Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Should the opening sections be reorganised? (Read 12298 times)
stockhausen
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
so much!

Posts: 42
Joined: 01/19/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #60 - 10/13/19 at 08:18:46
Post Tools
Well Chris Ward has now quite clearly set out his opinion on the site redesign!   Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #59 - 10/09/19 at 00:36:38
Post Tools
stockhausen wrote on 10/07/19 at 16:07:07:
RoleyPoley wrote on 10/07/19 at 11:31:52:
Stigma wrote on 10/06/19 at 20:24:28:
RoleyPoley wrote on 10/06/19 at 19:05:37:
Keeping the Benoni section in with the Nimzo, because some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it, doesnt really make sense to me - i used to play the benoni through that move order and i never played the nimzo.

Then what did you do against 3.Nc3? Play the Modern Benoni anyway?

"some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it" has to be an understatement. Maybe it's different on amaetur level, but among titled players I believe more than 50% of Benoni players use the 2...e6 move order, to avoid the Taimanov attack and/or get different options against the Modern main line.


Yes, at the time i was playing the modern benoni against nc3 as well. I also used the 2c5 and 1c5 move orders to reach it. I have thought about playing it again via a 1..e6 move order more recently! I play at a lower level of the chess ladder, so I didnt worry too much about the sharper stuff at white's disposal - most games would end up in classical, with me able to swap off on f3.

Is that 50+% figure compared with just the Nf6 + c5 move order or also taking into account transitions from the KI?



As I understand it, transpositions from the KID to the Benoni tend to be in less theoretically important lines (correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, Black's most theoretically approved transpositions from the KID to the Modern Benoni are in lines like the Sämisch, the Four Pawns' attack, the Seirawan system, The Kramer/Hungarian attack and the h3 lines. These are not exactly sidelines, and h3 lines especially are considered quite critical these days, but it's fair to say the Classical and the Fianchetto are the absolute main lines of the KID.

Actually there's not much to stop Black from playing an early ...c5 against the Fianchetto either, though White doesn't have to answer d4-d5: dxc5 ideas and Symmetrical English transpositions are also on the table. If Black tries to transpose against the Classical, White can go d4-d5 but recapture with the e-pawn instead of the c-pawn (which is also a serious issue in the Makogonov with Nf3 and h3), or stay put with the d-pawn and offer a Maroczy bind.

@RoleyPoley: Theoretically the point of the 2...e6 move order "should" be to play the Nimzo-Indian against 3.Nc3, but a full Modern Benoni repertoire with 2...e6 does have some psychological point at least. I have even played it myself once in a rated game.

My "more than 50%" guess was compared to the 2...c5 move order, yes. I don't know that the transpositions from the King's Indian happen frequently enough to shake that estimate, though it propbably depends how you classify the Sämisch/Kapengut and Four Pawns' lines; they occur more often from the King's Indian move order and some consider them really KID lines for that reason.

Incidentally, two of the world's biggest experts on combining the Modern Benoni with the Nimzo-Indian via 2...e6 are long-time ChessPublishing columnists.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stockhausen
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
so much!

Posts: 42
Joined: 01/19/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #58 - 10/07/19 at 16:07:07
Post Tools
RoleyPoley wrote on 10/07/19 at 11:31:52:
Stigma wrote on 10/06/19 at 20:24:28:
RoleyPoley wrote on 10/06/19 at 19:05:37:
Keeping the Benoni section in with the Nimzo, because some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it, doesnt really make sense to me - i used to play the benoni through that move order and i never played the nimzo.

Then what did you do against 3.Nc3? Play the Modern Benoni anyway?

"some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it" has to be an understatement. Maybe it's different on amaetur level, but among titled players I believe more than 50% of Benoni players use the 2...e6 move order, to avoid the Taimanov attack and/or get different options against the Modern main line.


Yes, at the time i was playing the modern benoni against nc3 as well. I also used the 2c5 and 1c5 move orders to reach it. I have thought about playing it again via a 1..e6 move order more recently! I play at a lower level of the chess ladder, so I didnt worry too much about the sharper stuff at white's disposal - most games would end up in classical, with me able to swap off on f3.

Is that 50+% figure compared with just the Nf6 + c5 move order or also taking into account transitions from the KI?



As I understand it, transpositions from the KID to the Benoni tend to be in less theoretically important lines (correct me if I'm wrong).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 693
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #57 - 10/07/19 at 11:31:52
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 10/06/19 at 20:24:28:
RoleyPoley wrote on 10/06/19 at 19:05:37:
Keeping the Benoni section in with the Nimzo, because some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it, doesnt really make sense to me - i used to play the benoni through that move order and i never played the nimzo.

Then what did you do against 3.Nc3? Play the Modern Benoni anyway?

"some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it" has to be an understatement. Maybe it's different on amaetur level, but among titled players I believe more than 50% of Benoni players use the 2...e6 move order, to avoid the Taimanov attack and/or get different options against the Modern main line.


Yes, at the time i was playing the modern benoni against nc3 as well. I also used the 2c5 and 1c5 move orders to reach it. I have thought about playing it again via a 1..e6 move order more recently! I play at a lower level of the chess ladder, so I didnt worry too much about the sharper stuff at white's disposal - most games would end up in classical, with me able to swap off on f3.

Is that 50+% figure compared with just the Nf6 + c5 move order or also taking into account transitions from the KI?

  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #56 - 10/06/19 at 20:24:28
Post Tools
RoleyPoley wrote on 10/06/19 at 19:05:37:
Keeping the Benoni section in with the Nimzo, because some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it, doesnt really make sense to me - i used to play the benoni through that move order and i never played the nimzo.

Then what did you do against 3.Nc3? Play the Modern Benoni anyway?

"some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it" has to be an understatement. Maybe it's different on amaetur level, but among titled players I believe more than 50% of Benoni players use the 2...e6 move order, to avoid the Taimanov attack and/or get different options against the Modern main line.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 693
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #55 - 10/06/19 at 19:05:37
Post Tools
stockhausen wrote on 10/06/19 at 13:39:05:
Also, I don't see a need to change the other sections. While there may be transpositions between the KID and Benoni, Benoni players are equally likely to play the Nimzo for move order reasons.


I would be interested to know the stats of how many benoni games are reached through a Nimzo move order as opposed to other lines.

Keeping the Benoni section in with the Nimzo, because some people use the Nf6 & e6 move order to reach it, doesnt really make sense to me - i used to play the benoni through that move order and i never played the nimzo.

I would imagine that it would be KI players who would benefit the most from having it in their section because the opportunities for transition beyond the second move are more numerous, and often beneficial.


  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stockhausen
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
so much!

