ErictheRed wrote on 01/05/14 at 20:19:21:


Incredibly sensible advice. Excellent. 
Now, just go off and play some chess. 
People here and kind and will help. But, try not to go on and on....

I will still repeat what I said. 1 ...a6 has been played by a GM. Play it. You can probably play it against ALL opening moves, and not be worse than +0.38. And at the same time, keep your bishop pair at all cost, don't even think about playing the Tromp (although it has been played by very strong GMs...).

Firstly I never pretended that Houdini was better than you at evaluating the position at move number 0. I was talking about move number 7 and after. And don't forget that we're in 2014, computers have evolved a lot since the early 2000s.
But still no, you're completely wrong, what Houdini gives as best play in the starting position is not totally devoid of any sense.
I just opened Houdini, and after only 20 seconds of thinking on the starting position he was displaying (0.27): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Bc5 5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. d4 a6 7. Ba4 b5 8. Bb3 Bxd4 9. Qxd4 d6 (a position reached over 300 times, and by many Super-GMs). Not so "rubbish" as you say.
(Maybe we just don't have the same Houdini, because my Houdini also doesn't evaluate 1.d4 a6 at +0.32, it evaluates it at +0.45 after 20 ply.)

And no, contrary to what you're saying I never pretended anywhere that 7... h6 was better than the main line and that every GMs were wrong to lose the Bishop pair in the Slav.
You apparently didn't read my messages very well, but I'll say it one more time: I don't want to be a GM, and therefore I don't have to follow the book until move 20, I just want to have fun playing in the positions which I like. And I like positions where I have the Bishop pair.

And giving White a winning probability of 75% in a position evaluated as +0.38 is just a very bad estimation. Perhaps it's true at the GM level, but at the average club player level it's just an absurd estimation.
Where I play (Chess.com) there's a stat page which displays:
White wins: 49.8%
Black wins: 47.3%
Draws: 2.9%
So the first move advantage only gives White 49.8% of winning. Since +0.38 is close to Houdini's evaluation of the starting position, we can surmise that even in the position after 7. Bd3 Bxd3 8. Qxd3 e6 White's winning probability is close to 49.8%.
What do I prefer? Playing in a position I don't like playing but which theoretically gives me +1% chance of winning, or playing in a position I like? I'll let you figure it out.

And finally the difference between playing your 1... a6 and my 7... h6 is that you're leaving the book right on move 1, I'm only leaving the book at move 7.
Thinking that if we don't follow exactly the main lines every time than we're completely lost is a really narrow-minded attitude. Maybe it's true for GMs, but it just doesn't make any sense for the average club level player. 99% of my opponents leave the book well before move 7...

7... h6 has been played by a GM, and he even won: http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=722198
So I'm sure that if 7... h6 is good even at the GM level, it's probably also playable at the average human level./quote]

Honestly, with your logic most everything is playable. And sure, most things are. What about 1 ...a6? You could build a whole repertoire based on that. And also do the reverse. I.e. 1. a3 must be solid, right? 

Marc Benford wrote on 01/05/14 at 14:48:31:



if you have such faith in the engine evaluations of the opening there is zero reason to query people here on what you should play as you should just map out all houdini suggestions and make yourself an opening repertoire in this fashion

Marc Benford wrote on 01/05/14 at 02:34:53:


Marc, I'd suggest just making a decision and sticking with it for awhile and see how it goes.  No opening is perfect and all openings that result in interesting positions generally require some work and memorization.

Since you've mentioned a couple of times that you are leaning toward the classical Slav (which I also play), my advice is to get Nick Pert's video "The Solid Slav".  That should give you enough theory to get started in about 5 hours of lessons and then just play it and see how you like it.  I'll warn you in advance that he goes for solid but active/fighting positions (not afraid to sac a pawn) so admittedly it may not totally fit the original "quiet, slow, positional" description you started with.  There are always tradeoffs to be made about how much risk you want to take and the Slav certainly offers those choices so you can deviate from Pert's lines if you choose while retaining the ones that you like (especially if you are a subscriber to ChessPublishing with all the good resources it offers!)   

If you worry that much Marc, just slip tournament directors some cash and ask them not to pair you with Black.  Seems like the only feasible approach!

And Fling, I generally agree that players below 2200 or 2300 rarely follow much theory--heck, even most IMs I see playing in California deviate from "repertoire book theory" early on, which makes me laugh about how narrow a view most amateurs have of theory (most just see what's been published in recent repertoire books).  But anyhow I've found the Ruy Lopez to be the one great exception, where I'm continually surprised to see 1700-players wheel off 15+ moves of Marshall Attack theory, head straight down the Chigorin lines, get to move 17 in the Zaitsev, etc.  It's like the Ruy Lopez is some weird point of pride among them or something.

Edit: Marc, I'm guessing that your problem is that you're reading books on theory.  You need to see how the openings work in practice and not worry about it so much.  Play the Chebanenko for some games, play the Classical Slav for some others, then the QGD, etc, and see which ones actually lead to positions you like in practice.   I've played the Sicilian Taimanov for more than 15 years now, and there are some lines that I've only faced a couple of times, and others I've faced dozens and dozens.

Aziridine wrote on 01/05/14 at 04:07:46:


I agree with point 2 and 3. Where is the easy plus for White in variation 1? This has been played in many different ways and by most top players and many, many others, with both colours. I don't see the easy plus (I play it as Black and will play it as White when I get the chance) and I don't think these players do either. Just look at Nick Pert's last game in the variation, as White, e.g.