Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/03/11 at 03:13:05:

I have changed my mind: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1262014233/121#121

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/03/11 at 03:13:05:


The numbers you're referring to are of the complete database, not just master games. I never take the whole database into consideration because you could have people who don't know what they're doing or are falling into the same traps that a good player never would. I wasn't cherry picking, I never take the complete database.   

I tried Megadatabase from 2000-2010 with both players over 2500 and it has just 90 games and there it does have a percentage of 51.7% for White, while 2. Nf3 has 55.6%. 

However if you bring it down to both players over 2300, there are 557 games and White's score is only 45.5%, which is similar to what's given on chess365.com for masters' percentage and what I gave yesterday. (When there's a lot of games I have to right click on the moves for the percentages to come up). 2. Nf3 gets 55.0%.

I don't know why the KG seems to do better for players over 2500 while also better for the whole database on chess365.com but much worse for over 2300. It could be that these players weren't playing the KG in quite as serious games, mainly ones they knew they would probably win easily or ones that didn't matter. 90 games is probably just not enough. If for example a really top player took it up frequently, then it would skew the result significantly. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/03/11 at 03:13:05:

 
I didn't argue that the Latvian Gambit was a good opening, just that it was potentially viable and arguably at least as "good" as the King's Gambit.

This thread can be summed up thus:



It's headed for 'da lock, yo!

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 07/02/11 at 17:33:37:

Wow.

I wonder where you get your statistics from. In the last decade in games between players rated +2400, the King's Gambit scores ~55% according to my database. Historically, in all games in my database, it scores ~57%.

Are you sure you're looking at the right stats?  I think you may only be looking at White's wins, not the overall percent.

The fact that you don't know why GMs play the King's Gambit while avoiding the Latvian may be a clue for you to try to figure that out. This may be the key to your understanding of the relative virtues of the two openings.

Oh, I agree completely that offbeat openings are scary beasts.

In practical OTB games, I perform relatively poorly against many of these beasts, and so I strive to put them in petting zoos so they never roam free in tournament halls. If my words alone can do this, I won't have to worry about them! There are far too many of them to refute and remember the refutations of each line.

But again, the offbeat openings for White tend to be far more successful than early Black gambits.

While I agree that GMs are more circumspect about offbeat lines than previous generations, they are far more opinionated about "regular" lines. I think close analysis allows them to be more certain in their statements. Boris Avrukh, for instance, relegates quite a few offbeat lines to the trash heap after offering in-depth analysis in his GM repertoire books.

(Your disagreements with some of his assessments with concrete analysis which makes your comments essential reading!)

Stefan,

I didn't think it possible to offend an inanimate object such as the Latvian (or any other chess opening) merely by calling it names.

To whom should I address my apology?

Regarding the topic, there are offbeat openings that could serve as repertoire choices for White, but I generally view offbeat Black gambits as more likely to fail upon close examination. The earlier the gambit is played, the less likely it is to succeed. Of course, there are major exceptions, such as the Benko (which hasn't been considered offbeat since the 1960s), but as a general rule I am likely to accept a Black gambit in the first few moves.

I have seen strong players use the Polish and other offbeat lines as White with good practical success. But generally, their offbeat Black repertoire is often a weak spot. 

Of course, playing Black is always challenging. One way to resolve the issue is  to present a moving target and learn 3-4 different lines to a sufficient level of expertise to play it against anyone of a similar rating as yourself. I personally chose to learn 2-3 systems as Black and focused on hiding my offbeat choices within main lines.

Stefan, you are right of course, these general discussions of repertoires are only marginally useful unless they are accompanied by close concrete analysis. Do you have links to the articles you mentioned earlier?

trw wrote on 07/01/11 at 23:44:21:

Excellent - thanks! There is already such a thread: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1058536412/26#26

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 07/01/11 at 22:23:14:

Yeah, that's why on ELO 2600+ level the KG was played 30 times in the 21st Century and the LG zero, not even in rapid or blitz games.
Now feel absolutely free to prove your point with concrete analysis in the Open Games section. There is a very long thread on the Latvian and many on the KG. Just don't be surprised if many disagree with you.
Of course everybody is also absolutely free to play junk openings if he/she thinks it's interesting and fun. Most people just don't.