Posts: 42
Joined: 01/19/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #54 - 10/06/19 at 13:39:05
Post Tools
Also, I don't see a need to change the other sections. While there may be transpositions between the KID and Benoni, Benoni players are equally likely to play the Nimzo for move order reasons. Plus, the Catalan doesn't need to be moved, since QGD players have to deal with it just as much as Nimzo players, so it makes sense having it in the 1 d4 d5 2 c4 section. Splitting the Open Sicilian section is OK, but the annoyance it would cause might outweigh potential benefits, whereas I think putting the Dragon with the Pirc/Modern + Alekhine and French with Caro + Scandinavian is a more useful change.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stockhausen
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
so much!

Posts: 42
Joined: 01/19/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #53 - 10/06/19 at 13:29:46
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 09/06/19 at 08:43:51:
Glenn Flear writes:
Quote:
As for any adjustments on the site. You probably shouldn't do anything (as it would just upset people) so I would leave all the columns as they are.
If however I was starting from scratch, apart from minor adjustments here and there, the only big change I would do is combine the Dragon with the Pirc and Modern.
'1.e4: Dragon and fianchetto defences'.


It's an interesting idea, and does make a lot of sense.


Instead of this, why not have "1.e4: hypermodern defenses" - that way you can have the Alekhine there along with the Dragon and Pirc/Modern. Then the French, Caro and Scandinavian would have their own specific section, which seems quite logical to me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4706
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #52 - 10/02/19 at 06:05:41
Post Tools
Nickajack wrote on 10/02/19 at 03:53:32:
Are you saying there are other Modern lines with c4 that are 'outside' the Averbakh's scope?

Yes, e.g. stuff arising from 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3. One ancient* line which has appeared in Chess Publishing is 4...Bg4 5. e3.

*For instance it was thought to lead to += in the first edition of ECO, 40 years ago.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nickajack
Junior Member
**
Offline


Yabba Dabba Doo!

Posts: 57
Location: USA
Joined: 02/21/17
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #51 - 10/02/19 at 03:53:32
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 09/07/19 at 16:31:48:
By the way, as far as I know the Averbakh is 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4, so it doesn't include some lines of the Modern with c4.
                   


The Averbakh does include c4, so it is a Modern with c4. Are you saying there are other Modern lines with c4 that are 'outside' the Averbakh's scope?

Regardless, the Modern Defense (including the Averbakh) and its close cousins (Hippo, Dzindzi) should all be under the same roof with the Pirc, in my view.
  

Dubious, therefore playable Undecided
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Leon_Trotsky
Senior Member
****
Offline


Кто был никем — тот станет
всем!

Posts: 499
Location: Barcelona, CAT
Joined: 08/11/17
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #50 - 09/08/19 at 03:49:53
Post Tools
The Awerbach usually is played with ...e5 but no ...Cf6 to avoid KID transpositions. Black also wants the diagonal open for the fianchetto to get the knight to d4 and cement it there.

Maybe it is not so popular. But a Modern player has to play it to avoid going to the ultra-theoretical KID.

My guess is that the Dzindzishchashchwili-Indian would be in this section too, as people who play that usually are Modern players avoiding the KID.

1. d4 g6 2. c4 Ag7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 would probably transpose to the Benonis without the knight on f6. But 4. Cf3 could transpose to the Accelerated Dragon. Unless Black plays really hypermodern with 4...Db6 or something.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4706
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #49 - 09/07/19 at 16:31:48
Post Tools
By the way, as far as I know the Averbakh is 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4, so it doesn't include some lines of the Modern with c4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #48 - 09/07/19 at 16:00:00
Post Tools
Leon_Trotsky wrote on 09/07/19 at 06:38:02:
Does the Hipoótamo get included in that fianchetto section too ¿ What about the double fianchetto Hedgehog lines ¿

The Awerbach should be in that section too, since most people play it expressly to avoid the KID.

Come to think of it, where is the Averbakh Modern (Modern with c4) placed now?

I have the impression it isn't covered much at all as it's unclear whether it belongs in the KID, 1.e4... or Daring Defences section. But correct me if I'm wrong.

The Old Indian and the unique 1.d4 d6 lines have a similar issue. Though admittedly none of these are usually on the cutting edge of theory.

Edit: Looks like the Old Indian and the Averbakh Modern are in the KID section. But it would make sense for all of the Modern to be in the same section. The others I mentioned may be "Daring", but I'm not sure of all of them.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 416
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #47 - 09/07/19 at 15:11:46
Post Tools
RoleyPoley wrote on 09/07/19 at 10:18:06:
Confused_by_Theory wrote on 09/07/19 at 04:47:47:
Hi.

I think it sounds like a decent idea to group Dragon, Acc. Dragon, Pirc and Modern. There is overlap for sure, even if the Modern and Pirc both can go towards different structures entirely. If the Sicilian section is split not having to put the dragon somewhere there could make it easier as well.

What I'm thinking though is: where would the Alekhine be grouped in case Pirc and Modern leaves the section? Alongside Caro Kann like now but only with the Caro?

Have a nice day.

How about the Alekhine, Caro Kann and the Scandinavian being grouped together as they share common structures?

Forgot about the Scandinavian obviously. Yea though. This could work.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 693
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #46 - 09/07/19 at 10:18:06
Post Tools
Confused_by_Theory wrote on 09/07/19 at 04:47:47:
Hi.

I think it sounds like a decent idea to group Dragon, Acc. Dragon, Pirc and Modern. There is overlap for sure, even if the Modern and Pirc both can go towards different structures entirely. If the Sicilian section is split not having to put the dragon somewhere there could make it easier as well.

What I'm thinking though is: where would the Alekhine be grouped in case Pirc and Modern leaves the section? Alongside Caro Kann like now but only with the Caro?

Have a nice day.

How about the Alekhine, Caro Kann and the Scandinavian being grouped together as they share common structures?

  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Leon_Trotsky
Senior Member
****
Offline


Кто был никем — тот станет
всем!

Posts: 499
Location: Barcelona, CAT
Joined: 08/11/17
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #45 - 09/07/19 at 06:38:02
Post Tools
Does the Hipoótamo get included in that fianchetto section too ¿ What about the double fianchetto Hedgehog lines ¿

The Awerbach should be in that section too, since most people play it expressly to avoid the KID.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 416
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #44 - 09/07/19 at 04:47:47
Post Tools
Hi.

I think it sounds like a decent idea to group Dragon, Acc. Dragon, Pirc and Modern. There is overlap for sure, even if the Modern and Pirc both can go towards different structures entirely. If the Sicilian section is split not having to put the dragon somewhere there could make it easier as well.

What I'm thinking though is: where would the Alekhine be grouped in case Pirc and Modern leaves the section? Alongside Caro Kann like now but only with the Caro?

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #43 - 09/06/19 at 08:43:51
Post Tools
Glenn Flear writes:
Quote:
As for any adjustments on the site. You probably shouldn't do anything (as it would just upset people) so I would leave all the columns as they are.
If however I was starting from scratch, apart from minor adjustments here and there, the only big change I would do is combine the Dragon with the Pirc and Modern.
'1.e4: Dragon and fianchetto defences'.


