|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 200 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-29-07 | | Skylark: <While you were away> I'm always away, I live in Australia and my timezone is nearly the opposite of yours. :( <"Ad Hominem's Home, a place where disgruntled chess players could hurl insults at each other and argue over important issues as to whether e4 is better than d4, or vice versa."> I don't know whether to laugh or frown, so I'm doing both at once. Yeah. Picture that. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Artar1: <Skylark: Also why is the Reti even being discussed; like you're going to get 1000 odd people to change from e4 and d4 to Nf3 in a matter of days?> How could I have missed this one? With 1000 <odd> people, anything is possible! |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Artar1: <Skylark: <While you were away> I'm always away, I live in Australia and my timezone is nearly the opposite of yours. :(> A friend of my is moving to Australia to live. She's young and cute. So don't be too glum. |
|
Jul-29-07
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Skylark: This is precisely what can be said about misleading statistics. We will probably have the advantage over his previous opponents who played the Ruy against him in that we will not make mistakes of the kind that are present in his games.> Well, the main 1.e4 argument lately has been that while KID gives us better winning chances, we're not strong enough to avoid mistakes in it and it thus also gives us higher losing chances. If we're as strong as you suggest, the losing chances are minimal anyway, so there's not much point in not going for the superior winning chances provided by 1.d4. Of course, you can go on supporting 1.e4 by disagreeing with everything your fellow e4-fans have said during last fifty pages (which would, indeed, be a sensible move - they've done nothing good for the 1.e4 cause). |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Artar1: Awesome!
We hit 200 pages and we haven't even moved yet! Let's make it 300 before August 1! |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Skylark: <Artar1: A friend of my is moving to Australia to live. She's young and cute. So don't be too glum.> Does she need a place to stay? ;) Also, 200 pages, woot. That's gotta constitute some kind of record. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: Some people has posted statistics since the beginning of the discussion..OK here is my contribution in that area:
click for larger view
In Ruy Lopez 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5: In a database containing more then 4.8 million games. Of those there is* 4862 *games where one of the players has 2700 elo at least, including engines. Total winning % for white is 58% and for black 42%..Proving that Ruy Lopez is a very potent and good opening for white. 
click for larger view
Kings Indian 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6: Total games where at least one player has 2700 including engines is 1051 games . White has a winning % of 57% and black 43% winning %. Since there is a lot less Kid games at this level 2700 and up, some conslusions can be drawed. 1. Top players/ engines included prefer Ruy Lopez .. 2. The numbers of Kid games is not as much worth, using as statistic because a lot less games is played as is the case of Ruy Lopez. 3 There is more games/ theory in Ruy Lopez which can make it easier for us to not mess up in the opening. 4 Ruy Lopez score slightly better playing white at 2700 level and up engines included. My vote still stands on e4. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Artar1: <Hugin>:
Where did you buy your database? Can you send me the Internet address? Thanks! |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | whiteshark: Chess is indeed a difficult game and explanations like these one
make it even more so. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Skylark: <Hugin>: of course, there are issues associated with such a broad search (for example, what about KID games that begin <1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 d6 5. e4 O-O> ? That and the fact that the statistics on the Ruy Lopez probably factor the Open variation into the equation, although I don't know how often GMT plays this as black but I'm assuming that he doesn't. For all we know, he could play the Schliemann (he has before) and we could smash him off the board in a blaze of tactics. Or alternatively, we could play the classical KID and end up pushing him off the board with a central pawn roller, and nullifying his kingside expansion. No one knows what course the game will take so just pick a damn move. lol. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: Artar1: <Hugin>:
Where did you buy your database? Can you send me the Internet address? Thanks! <Hi my friend! my databases is based on old dvd's and lots of download on the net including chessbase and the statistic is done by chessbase 8. I forgot to mention the draws, but even those counted in Ruy Lopez scores better.
