Is there a classic misconception about the difficulty level of openings ?
Sort:
Jan 9, 2021
0
#3
You should be careful of sampling bias.
Who is more likely to play a double-edged opening like the Sicilian as Black?
A 1000 player who has been paired up against a 1250 player?
Or a 1250 player who has been paired down against a 1000 player?
In the same pairing situation, who is more likely to play a drawish defense instead?
Your statistics may just reflect the fact that stronger players will play the Sicilian against weaker players when they get paired down.
blueemu escreveu:
You should be careful of sampling bias.
Who is more likely to play a double-edged opening like the Sicilian as Black?
A 1000 player who has been paired up against a 1250 player?
Or a 1250 player who has been paired down against a 1000 player?
In the same pairing situation, who is more likely to play a drawish defense instead?
Your statistics may just reflect the fact that stronger players will play the Sicilian against weaker players when they get paired down.
It's possible, but the difference is too big
Strangemover escreveu:
Did you start playing 1.d4 to avoid the Sicilian yet?
Playing side lines
Jan 9, 2021
0
#7
Sidelines are worse I think. Either play the open Sicilian or avoid it altogether.
My sicilian is my lowest winning opening with just 50% winrate, but against d4 I play the feared Dutch defense. THE POWER OF THE BIRD
Jan 9, 2021
0
#9
Another problem is when you stop to look at statistics before move 5 you're including lots of different variations. Some variations go for a draw, some are mistakes, some variations are risky.
Another problem is a statistic (and even a high engine eval) doesn't mean the position plays itself. Often enough only one move wins when you have a high engine eval. Similarly when an opening is scoring very well it's usually due to one line in particular.
Here's an easy example
-
-
This move order by black is something close to a blunder at GM level... but not for beginners. This is only bad when white does something very specific from here...
-
-
And so the professional way to enter a QGD is like this (below)
-
-
But none of that will matter to a beginner. What matters is an opening that allows them to contest the center, develop easily, and have a safe king. For lower rated / inexperienced players that's the canary in the coal mine (so to speak), not statistics. That's what portends good (or bad) fortune.
In other topic, we were discussing the sicilian defense, regarding as "hard to play" for black. I was searching in databases and found out that black scores 36% wins (against 37% from white) when you include games from all levels. Between masters and above, it is a "normal" 33/26.
I found similar numbers about the grunfeld and king indian.
Meanwhile in the queen's gambit black scores 24% agains 42!!!!!
So, are the statistics telling us that some advice are not back up by reality ?
In fact, it seems like white side of the sicilian and the indian defenses is the one that needs practice and experience to be able to play it well. You need to know the lines as white, but as black you can escape often with just the ideas.