It's an interesting idea, and does make a lot of sense.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2898
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #42 - 08/30/19 at 00:55:18
Post Tools
Grunfeld + Anti Grunfeld might be a section
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #41 - 08/29/19 at 16:02:00
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 08/25/19 at 11:56:16:
The French and also the Dragon are openings that attract very dedicated followers, after all how many people are
there who only play the French for there whole life?
I can think of quite many.

By changing these sections, the site would become a lot less attractive for subscribers of that type, and I presume (please correct me if I am wrong) that there are quite a lot of subscribers to the French and Dragon sections.


Yes, that's true, it would risk annoying more subscribers than it pleased.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 149
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #40 - 08/25/19 at 11:56:16
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/19/19 at 16:49:21:
Personally, I like the idea of keeping two Open Sicilian sections, one with the Najdorf and the Schevy and one section with all the others - even now The Open Sicilian section often contains 80% or more Najdorfs anyway.
I also think that moving the Modern Benoni to the KID and maybe the Catalan to the Nimzo makes sense.
I'm open to all other sensible suggestions Smiley


I agree from a statistical point of view.
The Najdorf is the overwhelmingly most popular Sicilian and for that reason a specialized section would be sensible.
Also for putting French and Caro-Kann together as suggested.
But there another question appears: do all other answers to 1.e4 apart from the moves of the c- and e-pawns really need a separate section?
In that way it would perhaps be more logical to single out the Caro-Kann for a separate section and put the French with the remaining defences.

But from another, perhaps more emotional standpoint I disagree.
The French and also the Dragon are openings that attract very dedicated followers, after all how many people are
there who only play the French for there whole life?
I can think of quite many.

By changing these sections, the site would become a lot less attractive for subscribers of that type, and I presume (please correct me if I am wrong) that there are quite a lot of subscribers to the French and Dragon sections.


For me the issue I see with keeping the current structure is that Sicilians apart from the Dragon/Accelerated Dragon and the Najdorf (about 5/8 games in the Open Sicilian section) are underrepresented.

As a player who focuses on Dragon and Najdorf in the Sicilian I can live with that. How do others feel?

About changes in the closed openings:
Changing Benoni to King's Indian and Catalan to Nimzo sounds sensible.
David suggested to give the Grunfeld its own section, but do the remaining "Daring Defences" really need a section of their own?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2255
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #39 - 08/19/19 at 22:25:14
Post Tools
This all seems sensible yes.
I would agree with as Tony K suggests. Single Catalan / NID / QID / Bogo section, KID / Benoni section, two Sicilians etc.

Re: hiring, in my experience of this (I look after the p/t staff at my uni), more options is always better than fewer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #38 - 08/19/19 at 17:23:36
Post Tools
fluffy wrote on 08/19/19 at 14:44:22:
This all started because of some issues with the 1.d4 d5 section as it looks like we'll need a replacement.



That's a different problem... I have several GM friends that would be a good fit... should I reach out? Tony?

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/19/19 at 16:49:21:
Personally, I like the idea of keeping two Open Sicilian sections, one with the Najdorf and the Schevy and one section with all the others - even now The Open Sicilian section often contains 80% or more Najdorfs anyway.
I also think that moving the Modern Benoni to the KID and maybe the Catalan to the Nimzo makes sense.
I'm open to all other sensible suggestions Smiley



I think that sums up my feeling.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #37 - 08/19/19 at 16:49:21
Post Tools
Personally, I like the idea of keeping two Open Sicilian sections, one with the Najdorf and the Schevy and one section with all the others - even now The Open Sicilian section often contains 80% or more Najdorfs anyway.
I also think that moving the Modern Benoni to the KID and maybe the Catalan to the Nimzo makes sense.
I'm open to all other sensible suggestions Smiley
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
fluffy
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 239
Location: USA
Joined: 08/01/05
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #36 - 08/19/19 at 14:44:22
Post Tools
This is David Vigorito...

My idea was to modify the sections with the parameters of twelve sections. I do not think we can split the Open Sicilians, 1.e4 e5, Flank Openings, etc. One perhaps, if another section, like the Dragon, is 'absorbed', but not all.

It's hard enough to find decent columnists (Tony had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for the King's Indian section), but we cannot expect Tony to find (and fund!) columnists for a few more sections. This all started because of some issues with the 1.d4 d5 section as it looks like we'll need a replacement.
« Last Edit: 08/19/19 at 16:04:09 by fluffy »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2255
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #35 - 08/19/19 at 11:56:16
Post Tools
Back to the ranch peeps. Back to the ranch.

1. Agree that change needed?
2. Suggest theory area combinations, total number of sections.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #34 - 08/19/19 at 09:50:44
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/19/19 at 00:53:54:
I am 100% though that we are now completely off topic


Indeed, it looks like my thread has been hijacked! Maybe we should add a board for correspondence chess to this Forum?! Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #33 - 08/19/19 at 01:45:20
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/19/19 at 00:53:54:
I don't know the answer to your question because as previously stated I have never had a dragon in my life so I am not a dragon expert able to answer specific dragon lines...

I am 100% though that we are now completely off topic so you need to start a new thread if you want to keep discussing this. I will say though that I have heard numerous people dismiss old correspondence games and you do that at your own risk (and it assumes you have complete mastery of that opening). Because more often than not you are going to be wrong to ignore such games. These people probably spent more time thinking about each move than any otb player has ever spent on a single game.

Fair enough, I agree that we've gone off topic. If a moderator wants to move these posts to another thread then I'm fully on board.
Interesting to hear your thoughts in regards to older correspondence games, I'll try to keep them in mind.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #32 - 08/19/19 at 00:53:54
Post Tools
I don't know the answer to your question because as previously stated I have never had a dragon in my life so I am not a dragon expert able to answer specific dragon lines...

