manner either. 6...Bb4 avoids all the stress; a much easier position for black to play. However black no longer has a clear way to win, least not that I'm aware of yet, and the game could end in a draw where black may wonder "could I have won had I played 5...Ng6?" That is, Nc6 Bb4 declined line could be seen as relinquishing 1/2 a point if black is objectively winning?
But yes white is never "winning" or better, but just banking on black adhering to "play the board, not your opponent"/ aim to play the objectively best move. It's all in jest as a mind game, the ternary scoring system being inferior to the other sides discontentment in try to defend accurately, so 6...Bb4! refuse to play and return to normal chess is a neat approach 
Optimissed wrote:
Colin20G wrote:
Hahahaha lol at people who genuinely the halloween gambit can be busted on the basis of general principles, without knowing it before. Dogmatism gets you too far and yes I can somewhat understand your impression (which was mine when I saw some dude playing it for the first time).
Halloween was playable in correspondence chess until computer centaur chess became the norm and the refutation lines aren't obvious at all (to people who would claim that the lines are logical. What would have you done before the computer era, with your lone brain and your books?)
I've been promised disaster a lot but keep winning against people who are in disgust, why is that?
Just play 6. ...Bb4. It isn't a refutation because it doesn't win by force but it did only take me 10 seconds to see it and it gives black the better game, because of better development. I can't believe the gambit would be played by strong players, because any half decent opponent will see that they don't need to work their way through any difficult position where they're only technically winning. All they need to do is play 6. ...Bb4 and they're slightly better..
6...Bb4 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3 is by transposition a mainline 4 knights Scotch, which is quite equal. Black can surely do better than that.
May 11, 2022
0
#109
pfren wrote:
6...Bb4 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3 is by transposition a mainline 4 knights Scotch, which is quite equal. Black can surely do better than that.
Is there anything wrong with simply 6...Bb4 7.dxc6 Nxe4 8.Qd4 Qe7 =/+
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
pfren wrote:
6...Bb4 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3 is by transposition a mainline 4 knights Scotch, which is quite equal. Black can surely do better than that.
Is there anything wrong with simply 6...Bb4 7.dxc6 Nxe4 8.Qd4 Qe7 =/+
Where is that =/+ evaluation based?
9.Be3 is just equal, and white does not have to find any weird "only moves".
A simple line to get a slight advantage as Black is 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Bd6 8.fxe5 Bxe5.
But the 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 c6! line is a very convincing refutation of the gambit.
May 11, 2022
0
#111
pfren wrote:
Where is that =/+ evaluation based?
Chessable course. but we know how you feel about those, so I probably should have thought twice about writing it. 
" 9.Be3 is best but after 9...0-0 10.Bd3 we play 10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 with an obvious structural advantage for black"
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
pfren wrote:
Where is that =/+ evaluation based?
Chessable course. but we know how you feel about those, so I probably should have thought twice about writing it.
" 9.Be3 is best but after 9...0-0 10.Bd3 we play 10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 with an obvious structural advantage for black"
Sorry to say that I fail to spot this "obvious structural advantage" after 12.cxb7 Bxb7 13.0-0.
Both sides have 3 pawn islands, two of them being symmetrical and the third one doubled c pawns against c and d pawns. As long as the doubled pawns cannot be attacked from the c-file, this "structural advantage" is purely cosmetic, if it exists at all.
May 12, 2022
0
#114
sansuk wrote:
What's more important: finding the truth or winning?
finding the truth. 😁
technical_knockout schreef:
sansuk wrote:
What's more important: finding the truth or winning?
finding the truth. 😁
"The right standpoint is to play for pleasure". Dr. Tarrasch, Munich, January 1931
May 20, 2022
0
#117
technical_knockout wrote:
i enjoy searching for the best moves. 🙂
It’s a blunder gambit because you lose a knight
„The beauty of a move lies not in its appearance but in the thought behind it.“ — Aron Nimzowitsch
Emanuel Lasker - Arthur John Mackenzie, Simultaan, Birmingham, March 17 1908
This is like people who say Mikhail Tal was weak because he blundered a lot, by looking at his positions with Stockfish :-D