@MrCoconutWala said in #30:
> Heyo,nice work,u can watch a youtube channel called Alex banzea something like that I don't remember properly but u would enjoy he has interesting ideas in jobava and caro especially jobava,must watch if u like jobava and he presses every single point so we don't forget it.Its like a free course on YouTube
Yes, I have seen a few of his videos. They are good
@d4Nc3Bf4 said in #29:
> [...] compared to other openings, there are fewer lines to prepare, like say the Catalan, there you have to prepare against the Nimzo, QGD, Slav, which is of 4 types, KID, Grunfeld, etc. [...]
There are more distinctly named openings you can face if you play 1.d4 2.c4 or 1.d4 2.Nf3 systems, but that's mostly a question of historical naming conventions. Black has many very distinct, equalizing options inside the Jobava.
Also, what move order are you getting a Nimzo from in a Catalan repertoire?
> You said in the Bb4 line, white does poorly, it's not because they played the e3 move, it's because they made mistakes in the middlegame. Games are not lost in the opening but in the middlegame and endgame.
We're talking about statistics from over 1900 games, not a handful of games from one guy. At that point it's pretty safe to say people are doing poorly in it because the position isn't very good after, again, playing one natural developing move.
Bad positions are hard to play, which is why people make mistakes and score poorly: you could dismiss all criticism of any non-losing variation by saying this, but we hopefully choose openings to get good positions that are easy to play, not to be not-losing-by-force.
This isn't to say one shouldn't play the Jobava (though there are more reasons not to), but I don't think you can really say it's an especially low-theory option.
> And True that it may be "Anti-Positional" or something that the engine doesn't like, but how many times do we play like the engine or evaluate like the engine? Seldom! :)
I never even mentioned the engine in my comment.