I am 100% though that we are now completely off topic so you need to start a new thread if you want to keep discussing this. I will say though that I have heard numerous people dismiss old correspondence games and you do that at your own risk (and it assumes you have complete mastery of that opening). Because more often than not you are going to be wrong to ignore such games. These people probably spent more time thinking about each move than any otb player has ever spent on a single game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #31 - 08/19/19 at 00:14:58
Post Tools
To be honest I don't think ICCF results seriously contradict the claim that the French and KID are only semi-correct openings. Almost no one claims that those openings are winning for white, merely that it is more difficult for black to prove equality there than in openings like the Berlin or the Grunfeld. And the statistics do support that claim. Comparing the KID to the Grunfeld, for example, white scores 56.5% after 3... Bg7 in 1759 games after 3... Bg7 compared to 53.6% after 3... d5 (restricting the filter to games from the 2017 archive or later where both players are above 2300). This is actually probably the most optimistic example I could give for black, since the Grunfeld doesn't score quite as well as the Nimzo, Semi-Slav, Marshall, Najdorf or Berlin and the KID scores better than the French. Those openings are played, as trw points out, to get winning chances rather than to equalise, and I suspect that most of those strong players would agree that the mainlines of those openings (along with others like the Caro-Kann, Taimanov Sicilian, Modern Benoni, Pirc etc.) offer black better winning chances than mainlines in the Marshall or Semi-Slav. There's a reason we see so many of those openings whenever the elites play sub 2600s in the Olympiad!
I'm a bit confused by trw's reference to games going back 30 years though. Especially in such 'spacebar-able' openings as the Dragon where I would have thought that theory changes at a very fast pace. Trw, do you think that these older games still have significant theoretical value? As an example, I would pretty much dismiss as theoretically irrelevant any game in the line 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 0-0 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5, which was the absolute mainline back in the 1980s but nowadays seems basically refuted by 12. Kb1.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #30 - 08/18/19 at 20:19:49
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 08/18/19 at 17:24:23:
trw wrote on 08/17/19 at 23:05:32:
I have never seen a dragon ICCF game at a high level. I will say however that if authors start to follow ICCF games... it will become much harder to annotate but probably also more valuable. That said, I think you would see the top 4-5 openings are 1. Najdorf 2. KID 3. French 4. Anti Moscow 5. Nimzo

This list is interesting. Both the KID and the French are defences that have been labeled "not entirely correct" by strong OTB players quite often. But if you're right about the ICCF numbers, they must simply be wrong?

P. S.: Thanks a lot for the info on ICCF access.



You're welcome. Correct or not... I don't know. I do know that the engines struggle immensely with these openings which is a big reason for their popularity... if you want to win then you need positions A) full of possibility and B) where the engine doesn't know all. The KID, Najdorf and French qualify in spades. Nimzo and Anti Moscow are complicated but often just a very concrete way for black to make a draw. The 6th most popular opening btw is probably the Berlin... I don't know what that says.

Also, I can post the full ICCF database here... but I won't without Tony's explicit permission.

bragesjo wrote on 08/18/19 at 19:30:07:
One reason for Najdorf popularety att ICCF is that Najdrof Be3 is a standard thematical event that starts several times each year and in the more recent events the winner reaches final events vs other winners. However I am not shure is thematical game reaches databases? Dragon tematical events also starts from time to time with semifinals and finals but it has only started once during the past years where I started to play at ICCF.



I filtered the database for 2300+ and 2300+ players rarely play in thematics so that's not biasing the numbers I posted.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


CCE at ICCF 2021

Posts: 1693
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #29 - 08/18/19 at 19:30:07
Post Tools
One reason for Najdorf popularety att ICCF is that Najdrof Be3 is a standard thematical event that starts several times each year and in the more recent events the winner reaches final events vs other winners. However I am not shure is thematical game reaches databases? Dragon tematical events also starts from time to time with semifinals and finals but it has only started once during the past years where I started to play at ICCF.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #28 - 08/18/19 at 17:24:23
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/17/19 at 23:05:32:
I have never seen a dragon ICCF game at a high level. I will say however that if authors start to follow ICCF games... it will become much harder to annotate but probably also more valuable. That said, I think you would see the top 4-5 openings are 1. Najdorf 2. KID 3. French 4. Anti Moscow 5. Nimzo

This list is interesting. Both the KID and the French are defences that have been labeled "not entirely correct" by strong OTB players quite often. But if you're right about the ICCF numbers, they must simply be wrong?

P. S.: Thanks a lot for the info on ICCF access.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #27 - 08/18/19 at 16:07:24
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 08:41:34:
trw wrote on 08/18/19 at 05:16:27:
I went ahead and looked it up for my own amusement and to add a layer of discussion to the conversation. Combining all major correspondence games and filtering for 2300+,
There has been 25,238 Najdorfs vs 1,639 Dragons. It might be time to consider the Najdorf in its own section... BTW, white scores 70% so that may be a big reason why Dragon is almost never seen.

Oh absolutely, in terms of correspondence popularity absolutely the Najdorf is far, far more deserving of its own section than the Dragon/Accelerated Dragon complex. I'm curious about your statistics though, in the database I've compiled of ICCF games since 2017 white scores just under 60%, which is clearly inferior to the Najdorf and Sveshnikov, but not exactly a disaster either.
The reason I brought up ICCF games was solely to help Chris find theoretically relevant games. Even if this source isn't even nearly as fruitful as for the Najdorf,I think there should be more than enough to get 12 games a month there.


I built my own database from all correspondence. And at 30 years of correspondence to have achieved 1628 games... that's 2 games a month.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/18/19 at 14:06:48:
If the Open Sicilians is split then I suppose the Najdorf should stay with the Scheveningen, as they so often transpose if Black plays ...a6 and ...e6?



Definitely. I suppose that's the tough thing is the transpositions.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #26 - 08/18/19 at 14:06:48
Post Tools
If the Open Sicilians is split then I suppose the Najdorf should stay with the Scheveningen, as they so often transpose if Black plays ...a6 and ...e6?
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #25 - 08/18/19 at 08:41:34
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/18/19 at 05:16:27:
I went ahead and looked it up for my own amusement and to add a layer of discussion to the conversation. Combining all major correspondence games and filtering for 2300+,
There has been 25,238 Najdorfs vs 1,639 Dragons. It might be time to consider the Najdorf in its own section... BTW, white scores 70% so that may be a big reason why Dragon is almost never seen.

Oh absolutely, in terms of correspondence popularity absolutely the Najdorf is far, far more deserving of its own section than the Dragon/Accelerated Dragon complex. I'm curious about your statistics though, in the database I've compiled of ICCF games since 2017 white scores just under 60%, which is clearly inferior to the Najdorf and Sveshnikov, but not exactly a disaster either.
The reason I brought up ICCF games was solely to help Chris find theoretically relevant games. Even if this source isn't even nearly as fruitful as for the Najdorf,I think there should be more than enough to get 12 games a month there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #24 - 08/18/19 at 05:16:27
Post Tools
I went ahead and looked it up for my own amusement and to add a layer of discussion to the conversation. Combining all major correspondence games and filtering for 2300+,
There has been 25,238 Najdorfs vs 1,639 Dragons. It might be time to consider the Najdorf in its own section... BTW, white scores 70% so that may be a big reason why Dragon is almost never seen.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #23 - 08/18/19 at 03:59:30
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 08/18/19 at 02:26:46:
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 01:07:56:
Just looking at the ICCF archives from 2017 onwards, Michel Lecroq (~2600) has played the Dragon in seven games with black, while Stephen Ham (2583) and German Fabian Benz (2554) have both played it more than once. Of course it's not anywhere near as popular as the Berlin or the Najdorf, but it's still probably a bit more popular than OTB.

I know this has been discussed before, but (as of 2019) do you need to actually be an ICCF player to get access to regular updates of these archives?

I've never had much interest in playing CC, but following top CC games for theory would still be useful.


