What is even the point of the Wayward Queen Attack?
Sort:
The engine evaluation is even, so it is not that bad. Just because a GM can refute an aggressive super-GM in 30+ moves with precise play does not mean it is bad for those below master. It is not a forced losing line, but perhaps being 0.2 more pawns ahead early in the opening such as in the Ruy Lopez makes it infinitely easier to convert a win, even for those below CM rating.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
The engine evaluation is even, so it is not that bad. Just because a GM can refute an aggressive super-GM in 30+ moves with precise play does not mean it is bad for those below master. It is not a forced losing line, but perhaps being 0.2 more pawns ahead early in the opening such as in the Ruy Lopez makes it infinitely easier to convert a win, even for those below CM rating.
Several inaccuracies to what you said.
First , engine evaluations on move 2 mean nothing.The engine has no "chess knowledge" or "chess understanding" to know that 2.Qh5 will eventually lead in trouble after 20 or 30 moves.The engine knows only the info that is in it's program.It calculates the moves and since it doesn't see any serious tactical dangers it calls it 0.00.Humans understand chess better than this and just know that White is going to be worst through all the game and he will have to defend a highly unpleasant position.
Second , 2.Qh5 is not aggressive , it's simply bad(politely put , some would call it stupid).
Third , +0.2 means nothing even for Super GMs.According to Nakamura the position becomes unplayable after +/-0.9.
+0.2 is not an advantage that can be converted and if you take into consideration the engine flunctuations from engine to engine , the position might actually be dead equal.
I thought that modern engine strength (e.g., the differences between say Stockfish, Komodo, and Houdini) has less to do with calculations, tactics, and opening books than it does with specific valuations to certain positional imbalances (I hope IM Silman doesn't sue me for using his term... I have bought all of your books in the last 20 years, sir!)?
But I think I know what you are saying... you just need a Carlsen to bring 2.Qh5 back to "popular respectability" as Kasparov did with the Evans Gambit, Tiviakov with the 3...Qd6 Scandinavian, and Kovacevik (and now Carlsen) with the London.
Obviously I see how it could work in bullet or against absolute beginners. However against anyone who has even a basic understanding of the game, it will not work.
What is worse is that once the attack is refuted, White is in a terrible position development wise. Black is almost always better after just the first 5 moves or so.
So why do people still play this opening, especially in rapid games is beyond me. In fact whenever someone plays this opening against me, they go down in my estimation. Its probably harsh but there it is.