The correct numbers are then for Ruy Lopez Wins 38%.. draws 40%.. black wins 22%..... KID white wins 39%.. draws 36%.. and black wins 25%. Sorry about that, i just gave the total numbers in the first posting.> |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Hugin: 1. Top players/ engines included prefer Ruy Lopez to KID> Yes, it's a funny thing, isn't it. White can't choose to play Ruy Lopez or KID - KID in particular is a Black system. "Top players/engines prefer Ruy Lopez" means the same than "Top Black players haven't found KID a system worth playing." If KID isn't a system worth playing, shouldn't we be delighted to get an opportunity to counter it? |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | azaris: There are again some accounts in the roster created in the past few days, never kibitzed, apparently only to vote in this game. At the same time the situation with the two leading candidates has changed dramatically. Let's have some vote checking, please. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: Skylark: <Hugin>: of course, there are issues associated with such a broad search (for example, what about KID games that begin <1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 d6 5. e4 O-O> ? That and the fact that the statistics on the Ruy Lopez probably factor the Open variation into the equation, although I don't know how often GMT plays this as black but I'm assuming that he doesn't. For all we know, he could play the Schliemann (he has before) and we could smash him off the board in a blaze of tactics. Or alternatively, we could play the classical KID and end up pushing him off the board with a central pawn roller, and nullifying his kingside expansion. No one knows what course the game will take so just pick a damn move. lol. <Well as pointed out before statistic can be used in many ways and they are not telling how the next game are going to be.> |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: SwitchingQuylthulg: <Hugin: 1. Top players/ engines included prefer Ruy Lopez to KID> Yes, it's a funny thing, isn't it. White can't choose to play Ruy Lopez or KID - KID in particular is a Black system. "Top players/engines prefer Ruy Lopez" means the same than "Top Black players haven't found KID a system worth playing." If KID isn't a system worth playing, shouldn't we be delighted to get an opportunity to counter it? <You'r saying Timmerman is not prepared for this match, not gone through necessary data and taking all into consideration, facing a bunch of player performing at at least at 2700 level the last 2 games using engines etc?.How about him using engines as well and updated opening book and databases you expect no change in his play??.> |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: I expect we gonna face a top motivate former world champ that have one intention..Winning!! Be prepared fellow team members we have seen nothing yet, compared to this tremendous opponent. And he has problably not seen anything compared to us.:) |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | themadhair: <The Chess Express> Despite being a 1.e4 voter I have to point some things out to you.
<AgentRgent> is correct on the Reti and 1.Nf3 openings. In fact I am not sure what point you are trying to argue here. <AgentRgent> was also quite correct on Prizant and again I struggle to understand what point you were trying to raise here.
The 1.d4 statistics do not stink nor are they completely irrelevant. Rather than simply dismiss something that potentially is in disagreement with you why don’t you explain why they should be dismissed. You have thrown nothing but chaff in the posts I have read so far. I remember benoni sniping and I don’t want to see such debating practises being used again in this game as it hurts our team collectively and stifles the rational thoughtful discourse we need. Just because I want the same thing as you is no excuse to ignore such behaviour. <Our key strength lies in our tactical ability>
After our last two games I no longer think this is true. I think our strength is a weird mixture of subtly accumulating positional advantages in a position always a few moves away from lots of tactical potential. I think the second part of that is important - <a position always a few moves away from lots of tactical potential>. This would be my main worry with KID as it is such a theoretically driven closed opening, although I still think we have both the collective wisdom, and the organisation to properly disseminate that wisdom, as well as the raw chess calculating ability to pull it off. I just happen to think that Ruy is better suited to our strengths and hold that our extra potential strength in the Ruy is worth more that GMT’s potential weakness in the KID. Let us sum up the world so far – Nickel played an offbeat line to experiment and Shulman wasn’t a CC player (plus he had major commitments during the game). GMT is a much much different prospect. He will probe us like never before. I would consider a draw to be a good result – but I don’t want a draw. I want to see the world cooperating and analysing like never before to give GMT the toughest game of his life. I don’t care whether you vote e4 or d4 – but please don’t post rubbish in support of your view. We should start as we mean to go on – with clear concise dialogue founded on the highest standards of logical thinking and collaborative practice. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: whiteshark: Chess is indeed a difficult game and explanations like these one make it even more so.< I agree statistic has limited values as pointed out by several earlier me included. > |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <You'r saying Timmerman is not prepared for this match, not gone through necessary data and taking all into consideration, facing a bunch of player performing at at least at 2700 level the last 2 games using engines etc?.How about him using engines as well and updated opening book and databases you expect no change in his play??.