<Hugin: < YouRang Yes, of course GMARK made a mistake. But when do we ever win by <forcing our opponent into a lost position>?>

of course, you cannot "force" an opponent to make a mistake you can only "tempt" him to do so. On the same time you need to make sure that if tempting him fails the effort from your side will not backfire badly.

I would agree that the opening is the weakest part of our game, and perhaps it's an inherent weakness of team voting. On the other hand, the team has enjoyed some success, and success tends to inhibit behavioral changes.

It's not clear to me where it becomes best to depart from 'famous' openings. I expect that the team will always resist openings that engines dislike.

I don't think it is the deep engine analysis per se which affords an advantage but the multiplier on the world's side. Meaning the world can have the engines run on sidelines which are not the engines first choice simultaneously (some dispatch and organization provided) in contrast to the opponent who in the worst case must run them one after the other and thus not utilizing his time for the game to the best.

In openings the engines rely on their "book" and the hope to improve on those is a bit "blasphemous" when I recall the discussions in this game and some guy offering 40+ moves to prove his proposal on on move 4.

Yes we are reasonable well prepared from contributions of opening surveys, annotated games and other historical records to play successfully at GM level without a formal preparation.

Our shortcomings as I see them stems from accepting proposals without providing the actual positions which are favorable for us to aim for.

We are getting influenced from strong opinion makers to follow X,Y,Z as in this game where from the outset we were led to belief that ECO C67 favors white with good chances to refute the Richter Queen exchange line.

We also have players of heavy weight status trying to convince us that there exists the impossibility to forge out a win and thus a draw is an acceptable outcome and a win is the result of luck due to an oversight of once opponent.

I happen to belief that a game strategy can be devised to overcome the opponents strong suites is still applicable in this age of engine monsters.

I don't think it is the deep engine analysis per se which affords an advantage but the multiplier on the world's side. Meaning the world can have the engines run on sidelines which are not the engines first choice simultaneously (some dispatch and organization provided) in contrast to the opponent who in the worst case must run them one after the other and thus not utilizing his time for the game to the best.>

Yes, this is actually what I meant. Perhaps it's a misnomer, but I think of 'deep engine analysis' as being more than just letting engines run to high ply counts.

To me, it's the sort of stuff we place in the AT. Using our numerical superiority, we have several people gradually sliding from one position to the next, making an account of all the viable moves at each node, exploring each one, and so on.

Of course, we must report in the main forum any exceptional cases that are encountered (promising continuations or continuations to avoid). Our best analysts will also contribute human analysis to help steer the engines.

So, I would recommend an opening that has either has a very small "book" behind it or an extremly "large" one. And avoid openings that are topical in present GM practice. Enterprising, gambit-style games would be my choice. No guts, no glory.>

But such recommendations are reflective of players with park benches or coffee house mentality and definitely not suitable for our type of game style.

Any GM repertoire extents into endgame bases which they practice to solve in OTB encounters.

Confrontations between them are from preparations comprised from there expectations to see novelties prepared specifically for them.

Therefor they may attempt to deviate from the expected main lines leading into hopefully less analyzed or unfamiliar positions or difficult to solve correctly under time constraints.

Your expressed opinion about extreme long lines posted to indicate the contributor's suggested direction is contrary to my view. Even when we can expect that such lines will never see the light of day, they are very important for gaining position familiarity and the idea behind the suggested move order provoking or stimulate alternate views.

I think that lines posted from any individual with the purpose to give us direction as they see it is of great importance to enhance our combined playing strength.

The <LiveBook> is cloud opening book that everyone can access or contribute to. It is one of the technologies ChessBase has introduced in the last years. (Accessible via ChessBase or Fritz interface. Most recent versions are ChessBase 13 and Fritz 14).

It’s an age-old question: is chess truly just a game of skill, or is there luck involved too? Of course, this particularly applies to over-the-board chess.

It's not just coffee-house mentality. I'd take that as implying playing with the expectation that the opponent will fall into obvious traps. I do not think that there exists any way to win at Chess except by the opponent's mistakes. What makes top-level play is the ability to exploit mistakes that are not so obvious, and the ability to steer a game into lines giving the opponent the greatest opportunity to make such mistakes.

The critical position occurred after 24.axb4

click for larger view

Arkadij Naiditsch: "Congrats to the World Team for the nice clear win using my huge mistake 24...c6?"

The LiveBook shows the moves, the date, the evaluation (based on the computer analyses recorded) and the number of visits:

24...c6 October 2014, White has much better chances ( ), 81 visit

24...Rd4 August 2014, Even position (=), 37 visits.

Interestingly, after 23.Bxb4, in August 2014, besides 23...Nxb4 (97 visits), the best move 23...a5 was also considered (16 visits).

Yes it was an important junction where black had equalized if not ahead in development. Our center pawns under threat facing a potential K-side attack for which his pieces were better placed then our defenders.

The pro and con for the move a3 is best reflected with our arguments:

<john barleycorn: e)13.Ba4 - a move as meatless as 12.a3 we may set a new trend by playing it.>

<kwid: It may be helpful to speculate what his plans are. And or play moves with the anticipation of his reply according to his style of play.>

< zsoydd: . I was disappointed that we chose the aimless 12.a3. So it seems that indifferent, i.e. not too obligating moves like 12.a3 provoke 'weak' answers.>

<YouRang: john barleycorn: I am surprised that the "most principled" response to 12.a3 namely 12...d5 is not in focus. Maybe because I have suggested it earlier?!>

<Magusnet: white pieces are disordered, a3 was a waste of time>

<condition: GM ARK will be puzzled by 12.a3 I mean really its either a nothing move, revealing that white doesn't know what to do, or its deeply analysed. In a sense I feel we may confuse him, as to be honest it really is a nothing move ( although not completely as it setups b4 and potentially blocks Ba5 etc)>

<2knights: 12.a3 seems to me the least attractive of the candidates. In pure chess terms, what does it achieve? It is slow. It makes no threats. It doesn't develop a piece, improve a piece or break a pin.>

<YouRang: I decided to vote <12.a3>. I didn't see any great difference between the move choices in my own analysis, but there is some merit to the idea that 12.a3 probably not what GMARK is expecting. Make him work>

I will happy to resolve this age-old question once and for all. ;-)

There is both skill and luck involved. The greater the difference in skill between the two players, the less likely that luck will affect the outcome.

However, luck will always have at least some potential for deciding the outcome as long our ability to analyze has a "horizon effect".

The horizon means that the path you choose *might* lead you over cliff and you won't see the cliff until it's too late -- no credit to your opponent. Or, it might lead your opponent over the cliff, no credit to you. The difference is luck.

Truly just a game of skill!

There is no luck involved in chess whatsoever!

There's no roll of the dice!

There's no turn of a card!

Both sides start off exactly equal!

Nothing is hidden!

It's all there on the board!

First:By the method kwid descrriped being better prepared then our opponent...>

No sir. First of all, I am quite certain you are better at chess than I am. But I am also quite certain that my former chess coach, Greg Kaidanov, is a better player than you.

In more than one lesson Greg told me "Chess is a fair game. If you don't make a mistake you should not lose."

So you can be better prepared for the opening than your opponent. I think many players are better prepared for the opening than Carlsen. Anand is one of them!

But better preparation alone is not good enough - your opponent must make a mistake.

So GMARK made a mistake. Eventually. That is why the world won. The world could have played the best opening line that is theoretically possible.