You do but its free to join and have an account... you don't have to play. Although they offer a free event every year (jubilee I think is the name). Also, at this point, there are so many people downloading the games and posting them elsewhere. I think Chessbase for example now includes ICCF games into Mega.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4706
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #22 - 08/18/19 at 03:10:08
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 01:07:56:
Just looking at the ICCF archives from 2017 onwards, Michel Lecroq (~2600) has played the Dragon in seven games with black

Incidentally I recognize that surname in connection with the Dragon and CC ...but only because I have a recollection of a game Lecroq-Nesis from the early 1980s (in a then main line of the 9. Bc4 Yugoslav).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #21 - 08/18/19 at 02:26:46
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 01:07:56:
Just looking at the ICCF archives from 2017 onwards, Michel Lecroq (~2600) has played the Dragon in seven games with black, while Stephen Ham (2583) and German Fabian Benz (2554) have both played it more than once. Of course it's not anywhere near as popular as the Berlin or the Najdorf, but it's still probably a bit more popular than OTB.

I know this has been discussed before, but (as of 2019) do you need to actually be an ICCF player to get access to regular updates of these archives?

I've never had much interest in playing CC, but following top CC games for theory would still be useful.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #20 - 08/18/19 at 01:37:44
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 01:07:56:
trw wrote on 08/17/19 at 23:05:32:
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/17/19 at 22:22:09:
- I have always thought that the Dragon section owes its existence to the cult-like devotion of its followers at club level (whose numbers have traditionally been much greater than one would expect based its popularity amongst the elite). In the silicon age I feel that its harder in general to keep a cult following, and that correspondingly it doesn't have the legion of advocates that it used to. This is very much just a personal assessment of the 'vibe' however, so I'd be interested in hearing whether others share this impression. The closest I can think of to evidence I could provide here would be the existence of magazines specifically for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit that Gambit has referred to in the BDG section, which I find rather difficult to imagine today.
- If authors are struggling to find games, then I would request that the author take a closer look at games on the ICCF.


I have never seen a dragon ICCF game at a high level. I will say however that if authors start to follow ICCF games... it will become much harder to annotate but probably also more valuable. That said, I think you would see the top 4-5 openings are 1. Najdorf 2. KID 3. French 4. Anti Moscow 5. Nimzo

Just looking at the ICCF archives from 2017 onwards, Michel Lecroq (~2600) has played the Dragon in seven games with black, while Stephen Ham (2583) and German Fabian Benz (2554) have both played it more than once. Of course it's not anywhere near as popular as the Berlin or the Najdorf, but it's still probably a bit more popular than OTB.
At any rate, the reason I brought up ICCF games was that they don't need to be played at the highest levels of correspondence chess, since the opening and subsequent play of even 2100 players will be based on serious engine analysis. With that in mind, I would have thought it would be possible to easily get 12 high quality games a month even for a section as niche as the Dragon using ICCF games alone.


Pardon me, I didn't mean it hasn't been played I meant it hasn't been played against me. I am a 2400 ICCF player. But that's totally off topic, I think if start to include ICCF, there is even less reason for Dragon to have its own section as its definitely in need to move Najdorf to its own.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #19 - 08/18/19 at 01:07:56
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/17/19 at 23:05:32:
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/17/19 at 22:22:09:
- I have always thought that the Dragon section owes its existence to the cult-like devotion of its followers at club level (whose numbers have traditionally been much greater than one would expect based its popularity amongst the elite). In the silicon age I feel that its harder in general to keep a cult following, and that correspondingly it doesn't have the legion of advocates that it used to. This is very much just a personal assessment of the 'vibe' however, so I'd be interested in hearing whether others share this impression. The closest I can think of to evidence I could provide here would be the existence of magazines specifically for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit that Gambit has referred to in the BDG section, which I find rather difficult to imagine today.
- If authors are struggling to find games, then I would request that the author take a closer look at games on the ICCF.


I have never seen a dragon ICCF game at a high level. I will say however that if authors start to follow ICCF games... it will become much harder to annotate but probably also more valuable. That said, I think you would see the top 4-5 openings are 1. Najdorf 2. KID 3. French 4. Anti Moscow 5. Nimzo

Just looking at the ICCF archives from 2017 onwards, Michel Lecroq (~2600) has played the Dragon in seven games with black, while Stephen Ham (2583) and German Fabian Benz (2554) have both played it more than once. Of course it's not anywhere near as popular as the Berlin or the Najdorf, but it's still probably a bit more popular than OTB.
At any rate, the reason I brought up ICCF games was that they don't need to be played at the highest levels of correspondence chess, since the opening and subsequent play of even 2100 players will be based on serious engine analysis. With that in mind, I would have thought it would be possible to easily get 12 high quality games a month even for a section as niche as the Dragon using ICCF games alone.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #18 - 08/17/19 at 23:05:32
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 08/17/19 at 22:22:09:
- I have always thought that the Dragon section owes its existence to the cult-like devotion of its followers at club level (whose numbers have traditionally been much greater than one would expect based its popularity amongst the elite). In the silicon age I feel that its harder in general to keep a cult following, and that correspondingly it doesn't have the legion of advocates that it used to. This is very much just a personal assessment of the 'vibe' however, so I'd be interested in hearing whether others share this impression. The closest I can think of to evidence I could provide here would be the existence of magazines specifically for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit that Gambit has referred to in the BDG section, which I find rather difficult to imagine today.
- If authors are struggling to find games, then I would request that the author take a closer look at games on the ICCF.


