lichess.org
Donate

How to Choose your Openings

Did you write this with Chatgpt?

Did you write this with Chatgpt?

@tpr said in #9:

"I believe it's not fully refuted." * Budapest Gambit is refuted on ICCF level.

It's not. I've looked at all the critical lines with strongest engines (SF17 cloud), and the best White gets is +0.6 or so.

Eminently playable. Until last couple of years, even GMs would often say this, while changing refuted to mean things like "White can gain an advantage" and it will be true if you mean a small advantage early in the engine lines.

@tpr said in #9: > "I believe it's not fully refuted." * Budapest Gambit is refuted on ICCF level. It's not. I've looked at all the critical lines with strongest engines (SF17 cloud), and the best White gets is +0.6 or so. Eminently playable. Until last couple of years, even GMs would often say this, while changing refuted to mean things like "White can gain an advantage" and it will be true if you mean a small advantage early in the engine lines.

@fabian1999 said in #5:

(but I don't think this is a major problem below a certain level -maybe below 1800?).

Or maybe add 800 or 900 Elo? I really don't understand why when people say 'below X level', the level is off by hundreds or even thousands of Elo.

We all know what would happen if Mamedyarov played this gambit vs you (even if you knew in advance) or if you played it against a 1900.

@fabian1999 said in #5: >(but I don't think this is a major problem below a certain level -maybe below 1800?). Or maybe add 800 or 900 Elo? I really don't understand why when people say 'below X level', the level is off by hundreds or even thousands of Elo. We all know what would happen if Mamedyarov played this gambit vs you (even if you knew in advance) or if you played it against a 1900.

This is overly restrictive if taken literally and has an unfortunate tendency to make the student pick from a very narrow set-up of positions. Gambits and active open play is the most important thing for developing players to learn and your guidelines systematically exclude most of them. Especially the advice to avoid concrete play or non-standard structures or position types will just lead to players who temporarily perform really well because they just played the same openings a lot, but in long run will face struggles.

I fully agree with the commenter who mentioned Ramesh's opinion about active, unusual openings. I'll also Nakamura recommended very strongly to just keep playing gambits till you're 2000 FIDE (and can I note, when people mention these rating thresholds for anything they are almost always set way too low).

Also, chess in particular isn't learnt in a didactic way. If you really think gambits or active openings are bad and want that advice to stick, you should tell your students to play them to learn the hard way what the issue is with them.

This is overly restrictive if taken literally and has an unfortunate tendency to make the student pick from a very narrow set-up of positions. Gambits and active open play is the most important thing for developing players to learn and your guidelines systematically exclude most of them. Especially the advice to avoid concrete play or non-standard structures or position types will just lead to players who temporarily perform really well because they just played the same openings a lot, but in long run will face struggles. I fully agree with the commenter who mentioned Ramesh's opinion about active, unusual openings. I'll also Nakamura recommended very strongly to just keep playing gambits till you're 2000 FIDE (and can I note, when people mention these rating thresholds for anything they are almost always set way too low). Also, chess in particular isn't learnt in a didactic way. If you really think gambits or active openings are bad and want that advice to stick, you should tell your students to play them to learn the hard way what the issue is with them.

"make the student pick from a very narrow set-up of positions" * The set of sound positions is sufficiently large.

"Gambits and active open play is the most important thing for developing players to learn" * Most gambits are bad. They are good at beating weaker players, which you should beat anyway, and bad at facing stronger players who can defend and then convert their material advantage.

"players who temporarily perform really well because they just played the same openings a lot, but in long run will face struggles" * Gambit players will perform really well especially against weaker players, but in the long run will face struggles. Students who started with a sound opening like the Ruy Lopez will profit from the experience their whole career.

"Nakamura recommended very strongly to just keep playing gambits till you're 2000 FIDE" * And then the trouble begins.

"chess in particular isn't learnt in a didactic way" * It should. Endgames first, then middle games, last of all openings.

"If you really think gambits or active openings are bad and want that advice to stick, you should tell your students to play them to learn the hard way what the issue is with them." * Problem is they will perform well at first and then get into trouble.

"make the student pick from a very narrow set-up of positions" * The set of sound positions is sufficiently large. "Gambits and active open play is the most important thing for developing players to learn" * Most gambits are bad. They are good at beating weaker players, which you should beat anyway, and bad at facing stronger players who can defend and then convert their material advantage. "players who temporarily perform really well because they just played the same openings a lot, but in long run will face struggles" * Gambit players will perform really well especially against weaker players, but in the long run will face struggles. Students who started with a sound opening like the Ruy Lopez will profit from the experience their whole career. "Nakamura recommended very strongly to just keep playing gambits till you're 2000 FIDE" * And then the trouble begins. "chess in particular isn't learnt in a didactic way" * It should. Endgames first, then middle games, last of all openings. "If you really think gambits or active openings are bad and want that advice to stick, you should tell your students to play them to learn the hard way what the issue is with them." * Problem is they will perform well at first and then get into trouble.

I have found an ICCF game where black holds the draw

https://lichess.org/nAibNocW#4

I have found an ICCF game where black holds the draw https://lichess.org/nAibNocW#4

@tpr said in #15:

"make the student pick from a very narrow set-up of positions" * The set of sound positions is sufficiently large.

