bobby_max wrote:
Was there a question somewhere in there?
Yeah, within the TL;DR, but I'm gonna reiterate it at the end of the original post as well, for maximum clarity. xD
Doom-analysing
Sort:
Dec 25, 2023
0
#3
Shaikidow wrote:
... or when you play 1. Nc3 and you keep having subpar Jobava/Veresov results so you wanna switch over to 2. e4 after 1... d5, it's not that easy to find resources for that....
... but Black can throw a shadow on the entire 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 line just by taking it, and then playing it like a Caro-Kann except that he gets to save a whole move by playing c7-c5 in a single move (without stopping for c7-c6).
Computer evaluations in the opening? I don't take them seriously. Your only important task in the opening is to reach an early-middle-game position in which you feel comfortable and confident. That's it.
Understanding the opening you play is a far bigger advantage that the computer's +/- 0.2
blueemu wrote:
Computer evaluations in the opening? I don't take them seriously. Your only important task in the opening is to reach an early-middle-game position in which you feel comfortable and confident. That's it.
Understanding the opening you play is a far bigger advantage that the computer's +/- 0.2
I generally very much agree with you, but since you gave me a concrete example to work with:
1) I don't mind Black playing 2... dxe4 at all! Sure, it's the "prescribed" equaliser by the analogy with the Caro-Kann, but it's equal at worst for White, and I wholeheartedly welcome that.
2) The real test is 2... d4!, and after 3. Nce2 e5, White usually aims to play something like Ng3, Bc4, d3, Nf3 or N1e2, O-O, and some of the usual breaks in the ensuing positions are f4 and c3 (the latter of which can sometimes be played as early as move 4 or 5). The problem is, Black can play ...Be6 to stop Bc4, or 4... Bd6 after 4. Nf3 to maintain his ability to erect a massive c5-d4-e5 centre, and if White decides to fianchetto his light-squared Bishop, then he can even throw ...f6 in to great effect. The evaluation in most of these positions is somewhere between -0.5 and -1.0 (according to Stockfish 16 depth 25), so it's not as innocuous as a 0.2 difference.
3) After 2... Nf6, 3. e5! is even better, and after 3... d4 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg7 cxd2+ 6. Bxd2 Bxg7, there is some early dankery with Qf3 and what not. It's Jonny Hector's preferred way of dealing with the Scandinavian Variation of the Alekhine's Defence, and its theoretical status should be very good to this very day... but that's kinda beside the point, being that the real "acid test" arises a move earlier.
Dec 25, 2023
0
#5
To 2. ... d4 3. Nce2 e5 I wouldn't play Ng3... I would just fianchetto (4. g3 and 5. Bg2) and Play it like a reversed KID where Black has already committed to a Mar-del-Plata type formation, a move down.
blueemu wrote:
To 2. ... d4 3. Nce2 e5 I wouldn't play Ng3... I would just fianchetto (4. g3 and 5. Bg2) and Play it like a reversed KID where Black has already committed to a Mar-del-Plata type formation, a move down.
Hey, that's pretty much the dream (I love the King's Indian!), except the aforementioned c5-d4-e5-f6-g7 pawn chain is still a thing, and Black can also play the very stifling ...g5 afterwards to great effect... and that wouldn't be such a troubling option if Black was obligated to castle short, which he isn't, considering that the centre gets closed very early on in the Dunst/Van Geet with 2. d4. And yes, since it's analogous to the KID for Black, the numbers the engine shows are especially disheartening if you don't have a clear plan of action.
I just found a book "Knight on the Left: 1. Nc3" by Harald Keilhack, it should be of some help.
TL;DR it's like doomscrolling, but for chess analysis. How do you deal with that, and how do you suggest I should deal with that?
Lately I've been having this problem where I keep analysing some of the opening lines I play and the computer just keeps mercilessly discrediting them. xD Since I don't intend on actually playing engines or any expert and above players who are prepped to the teeth, I don't think I should take those evaluations too seriously (and there are also many KID lines which are playable but intensely hated by the engines and such), but after a while, I get lost as to what the ideas are in my openings of interest.
It's also not that I'm just randomly selecting openings and moves, it's that I'm mostly playing for transpo and certain positional motifs. For example, there are many books and courses available for any given main line, but when you play something like the White Lion and you try to achieve it from 1. d3 or maybe 1. c3, or when you play 1. Nc3 and you keep having subpar Jobava/Veresov results so you wanna switch over to 2. e4 after 1... d5, it's not that easy to find resources for that... and you need resources because engines don't explain stuff.
Not to mention that I might get shown perfectly playable lines and not know how to play them. I don't mind playing some (according to today's engine standards) suboptimal lines as long as I know them really well, but I have to assume that my opponent will play exact lines, and yet I'm trying to avoid memorisation of my own responses as much as I can. For context, I'm a rapid-only player, rated around 2000 on Lichess, and I use the default Stockfish 16 with depth 25 there to check my games. I don't know what to do, I've been going over lines and getting discouraged by every single one of them for a couple of days now.
I guess my question is: at what point should I be using engine evaluation in order to learn an opening? I'm guessing I just have to look harder in order to find books on the less popular openings I wanna play?