The Dutch is +/=, the Grunfeld is +/=, the Slav is +/=, but the Semi-Slav is unclear to =. Let the top players be the judges .

Perhaps you need some 'brain-wash' to cleanse yourself, as advocated by a previous poster.  

Oh, and the best defence? Well it's either the Slav, the Grunny or the Dutch. Although occasionally I try the Semi Slav, too.  So it could be that one....

Or the QGA, come to think of it.  Yes, it's definitely one of those.  Whichever one I'm 100% prepared in.  

Now wash my brain, please.

HgMan wrote on 02/29/08 at 01:06:46:


Which makes it one of the most entertaining for me.  Nothing better than a pissing-into-the-wind contest on the intrawebs to get some cheap laughs and some insight into the frailties of the human mind.

I play the Benko, therefore it is the best.   

Question for everyone: how are you pitting your Dutch, how do you work with opening theory, middlegame?

If you go on the ChessBase report for Linares, Round 8, you will see a photo of Levon Aronian suggesting to Peter Leko before the game to play 1...a6. Enough said

I think this officially rates as one of the most ridiculous threads in some time.  We have a Hans Berliner-type expounding on the hyper-theoretical; 347 people insisting that the Leningrad Dutch is unbeatable; and looney claims that the better chess player always wins.  What happens if I lose two games and then win the third against the same opponent?  Am I now the better player or only one-third as good?  What is 100% preparation anyway??  Other than impossible, of course...

drkodos wrote on 02/27/08 at 15:59:53:


Yes.  An MBA degree.

drkodos, I agree with what you're saying.

Some thoughts:

1) What is the goal to be acquired when playing the Grunfeld?  To me it is to make the game sharp, concrete, and psychologically difficult to face for the opponent.  I believe this is why Kasparov picked it up as a weapon vs. Karpov- to make him think concretely early on and raise the stakes of each move/decision.

2) Though I do like the Grunfeld, I actually like playing the white side of it more.  My favorite black setup vs. 1.d4 is the Nimzo Indian paired with the Semi Slav- mostly because of the richness, flexibility, and sublime blend of deep strategy with stunning tactics.

3) To me it is obvious that the NID and QID are the two defenses that make White gaining an advantage the most difficult.  That said, from a purely absolute and objective standpoint, I think chess is a draw.  I believe this is true even with defences like the Dutch and Grunfeld, though some might disagree.

4) I think the terms "attack" "defence" and "counter-attack" are just narrative labels humans use to enhance the game.  Really there are just moves that improve your position, or moves that worsen your position.  This is an other debatable topic, I will concede.