> I'm saying no such thing. In fact, I guess he's prepared for this match better than we have, given that we've spent more time arguing than preparing. What I am saying that we can't prepare against Timmerman by studying Topa or Radjabov, let alone good old Max Euwe. You're trying to influence our opening move by the opinions of OTB players but the only way we can prepare against Timmerman is by studying Timmerman. We can learn general ideas of playing KID by studying OTB players, perhaps, but the statistics of Radjabov, let alone Euwe, shouldn't influence our decision of what to play against Timmerman. Ruy Lopez is no better in general than KID is, or vice versa - both should be drawn with best play. All we can do is identify the main weakness of our opponent (Timmerman, not Radjabov or Euwe) and seek a position where he might go wrong. You say yourself he's well prepared, will take this game seriously and is going to put in a lot of computer power. And yet you seem to think all we have to do is create a tactical mess out of the Ruy and the game is ours. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Skylark: <Artar1: <Skylark>: Don't change your pants yet. The angel argument is due to start in about an hour.> I'm finding this comment funnier by the second. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | djmercury: <2. The numbers of Kid games is not as much worth, using as statistic because a lot less games is played as is the case of Ruy Lopez.> So why are you making comparisons between the two, if you are basically saying that is not possible. The pattern of the voting is getting really suspicious. Hope no one has opened new accounts to fake the vote, because every time d4 has caught a decent sized advantage in just a couple of hours there was a splash of e4 votes coming up to make the thing again equal. |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <The pattern of the voting is getting really suspicious. Hope no one has opened new accounts to fake the vote, because every time d4 has caught a decent sized advantage in just a couple of hours there was a splash of e4 votes coming up to make the thing again equal.> The weirdest of all thing is that e4 has never got a decent sized advantage, which could be expected if the moves were indeed equally voted... of course, "expected" isn't the same as "would surely happen" and it might well be that we're just making baseless accusations simply because some users act like they're ready to do anything to get 1.e4 picked. (I'm surprised a certain one of them hasn't started the angel argument yet.) |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: A possible explanation for the voting pattern is that all Americans are voting for 1.e4. (It appears that most of those "splashes" occur when I, an European, am sleeping.) First Europeans vote for 1.d4, and then Americans make things equal again by voting 1.e4. Asians, Africans and Australians take a relaxed approach. Have Fischer's opinions caused 1.e4 to be a greatly preferred move in the US? |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | ganstaman: <Hugin: In Ruy Lopez 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5: In a database containing more then 4.8 million games. Of those there is* 4862 *games where one of the players has 2700 elo at least, including engines. Total winning % for white is 58% and for black 42%..Proving that Ruy Lopez is a very potent and good opening for white. Kings Indian 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6: Total games where at least one player has 2700 including engines is 1051 games . White has a winning % of 57% and black 43% winning %. Since there is a lot less Kid games at this level 2700 and up, some conslusions can be drawed. 1. Top players/ engines included prefer Ruy Lopez ..> It takes 2 sides to choose an opening. You could say that since the Ruy occurs more, black finds it to be a more solid defense. In fact, you've done nothing to explain the difference in the number of games, so I don't see how you can conclude anything from it. <2. The numbers of Kid games is not as much worth, using as statistic because a lot less games is played as is the case of Ruy Lopez.> 1051 games looks like enough to me. If it it's worthless, though, why continue with your post? <3 There is more games/ theory in Ruy Lopez which can make it easier for us to not mess up in the opening.> We will not mess up in the opening. Theory in both is advanced enough where we know exactly what we're doing. What sort of mistakes do you expect us to make, anyway? <4 Ruy Lopez score slightly better playing white at 2700 level and up engines included. My vote still stands on e4.> I think the percentages you showed are rather insignificant. Didn't <Artar1> show a bigger difference in a CC opening database, with white doing better vs. the KID? Overall, I think you said you were trying to show the uselessness of stats(?). I think what you did show is how stats can be useless if used incorrectly. This does not invalidate the stats that we do interpret properly. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | patzer2: The games in our datbase that Timmerman has played against 1. e4 and 1. d4 are at
the links below:
Against 1. e4 he has played 1...e5 with the Ruy Lopez
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...,
the Vienna http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...,
and the Two Knights http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...
being his weapons of choice.
Against 1. d4 he has played mostly the King's Indian http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...
but also occasionally a Dutch Defense http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches.... The conclusion of most 1. d4 supporters is that Timmerman is stronger against 1. e4 and weaker against 1. d4, and that the most likely opening against 1. e4 is a Ruy Lopez and the most likely opening against 1. d4 is a King's Indian Defense. However, I would encourage new voters to keep an open mind, review the games, and determine for yourself where you think Timmerman is weaker or stronger and vote accordingly. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 200 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 