I have never seen a dragon ICCF game at a high level. I will say however that if authors start to follow ICCF games... it will become much harder to annotate but probably also more valuable. That said, I think you would see the top 4-5 openings are 1. Najdorf 2. KID 3. French 4. Anti Moscow 5. Nimzo
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #17 - 08/17/19 at 22:22:09
Post Tools
Hi all, hope you don't mind a non-subscriber on only his second post sharing his thoughts. I have, however, been a lurker on the forums and the site for over a year, and I would make the following arguments.
- The division of the King Pawn section into Spanish and Non-Spanish makes a great deal of sense. The Italian alone I think is popular enough at top level to justify this - the April update was titled "More popular than the Spanish?" after all. Combined with the Petroff, which is also very trendy, and the occasional outing for the Four Knights, Scotch etc. should be more than enough material.
- I also wouldn't mind splitting the Queen's Gambit section. My suggestion for doing this would to divide it into variations that usually arise from what Grischuk has called the 'normal position' after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 (e.g. Bf4 QGD, Ragozin, Vienna, Semi-Tarrasch) and those that usually through another move order (e.g. QGD Exchange, Catalan, Slav, QGA). Based on a quick search in my database of 2019 games this would mean a little bit more work for the latter, but not too much, and definitely a better deal for them than whoever is doing the QG section currently has. It would also be possible to tinker this division a bit, for instance by making the 'normal position' be the one arising after 3.Nf3 d5 and thereby including the Catalan.
- If the Flank section is to be divided, I would suggest one section for The Reversed Sicilian and Symmetrical English and one section for the rest. The Reverse Sicilian and Symmetrical English can quite naturally go together in my view, since they are independent lines Flank lines that arise when black tries to stop white from playing d2-d4. By contrast, the other mainlines in the English/Reti complex by contrast arise when white deliberately omits d2-d4. This makes, in my view, for a natural division between the two. Again, a rudimentary database search suggests that this would be a reasonably even division.
- Fully support the mergers of the KID with the Benoni and the Caro-Kann with the French.
- I like the idea of a separate Grunfeld section, given its popularity in elite chess. Although I am aware by now that I have just advocated the creation of a third separate section.
- I have always thought that the Dragon section owes its existence to the cult-like devotion of its followers at club level (whose numbers have traditionally been much greater than one would expect based its popularity amongst the elite). In the silicon age I feel that its harder in general to keep a cult following, and that correspondingly it doesn't have the legion of advocates that it used to. This is very much just a personal assessment of the 'vibe' however, so I'd be interested in hearing whether others share this impression. The closest I can think of to evidence I could provide here would be the existence of magazines specifically for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit that Gambit has referred to in the BDG section, which I find rather difficult to imagine today.
- If authors are struggling to find games, then I would request that the author take a closer look at games on the ICCF. That would give them a lot of high quality content to choose from. (It would also be of greater assistance to subscribers, since it's easier to keep up to date with elite level chess than correspondence chess, and if section authors could specialise in doing this then they would be offering some really high quality content).
- I absolutely love Jan's Opening Clinic, and really like the idea of a section that plays a similar role. I think the best format for this would be to have a section in the forums, or a thread in each section, where subscribers can post their questions, and free members can post analysis in relation to it. I think this could really help rejuvenate the forums, as the guarantee of getting feedback from an expert would really incentivise posters to put out their best analysis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BeeCaves
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 66
Joined: 03/09/18
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #16 - 08/17/19 at 18:28:12
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/17/19 at 16:27:37:
fling wrote on 08/17/19 at 08:58:16:
1. The subscribers' interests, which for sure differ somewhat
2. The change in popularity of different lines over time


Obviously the first is the most important as far as I am concerned, they pay for the material after all. Smiley
However, the 2nd is also important, for example, looking at this month's Anti-Sicilian update I wonder whether we should rename it the '3...Nd7 Moscow' section, instead!
Also, as David wrote to me (about the Dragon, but it could also be about the French, etc.) "it's hard to find that many relevant games in this opening... Many games are rehashes of 'White fell into this trap again'." Which is true, and while some sections can afford to mostly annotate games between really strong 2700+ players, others have to make do with games between much, much weaker opponents Sad!


I don't know if this is getting too far away from the goals of the site, but I would definitely welcome more of "reader's mailbag" / "ask the master" in the updates.  For instance, more like Jan's opening clinic on chess24.

I think the site should show the most important 2700+ games but I think a lot of us are reading the site for entertainment or offbeat surprise weapons (i.e. for instance to play Grischuk's new line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 h4 against our buddy at the club in blitz).

I'm sort of skeptical there are that many people, say subscribing to the site because they never want to miss a novelty in the line that they play in the Petroff.  For instance, let's say I subscribe to the site because the Petroff is my main weapon as Black, and I want to make sure I don't miss a move like Caruana's 13 a3 against Duda in Paris GCT.  If I'm relying on ChessPublishing.com to make sure I see this game and don't get "surprised by 13 a3", then:
a) I have to have confidence that it will be included in the update
b) almost all the rest of the material in 1 e4 e5 on Berlin, Italian, Archangel, Open Spanish, Breyer, Marshall, etc might be of limited value to me if I don't play these openings

From this perspective, I think Eric Prie's work for the site was really good, even if there weren't that many elite games -- he was giving a lot of fresh ideas that you might be able to get on the board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #15 - 08/17/19 at 16:27:37
Post Tools
fling wrote on 08/17/19 at 08:58:16:
1. The subscribers' interests, which for sure differ somewhat
2. The change in popularity of different lines over time


Obviously the first is the most important as far as I am concerned, they pay for the material after all. Smiley
However, the 2nd is also important, for example, looking at this month's Anti-Sicilian update I wonder whether we should rename it the '3...Nd7 Moscow' section, instead!
Also, as David wrote to me (about the Dragon, but it could also be about the French, etc.) "it's hard to find that many relevant games in this opening... Many games are rehashes of 'White fell into this trap again'." Which is true, and while some sections can afford to mostly annotate games between really strong 2700+ players, others have to make do with games between much, much weaker opponents Sad!
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #14 - 08/17/19 at 08:58:16
Post Tools
I agree with the points Trw give.

If there should be a split of the existing sections, I'd say split the Open Sicilian, not the Flank openings or 1. e4 e5.

Furthermore, I guess there are considerations that somewhat might go against each other when deciding the structure. Basically, I see these three:
1. The subscribers' interests, which for sure differ somewhat
2. The change in popularity of different lines over time
3. How easy it will be to find good contributors for each section

It seems that partly why this thread was created is because of 2 and 3. If these in practice dictate what the site practically can offer, I am fine with that, because I subscribe to all sections anyway Smiley However, of course a commercial site also needs to consider the subscribers' wishes. But if I have to choose between not getting updates at all (as was the case for 1. d4 d5) or having some updates with lines that are not directly what I want, I'd rather have updates. What matters the most to me is having good quality analysis in the updates.

As a side note, though, I would like to see a bit more interactivity between the updates and the forum. There are for sure updates which consider lines discussed in the forum, but I don't think it happens too frequently and not in all sections (correct me if I am wrong, I haven't done any analysis of this). In this way, point 1 is considered as well.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1374
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #13 - 08/17/19 at 03:55:18
Post Tools
tipau wrote on 08/14/19 at 13:25:49:
11) English
12) Other Flank (Reti + KIA + irregular lines)


Massively against this suggestion. The Reti and other flank (b4, g4) do not warrant being broken out on their own. The English is the only real serious try seen in real play.

TopNotch wrote on 08/14/19 at 16:14:33:
What I really miss was the added value section like Paul Motwani's excellent 'Double Trouble' column that provided many spicy Opening ideas to spruce up your repertoire. This was terrific value for All Section subscribers and I wish something similar was brought back; Andrew Martin also had A 'Repertoire Guides' (Or something like that) column which was also interesting.

The Sections as they are know just analyse games randomly based on what's trendy, but the updates, even when taken together, tend to lack the cohesion necessary to build a durable and complete repertoire. This is a vacuum worth filling and an idea I may expand upon in future posts.

What say others.



I also really miss the other bonuses for all sections.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/16/19 at 08:12:02:
mn wrote on 08/15/19 at 23:27:44:
mn wrote on 08/14/19 at 23:47:39:
Can I suggest splitting the 1 e4 e5 section into Spanish and non-Spanish, as on the forum?