"Gambits and active open play is the most important thing for developing players to learn" * Most gambits are bad. They are good at beating weaker players, which you should beat anyway, and bad at facing stronger players who can defend and then convert their material advantage.

"players who temporarily perform really well because they just played the same openings a lot, but in long run will face struggles" * Gambit players will perform really well especially against weaker players, but in the long run will face struggles. Students who started with a sound opening like the Ruy Lopez will profit from the experience their whole career.

"Nakamura recommended very strongly to just keep playing gambits till you're 2000 FIDE" * And then the trouble begins.

"chess in particular isn't learnt in a didactic way" * It should. Endgames first, then middle games, last of all openings.

"If you really think gambits or active openings are bad and want that advice to stick, you should tell your students to play them to learn the hard way what the issue is with them." * Problem is they will perform well at first and then get into trouble.

  1. Most gambits are bad: That's debatable, depending on what you count as a gambit. 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 is definitely bad. In general material is good, so most moves giving it away won't be good. But most of the gambits that are actually popular are popular because they work reasonably well.

The ones that are actually refuted are just not played often, but stuff like Morra Gambit, Budapest, King's Gambit, Dubov Gambit, Danish, Goring, Scotch, Max Lange, Greco, Vienna Gambits are all fine and nobody will believe you if say they are not because all that's needed to verify this is a subscription on Chessify and anyone can access top engines with top-class hardware.

  1. That's just random speculation based on very little. Nakamura himself has lots of gambit experience from his time as a kid and he's hyper-effective with gambits when he plays them. There's just no evidence at all that playing any of the reasonable gambits will result in long-term problems.

There's really no basis for what you're saying other than your opinion.

@tpr said in #15: > "make the student pick from a very narrow set-up of positions" * The set of sound positions is sufficiently large. > > "Gambits and active open play is the most important thing for developing players to learn" * Most gambits are bad. They are good at beating weaker players, which you should beat anyway, and bad at facing stronger players who can defend and then convert their material advantage. > > "players who temporarily perform really well because they just played the same openings a lot, but in long run will face struggles" * Gambit players will perform really well especially against weaker players, but in the long run will face struggles. Students who started with a sound opening like the Ruy Lopez will profit from the experience their whole career. > > "Nakamura recommended very strongly to just keep playing gambits till you're 2000 FIDE" * And then the trouble begins. > > "chess in particular isn't learnt in a didactic way" * It should. Endgames first, then middle games, last of all openings. > > "If you really think gambits or active openings are bad and want that advice to stick, you should tell your students to play them to learn the hard way what the issue is with them." * Problem is they will perform well at first and then get into trouble. 1. Most gambits are bad: That's debatable, depending on what you count as a gambit. 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 is definitely bad. In general material is good, so most moves giving it away won't be good. But most of the gambits that are actually popular are popular because they work reasonably well. The ones that are actually refuted are just not played often, but stuff like Morra Gambit, Budapest, King's Gambit, Dubov Gambit, Danish, Goring, Scotch, Max Lange, Greco, Vienna Gambits are all fine and nobody will believe you if say they are not because all that's needed to verify this is a subscription on Chessify and anyone can access top engines with top-class hardware. 2. That's just random speculation based on very little. Nakamura himself has lots of gambit experience from his time as a kid and he's hyper-effective with gambits when he plays them. There's just no evidence at all that playing any of the reasonable gambits will result in long-term problems. There's really no basis for what you're saying other than your opinion.

@tpr said in #16:

I have found an ICCF game where black holds the draw

This line is the absolute engine mainline of the Budapest. The Alekhine variation followed by 7.Qg4 is the engine's absolute top preference against the Budapest.

@tpr said in #16: > I have found an ICCF game where black holds the draw This line is the absolute engine mainline of the Budapest. The Alekhine variation followed by 7.Qg4 is the engine's absolute top preference against the Budapest.

#18
"This line is the absolute engine mainline of the Budapest."

  • I found another ICCF game where black holds the draw
    https://lichess.org/pdJwOEEm#7
#18 "This line is the absolute engine mainline of the Budapest." * I found another ICCF game where black holds the draw https://lichess.org/pdJwOEEm#7

#17
"most of the gambits that are actually popular are popular because they work reasonably well" * They are fun and work well on lower levels and/or on faster time controls.

"stuff like Morra Gambit, Budapest, King's Gambit, Dubov Gambit, Danish, Goring, Scotch, Max Lange, Greco, Vienna Gambits are all fine" * They are not and that is the reason they see no play in classical games at top level.

"Nakamura himself has lots of gambit experience" * In classical time control? Against strong opponents?

#17 "most of the gambits that are actually popular are popular because they work reasonably well" * They are fun and work well on lower levels and/or on faster time controls. "stuff like Morra Gambit, Budapest, King's Gambit, Dubov Gambit, Danish, Goring, Scotch, Max Lange, Greco, Vienna Gambits are all fine" * They are not and that is the reason they see no play in classical games at top level. "Nakamura himself has lots of gambit experience" * In classical time control? Against strong opponents?