The Italian game: Why do you play it? Why do you love it?

@tpr said ^

"I switched to Evan's Gambit"

• Evans Gambit is harmless now

In practice it does well.

You are obsessed with correspondence games which is basically cheating (allowing databases & no way to determine if people use engines).

It's like saying a professional fighter is 'harmless' because look at his equally professional opponent who slipped all his punches.

@najdorfplayer48 said ^

"why did it became harmless"

• Because of engine analysis.

" the gambit is harmless because of stockfish " wouldnt that mean all gambits are harmles , because they can all be studied with stockfish ?

Everything is a draw, let's quit chess.

"correspondence games"

• These show the truth, and they are available information to all.

"Everything is a draw"

• Yes, if both play correctly.
  However, human games still have a large portion of decisive games.
  Those are no longer found in the sharp lines like Evans Gambit, or Greco Gambit, but in the tame Giuoco Pianissimo.

@tpr said ^

"correspondence games"

• These show the truth, and they are available information to all.

They show what chess can be if you cheat & are under no time pressure. So no, not really 'the truth'.

"They show what chess can be"

• They show the truth about a position.
  The truth about a position does not depend on the players, or on the clock, but only on the board.

@tpr said ^

"Everything is a draw"

• Yes, if both play correctly.
  However, human games still have a large portion of decisive games.
  Those are no longer found in the sharp lines like Evans Gambit, or Greco Gambit, but in the tame Giuoco Pianissimo.

What are you on about? Sharp openings are going to lead to more decisive games not less. Instead of looking at computer chess try the LiChess database of actual human games. >2200 on lichess Evan's leads to more decisive games than c3 d3 quiet lines, this is more important than what two engine players might play.

"Sharp openings are going to lead to more decisive games not less."

• No, that is not true.
  The Marshall Attack is sharp, but leads to a draw.
  The Evans Gambit or Greco Gambit are sharp, but lead to draws.
  The Giuoco Pianissimo, the Berlin Defense, the Ruy Lopez Exchange or delayed Exchange are not sharp but often decisive.

"the LiChess database"

• is full of bullet nonsense.

@tpr said ^

"the LiChess database"

• is full of bullet nonsense.

Put rapid & slowly only, same trend, you can do this for yourself.

And well fast chess may be partially 'nonsense' it's more proper chess than correspondence in which you can use outside resources, avoid having to visualize (you are allowed to move the pieces & put them back), etc. Correspondence may have some value but it's very bad for real chess, I played a bit of it years ago but then in tournaments I'd miss being able to move the pieces around & my visualization atrophied.

@tpr said ^

"Sharp openings are going to lead to more decisive games not less."

• No, that is not true.

It is actually true, go look at the database. 'Leads to a draw' or 'with perfect play' is not an interesting or relevant way to access positions except maybe endgame positions with very few pieces.

Look at Magnus. His opponents struggle to get what you might dub 'easy draws' against him, and against any of these correspondence masters with even an hour to think he'd likely win every time.