Are there enough sufficiently fashionable theoretical lines in the non-Spanish to justify an entire section? Whereas these lines are popular on the Forum, there doesn't seem to be too much going on in any of the lines at the higher levels (apart from the Italian), if Mikhalevski's updates are anything to go by.


No, there are not.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/14/19 at 10:17:35:
  1.     1.e4 e5
  2.     French & Caro (there are not many more French games than Caro)
  3.     1.e4 ...
  4.     Open Sicilians (could split into 2...d6 Sicilians, but hard to compress another section)
  5.     Anti-Sicilians
  6.     1.d4 d5 2.c4
  7.     d-Pawn Specials
  8.     King's Indian & Modern Benoni (more work for me! but often there are logical transpositions, especially in 4 Pawns and Samisch with ...c5)
  9.     Nimzo, Queen's Indian, Bogo
  10.     Grunfeld & Anti Grunfeld (many of these are E60, so they are easily missed. Grunfeld has a lot less games than KID overall, but it is so theoretical)
  11.     Daring Defences (all from ECO 'A': Dutch, Benko, Czech Benoni, Modern, Old Indian, etc)
  12.     Flank Openings


What do subscribers think?


I don't know that I have strong thoughts in general on Vigorito's suggestions... I do find that it makes sense to combine KID and Benoni since move order wise you sometimes are forced into the other one.

I never really understood the French being stand alone as it's one of the easier openings to learn... meanwhile something like Anti-Moscow is a minefield all to itself with correspondence changing the evaluation constantly. But what to do with the Sicilian is the real question? I have found that opening very hard to learn with it's transpositions... and often one line moves into some inferior version of a different Sicilian line. Perhaps that's the reason that the Dragon was on its own to begin with?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #12 - 08/16/19 at 08:12:02
Post Tools
mn wrote on 08/15/19 at 23:27:44:
mn wrote on 08/14/19 at 23:47:39:
Can I suggest splitting the 1 e4 e5 section into Spanish and non-Spanish, as on the forum?



Are there enough sufficiently fashionable theoretical lines in the non-Spanish to justify an entire section? Whereas these lines are popular on the Forum, there doesn't seem to be too much going on in any of the lines at the higher levels (apart from the Italian), if Mikhalevski's updates are anything to go by.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
mn
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 538
Location: Ottawa
Joined: 09/22/16
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #11 - 08/15/19 at 23:27:44
Post Tools
mn wrote on 08/14/19 at 23:47:39:
Can I suggest splitting the 1 e4 e5 section into Spanish and non-Spanish, as on the forum?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


CCE at ICCF 2021

Posts: 1693
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #10 - 08/15/19 at 14:58:00
Post Tools
About Dragon its logical that is has it's own section since many Dragon players only subscribed to that section (at least I did) and are uninterested in other open Sicilians and may only be given a Dragon game in a new section  with open Sicilian games one per half years if lucky depending on who runs the section. For my part I have been thinking about returning to Dragon since now that I play French 75% of all over the board games vs club players are in exchange variation. French however leads to interesting play in corr chess.

Several sections are logical since many players combine Nimzo Indian with Benoni and plays Nimzo in Benoni style but I agree that some sections are a bit odd.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 693
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #9 - 08/15/19 at 11:13:07
Post Tools
I think David's suggestions are fair.

I like the idea of moving the delayed/modern benoni stuff to KI.

I have a soft spot for the Dragon section because it was Chris's books that inspired me to play the opening 25 years ago.
  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #8 - 08/14/19 at 23:17:11
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 08/14/19 at 20:50:17:
Is the number of sections written in stone?

No, it's not, in theory I can add a couple more (assuming that the software still works) ... but I can also remove some, too!
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #7 - 08/14/19 at 20:50:17
Post Tools
Vigorito's idea of a separate Grünfeld section is interesting. For purely selfish reasons I wouldn't mind getting even more on both the Grünfeld and the Dutch. Though Glenn Flear has been handling the current "Daring Defences" bracket very well.

But only one section for the Open Sicilian sounds even worse than the current Sicilian situation. To my mind it makes more sense to have, for instance, one section for 2...d6 Open Sicilians and one for all the other Sicilians. Or any roughly even split the authors would be comfortable with.

That the French and the Dragons get as much coverage as all of 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 does look a bit strange (and even stranger from titled players' point of view, I imagine). Though the French and the Dragon do have some of the most "zealous" adherents!

One thought: Is the number of sections written in stone? Maybe this would be easier with 13 or 14 sections... or maybe not.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2128
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #6 - 08/14/19 at 19:36:43
Post Tools
On reflection it occurred to me that building repertoires may not be the aim of chesspublishing at all, but rather the unbiased presentation of current theory from both sides point of view. That being the case, perhaps the mission statement could be expanded to offer more as there is certainly a market for it.
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 416
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #5 - 08/14/19 at 19:24:26
Post Tools
Hi.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/14/19 at 10:17:35:
Following on from the discussion about the need for a separate Dragons section (which sprung-up in a 1 d4 d5 post!) David Vigorito sent me some of his thoughts:

Quote:
Here is my suggestion for restructuring the sections. I have been of this opinion forever, but I know there are operational details. You know when I wrote my Dragon book it was kind of easy, because there were so few games to follow, even when it was relatively fashionable. I would guess that Roiz has to follow about 20x more games in the Open Sicilian section. For subscribers that get 'broken' sections, perhaps you could allow them to choose a section, and then as a courtesy have a download for whatever games they are 'missing' for a certain period of time. Like Nimzo subscribers would get Benoni games as broken down below.

Anyway...

  1.     1.e4 e5
  2.     French & Caro (there are not many more French games than Caro)
  3.     1.e4 ...
  4.     Open Sicilians (could split into 2...d6 Sicilians, but hard to compress another section)
  5.     Anti-Sicilians
  6.     1.d4 d5 2.c4
  7.     d-Pawn Specials
  8.     King's Indian & Modern Benoni (more work for me! but often there are logical transpositions, especially in 4 Pawns and Samisch with ...c5)
  9.     Nimzo, Queen's Indian, Bogo
  10.     Grunfeld & Anti Grunfeld (many of these are E60, so they are easily missed. Grunfeld has a lot less games than KID overall, but it is so theoretical)
  11.     Daring Defences (all from ECO 'A': Dutch, Benko, Czech Benoni, Modern, Old Indian, etc)
  12.     Flank Openings



What do subscribers think?

Not a subscriber(...heh). Since I quite like chesspub though and certainly could learn to play openings better, I promise I will subscribe to at least one section in short order.

