lichess.org
Donate

The Best White Opening at YOUR ELO: A 71-Million Game Analysis

@MeWantCookieMobile said ^

another ai slop?

This doesn't even remotely make any sense.

the body text of the blog smells like ai

@MeWantCookieMobile said [^](/forum/redirect/post/08xn6NTS) > > another ai slop? > > This doesn't even remotely make any sense. the body text of the blog smells like ai

Absolutely AI. All the telltales are there in both the blog post and the answers here:

  • It's not .. it's
  • Hints and conclusions with exclamation marks!
  • Em dashes everywhere
  • Catchy summaries — with explanations after the em dash
  • Question at the end of the answers to keep the chat going
Absolutely AI. All the telltales are there in both the blog post and the answers here: * It's not .. it's * Hints and conclusions with exclamation marks! * Em dashes everywhere * Catchy summaries — with explanations after the em dash * Question at the end of the answers to keep the chat going

This blog is good but needs improvement. The only thing that I didn't like in your analysis was the Fried Liver. Yes, most players fall for the trap but if Black knows it it is equal, And knowing the variation is harder for white because of the inhuman moves white needs to know how to only get a SLIGHT edge. Saying 'black is now crushed here' is unacceptable.it needs more analysing.

Overall, Nxf7 is not a serious candidate against d4 for a high rated player. even after d4, black has some sharp and interesting variations. the variation is not refuted and will stay like that for a long time.

Anyways, this IS for beginners but it needs to be known by beginners too. Please analyse the variation carefully.

This blog is good but needs improvement. The only thing that I didn't like in your analysis was the Fried Liver. Yes, most players fall for the trap but if Black knows it it is equal, And knowing the variation is harder for white because of the inhuman moves white needs to know how to only get a SLIGHT edge. Saying 'black is now crushed here' is unacceptable.it needs more analysing. Overall, Nxf7 is not a serious candidate against d4 for a high rated player. even after d4, black has some sharp and interesting variations. the variation is not refuted and will stay like that for a long time. Anyways, this IS for beginners but it needs to be known by beginners too. Please analyse the variation carefully.

not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad.

not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad.

@RemiliaEnjoyer said ^

not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad.

I don't think it's sad, but I do think it's disservice to the people that is suppose to be the target. I was always told as a 1200 player that I should be looking well above my rating. So it IS logical for a 1200 to look at 1800-2000 games. And 1600 look at 2200-2400, and of course 1800 should be looking at 2400+. I also don't see the point of condemning a rating as low and poor. I mean I see you are 2400, that is only like an average NM. Nothing to be all superiority complex about. And even if Carlsen said that, I would probably just think he was an a$$wipe. Someone shouldn't feel bad because they can't attain your spectacular rating Mr Ego.

@RemiliaEnjoyer said [^](/forum/redirect/post/GgHzKQPJ) > not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad. I don't think it's sad, but I do think it's disservice to the people that is suppose to be the target. I was always told as a 1200 player that I should be looking well above my rating. So it IS logical for a 1200 to look at 1800-2000 games. And 1600 look at 2200-2400, and of course 1800 should be looking at 2400+. I also don't see the point of condemning a rating as low and poor. I mean I see you are 2400, that is only like an average NM. Nothing to be all superiority complex about. And even if Carlsen said that, I would probably just think he was an a$$wipe. Someone shouldn't feel bad because they can't attain your spectacular rating Mr Ego.

is. the guicco piaona good for an 1800 player, my peak was 1840 , but then i had. tilt. so. i'm slowly regaining my elo, any tips to. improve. and. go. to. 2000 and above

is. the guicco piaona good for an 1800 player, my peak was 1840 , but then i had. tilt. so. i'm slowly regaining my elo, any tips to. improve. and. go. to. 2000 and above

It's fine. The question isn't if it is fine. The question is how you think in chess. If you are having trouble with a tested true opening.. it's your own thought process or lack of understanding that the problem lies. So you want to find out what your are missing.

@Neevu said ^

is. the guicco piaona good for an 1800 player, my peak was 1840 , but then i had. tilt. so. i'm slowly regaining my elo, any tips to. improve. and. go. to. 2000 and above

It's fine. The question isn't if it is fine. The question is how you think in chess. If you are having trouble with a tested true opening.. it's your own thought process or lack of understanding that the problem lies. So you want to find out what your are missing. @Neevu said [^](/forum/redirect/post/fTnWuFfD) > is. the guicco piaona good for an 1800 player, my peak was 1840 , but then i had. tilt. so. i'm slowly regaining my elo, any tips to. improve. and. go. to. 2000 and above

@MeWantCookieMobile said ^

not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad.

I don't think it's sad, but I do think it's disservice to the people that is suppose to be the target. I was always told as a 1200 player that I should be looking well above my rating. So it IS logical for a 1200 to look at 1800-2000 games. And 1600 look at 2200-2400, and of course 1800 should be looking at 2400+. I also don't see the point of condemning a rating as low and poor. I mean I see you are 2400, that is only like an average NM. Nothing to be all superiority complex about. And even if Carlsen said that, I would probably just think he was an a$$wipe. Someone shouldn't feel bad because they can't attain your spectacular rating Mr Ego.

sorry that you're stuck at that rating too and I feel really bad for you ️

@MeWantCookieMobile said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Pa3Ma6nh) > > not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad. > > I don't think it's sad, but I do think it's disservice to the people that is suppose to be the target. I was always told as a 1200 player that I should be looking well above my rating. So it IS logical for a 1200 to look at 1800-2000 games. And 1600 look at 2200-2400, and of course 1800 should be looking at 2400+. I also don't see the point of condemning a rating as low and poor. I mean I see you are 2400, that is only like an average NM. Nothing to be all superiority complex about. And even if Carlsen said that, I would probably just think he was an a$$wipe. Someone shouldn't feel bad because they can't attain your spectacular rating Mr Ego. sorry that you're stuck at that rating too and I feel really bad for you ️

@RemiliaEnjoyer said ^

not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad.

I don't think it's sad, but I do think it's disservice to the people that is suppose to be the target. I was always told as a 1200 player that I should be looking well above my rating. So it IS logical for a 1200 to look at 1800-2000 games. And 1600 look at 2200-2400, and of course 1800 should be looking at 2400+. I also don't see the point of condemning a rating as low and poor. I mean I see you are 2400, that is only like an average NM. Nothing to be all superiority complex about. And even if Carlsen said that, I would probably just think he was an a$$wipe. Someone shouldn't feel bad because they can't attain your spectacular rating Mr Ego.

sorry that you're stuck at that rating too :(

I'm not. I just play. I don't care about your ego.

@RemiliaEnjoyer said [^](/forum/redirect/post/CLEumMW5) > > > not going above something as low and poor as only 2000 is pretty sad. > > > > I don't think it's sad, but I do think it's disservice to the people that is suppose to be the target. I was always told as a 1200 player that I should be looking well above my rating. So it IS logical for a 1200 to look at 1800-2000 games. And 1600 look at 2200-2400, and of course 1800 should be looking at 2400+. I also don't see the point of condemning a rating as low and poor. I mean I see you are 2400, that is only like an average NM. Nothing to be all superiority complex about. And even if Carlsen said that, I would probably just think he was an a$$wipe. Someone shouldn't feel bad because they can't attain your spectacular rating Mr Ego. > > sorry that you're stuck at that rating too :( I'm not. I just play. I don't care about your ego.