lol
Blunder, but still theory?!
Sort:
this is 75% draw 25% black win lol
Jan 22, 2021
0
#4
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
Jan 22, 2021
0
#5
Thats intriguing xd, who is yates and what the hell was that guy thinking playing this variation and popilarizing it 🤣
Jan 22, 2021
0
#6
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
-4, its just a piece blunder, I am sure, I am not crazy!
Jan 22, 2021
0
#7
ChessLebaneseSalah wrote:
Thats intriguing xd, who is yates and what the hell was that guy thinking playing this variation and popilarizing it 🤣
I was a bit in a hurry and not able to focus on that game coz I got some calls so I missed Nd4. But surely that wont happen with me in a normal game, also I didn't even take time on that move thinking that its just the opening phase lol.
Jan 22, 2021
0
#8
rishabh11great wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
-4, its just a piece blunder, I am sure, I am not crazy!
Yes you are correct. But when the game is in the early stages , and the computer sees a move that's in its opening database , it straightaway marks it as a book move. It's not going to see the entire board and evaluate the position. That's why .
nO iT iS jUsT aS oP aS tHe BoNgClOuD,mAyBe MoRe Op
Jan 22, 2021
0
#10
Yh lol, I just want to meet yates to ask him why he liked this variation
Jan 22, 2021
0
#11
tacticspotter wrote:
nO iT iS jUsT aS oP aS tHe BoNgClOuD,mAyBe MoRe Op
Bongcloud is OP, but this is trash so don't ruin the name of Bongcloud, please!
Anonymous_Dragon 写道:
rishabh11great wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
-4, its just a piece blunder, I am sure, I am not crazy!
Yes you are correct. But when the game is in the early stages , and the computer sees a move that's in its opening database , it straightaway marks it as a book move. It's not going to see the entire board and evaluate the position. That's why .
no but the fact that this variantion only exist with Nc3 is the weird part,if it is a book move that computer did not analyse,how would it have a official name?
Jan 22, 2021
0
#13
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
rishabh11great wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
-4, its just a piece blunder, I am sure, I am not crazy!
Yes you are correct. But when the game is in the early stages , and the computer sees a move that's in its opening database , it straightaway marks it as a book move. It's not going to see the entire board and evaluate the position. That's why .
You don't know anything about the computer probably, THEORY is not a move that exists in database! Theory is something which is written in books and is well recognised as "theory".
Jan 22, 2021
0
#14
tacticspotter wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon 写道:
rishabh11great wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
-4, its just a piece blunder, I am sure, I am not crazy!
Yes you are correct. But when the game is in the early stages , and the computer sees a move that's in its opening database , it straightaway marks it as a book move. It's not going to see the entire board and evaluate the position. That's why .
no but the fact that this variantion only exist with Nc3 is the weird part,if it is a book move that computer did not analyse,how would it have a official name?
Having a name has nothing to do with evaluation. The move could have been stored in the database with that name
Jan 22, 2021
0
#15
Got it, the computer doesn't say a "move" as theory but instead a "position". Like for example if you put the following position an engine, it will say it theory!
Anonymous_Dragon 写道:
tacticspotter wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon 写道:
rishabh11great wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Maybe there is something or some line by which your opponent can regain Material. Besides the computer always marks book moves as book moves even if they are blunders cause they aren't evaluating the position at that point
-4, its just a piece blunder, I am sure, I am not crazy!
Yes you are correct. But when the game is in the early stages , and the computer sees a move that's in its opening database , it straightaway marks it as a book move. It's not going to see the entire board and evaluate the position. That's why .
no but the fact that this variantion only exist with Nc3 is the weird part,if it is a book move that computer did not analyse,how would it have a official name?
Having a name has nothing to do with evaluation. The move could have been stored in the database with that name
No see,if it have the book name mean it is actually analysed and stored in the chess books,and if it is studied,it wouldn’t be computer analysis which means that people actually study blunder and put it in a book
rishabh11great 写道:
Got it, the computer doesn't say a "move" as theory but instead a "position". Like for example if you put the following position an engine, it will say it theory!
yeah but which other opening actually sacs a knight...
Jan 22, 2021
0
#19
Rubinstein_Akiba wrote:
I think this is a malfunction
Hi, as you are a FM, have you heard about the "Yates variation in the Sicillian". If yes, can you please let me know, thanks 
Jan 22, 2021
0
#20
tacticspotter wrote:
rishabh11great 写道:
Got it, the computer doesn't say a "move" as theory but instead a "position". Like for example if you put the following position an engine, it will say it theory!
yeah but which other opening actually sacs a knight...
Yeah but why the heck do I see several games in the database where Bd3 is played?!
The link of the game.
It was 10+0 rapid game, where my opponent blundered a entire knight on Move 6! Sadly, I had got some calls and DMs and so I was in hurry and missed Nxd4
But that's not the point, why does the computer say that Nc3 is still "theory". Also the name of the opening is "Sicillian Defense: Yates Variation" I mean, how can a blunder be called theory and how does it even have a name? And I am sure that there is no such theory, lol. Please help!