The suggested section structures in this thread seem better in my eyes compared to the current. Not that the one now is so terrible, although it feels non-optimised. Since this seems mostly like as suggestion thread right at this moment I will just post what I think would be a decent structuring (mostly by adopting ideas from other posters Grin). Love it or hate it:

Current structure:
1) 1 e4 e5
2) French
3) Dragon Sicilians
4) Open Sicilians
5) Anti-Sicilians
6) 1 e4...
7) 1 d4 d5
8) d-Pawn Specials
9) King's Indian
10) Nimzo & Benoni
11) Daring Defences
12) Flank Openings


Suggestion (bolded = no change):
1) 1 e4 e5

2) French & Caro Kann
3) Open Sicilians
or
3a) Najdorf, Classical, Scheveningen
3b) Remaining Open Sicilians
or (some more detailed partition, where a possibly unattainable one would be something like:)
3a) d6 Open Sicilians - Najdorf, Classical, Scheveningen
3b) Nc6 Open Sicilians - Sveshnikov, Kalashnikov, Lowenthal
3c) e6 Open Sicilians - Kan, Taimanov, Four Knights
3d) Dragon Sicilians - Dragon, Accelerated Dragon
3x) Open Sicilian Sidelines - Mainly second moves. Dunno. Whoever wants them I suppose. Most other sidelines fit in sort of naturally imo.
4) Anti Sicilians
5) 1 e4... (but without Caro Kann, not that it matters to me greatly)
6) 1 d4 d5
7) d-pawn Specials
8) King's Indian & Benoni
9) Nimzo, Queen's Indian, Bogo
10) Daring Defences
or
10a) Daring Defences
10b) Grünfeld
11) Flank Openings
or
11a) English
11b) Reti, KIA, Irregular first moves

I don't know how realistic the optionals are however. With these it adds up to a lot of sections in the end.

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2128
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #4 - 08/14/19 at 16:14:33
Post Tools
What I really miss was the added value section like Paul Motwani's excellent 'Double Trouble' column that provided many spicy Opening ideas to spruce up your repertoire. This was terrific value for All Section subscribers and I wish something similar was brought back; Andrew Martin also had A 'Repertoire Guides' (Or something like that) column which was also interesting.

The Sections as they are know just analyse games randomly based on what's trendy, but the updates, even when taken together, tend to lack the cohesion necessary to build a durable and complete repertoire. This is a vacuum worth filling and an idea I may expand upon in future posts.

What say others.
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2255
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #3 - 08/14/19 at 13:59:16
Post Tools
Plainly, yes, the current section organisation is bonkers.
Reminds me of world religions - if there were to be an apocalypse and things started again, no new religion would appear as now. Same with this:) 

Anyhow, armageddon back to the ranch...

I'm largely in agreement with Msr Vigorito. Obvious to have KID and Benoni together, yes.

Possible variations:
*lump in Grunfeld with KID and Benoni
* separate out 'Open' to 2 sections: 1) B60-99 d6 sicilians (Classical, Najdorf, Dragon, Schev, from 2) e6 (Kan, Taimanov) and Nc6 (Svesh, Kalash, Lowenthal etc). But I'd have to see a data breakdown on that for games volume.

Change is good!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tipau
Full Member
***
Offline


I Like ChessPublishing!

Posts: 172
Location: London, England
Joined: 01/25/08
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #2 - 08/14/19 at 13:25:49
Post Tools
Currently there are 6 sections for 1.e4, 5 for 1.d4 openings and 1 for flank openings. In David's recommendation this changes to 5,6,1 respectively. I haven't done an analysis on game volumes but if the openings I face myself are indicative maybe the Flank Section could be split into 2:

1) Open Sicilian
2) Anti-Sicilian
3) e4 e5
4) French (+ Caro?)
5) 1.e4...
6) KID + Benoni
7) Other Indians
8) 1.d4 d5 2.c4
9) Daring Defences
10) d-pawn Specials
11) English
12) Other Flank (Reti + KIA + irregular lines)

Not sure about the French + Caro. Some openings have a more fanatical following than others. Even though the French may not be played as much on a high level, I play/encounter significantly more French defence than Caro-Kann fans.
  

FIDE: ~2100
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #1 - 08/14/19 at 10:18:41
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/14/19 at 10:17:35:
David Vigorito sent me some of his thoughts:


David also writes:

Quote:
I did a little experiment. I searched my TWIC database (from 1249 on, as the rest I have in Megabase) and searched some ECO groupings. I did not differentiate by rating, but that could be useful (like both players over 2200, as a start).

A00-A39 has 19,000. This is the most, but obviously the theory is generally less critical than in something like the Grunfeld, at least in a large percentage of the games.
1.e4 e5 is 17,000.
1.d4 d5 is D10-D59, and about 14,000.
The French has about 8000, Caro 7000, B00-B09 7000. Really I do not see what is special about the French. The Caro is definitely more popular at GM level (I think!)
E00-E59 has 12,000+ - and keep in mind that does not include the Modern Benoni, which is part of the section now.
KID also has about 8k, Grunfeld about 4500, but it is highly theoretical.
It's harder to check everything, as Open Sicilians and Anti-Sicilian ECO codes are kind of mixed together, but The Dragon has less than 1500. The B60-99 (2...d6) is close to 8k - more in line with French and Caro.
Obviously Daring Defences, d4 deviations, and Anti-Sicilians will be smaller, but that's intentionally specialty stuff.

food for thought?
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Should the opening sections be reorganised?
08/14/19 at 10:17:35
Post Tools
Following on from the discussion about the need for a separate Dragons section (which sprung-up in a 1 d4 d5 post!) David Vigorito sent me some of his thoughts:

Quote:
Here is my suggestion for restructuring the sections. I have been of this opinion forever, but I know there are operational details. You know when I wrote my Dragon book it was kind of easy, because there were so few games to follow, even when it was relatively fashionable. I would guess that Roiz has to follow about 20x more games in the Open Sicilian section. For subscribers that get 'broken' sections, perhaps you could allow them to choose a section, and then as a courtesy have a download for whatever games they are 'missing' for a certain period of time. Like Nimzo subscribers would get Benoni games as broken down below.

Anyway...

  1.     1.e4 e5
  2.     French & Caro (there are not many more French games than Caro)
  3.     1.e4 ...
  4.     Open Sicilians (could split into 2...d6 Sicilians, but hard to compress another section)
  5.     Anti-Sicilians
  6.     1.d4 d5 2.c4
  7.     d-Pawn Specials
  8.     King's Indian & Modern Benoni (more work for me! but often there are logical transpositions, especially in 4 Pawns and Samisch with ...c5)
  9.     Nimzo, Queen's Indian, Bogo
  10.     Grunfeld & Anti Grunfeld (many of these are E60, so they are easily missed. Grunfeld has a lot less games than KID overall, but it is so theoretical)
  11.     Daring Defences (all from ECO 'A': Dutch, Benko, Czech Benoni, Modern, Old Indian, etc)
  12.     Flank Openings



What do subscribers think?
« Last Edit: 08/14/19 at 12:28:03 by GMTonyKosten »  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo