Promoting chess discussion.
|
|
Chess Forum Promoting chess discussion. |
>than the Antoshin variation, and I was wondering why. I have been very >successful with the Antoshin variation and find that the Hanham variation is >very cramped for black. If I'm not mistaken, the Hanham variation of the Philidor is also called "The Lion". I know there is a book about that opening. There used to be a website dedicated to it, but I think it's down. I'd also like to know more about that. Regards, Jeff |
The Lion is usually reached through a Pirc move order. I have played it a few times in blitz. Finding info on the Lion is difficult. http://home.planet.nl/~dorp0043/chess/lion/lionexplanation.htm Black's game just seems a bit too cramped for my taste, although if it has a chance to uncoil it certainly has some venom to it. Sandy > If I'm not mistaken, the Hanham variation of the Philidor is also called "The > Lion". I know there is a book about that opening. There used to be a website > dedicated to it, but I think it's down. I'd also like to know more about that. > > Regards, > Jeff > |
and see if that applies to the Philidor with an early ...e5xd4. |
> I am considering using the Philidor defense as my drawing line in my black > opening repertoire vs. 1.e4 > > going for a draw - Philidor - Antoshin variation > going for a win - Siclian Defense > > I have read that the Hanham variation of the Philidor is played more often > than the Antoshin variation, and I was wondering why. I have been very > successful with the Antoshin variation and find that the Hanham variation is > very cramped for black. > > Also, I would be interested in anyone who plays the Philidor, and what > variation they prefer. > > Thanks, > S. Breon I have played Philidor's since 1984, and have found it to be much better than a mere 'drawing' weapon. I calculated my stats once and found that I drew about a third of my games, won about a third, and lost about a third. For black, these are pretty good results. They are especially good considering that a significant number of the opponents I drew or beat were masters/CM's (in one case a GM) and of the games I lost were lost only a few were lost in the opening, and this was not the opening's fault but mine. Secondly, a number of strong GM's have played the Philidor in serious competition - Nimzo, Tartakower, Marco, Alekhine, Lombardy, Larsen, etc. In general, the Philidor is positionally correct. Most of my games were with the deferred hanham - a solid variation. Whites who believe such bunk as 'it's too cramped' or 'it blocks the k-bishop' (does anyone still use such arguments to impugn the French??) and therefore dismiss it as losing are especially vulnerable. Black's position has great resiliency and freqently an over-ambitious white finds him or herself slowly losing the opening advantage, and can easily lose the game. I eventually stopped playing the Hanham against weaker opposition, however, because several lines were, if White had no winning ambitions, too drawish to preserve winning chances for black (for instance, lines in which all the d and e-pawns are exchanged). I would say this, however: If you don't enjoy patient, manoevering types of games, you may be better off not to play the Philidor, or to choose the Larsen variation (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 g6) - but then you have to reckon with 4. Qd4 or 4. Bc4, or earlier 3. Bc4 which may not be to your taste, either. However, if you do like trench warfare there is absolutely no reason not to play it. I recommend Kosten's and Harding's books on the subject, and there's a chessbase database on it with many games. It's also good to study Nimzovich's games in "My System", though some of his methods of playing are out-of-date. |
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Philidor. I agree that it is very underrated. In 50 blitz games with it I have the best win percentage of any defense I use with the black pieces. I have not tried it OTB yet, though. Can you tell me what you mean by the deferred Hanham? Thanks for the book recommendations. I have been thinking about getting the Kosten book for some time. Sandy > I have played Philidor's since 1984, and have found it to be much > better than a mere 'drawing' weapon. I calculated my stats once and > found that I drew about a third of my games, won about a third, and > lost about a third. For black, these are pretty good results. They > are especially good considering that a significant number of the > opponents I drew or beat were masters/CM's (in one case a GM) and of > the games I lost were lost only a few were lost in the opening, and > this was not the opening's fault but mine. > Secondly, a number of strong GM's have played the Philidor in serious > competition - Nimzo, Tartakower, Marco, Alekhine, Lombardy, Larsen, > etc. > In general, the Philidor is positionally correct. Most of my games > were with the deferred hanham - a solid variation. Whites who > believe such bunk as 'it's too cramped' or 'it blocks the k-bishop' > (does anyone still use such arguments to impugn the French??) and > therefore dismiss it as losing are especially vulnerable. Black's > position has great resiliency and freqently an over-ambitious white > finds him or herself slowly losing the opening advantage, and can > easily lose the game. > I eventually stopped playing the Hanham against weaker opposition, > however, because several lines were, if White had no winning > ambitions, too drawish to preserve winning chances for black (for > instance, lines in which all the d and e-pawns are exchanged). > I would say this, however: If you don't enjoy patient, manoevering > types of games, you may be better off not to play the Philidor, or to > choose the Larsen variation (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 g6) - > but then you have to reckon with 4. Qd4 or 4. Bc4, or earlier 3. Bc4 > which may not be to your taste, either. However, if you do like > trench warfare there is absolutely no reason not to play it. I > recommend Kosten's and Harding's books on the subject, and there's a > chessbase database on it with many games. It's also good to study > Nimzovich's games in "My System", though some of his methods of > playing are out-of-date. |
> Dan, > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Philidor. I agree that it is very > underrated. In 50 blitz games with it I have the best win percentage of any > defense I use with the black pieces. I have not tried it OTB yet, though. I had great results (nearly 100% against all levels of oposition)in Blitz with the Philidor countergambit (3....f5) and I played one game with it in tournament play (against an "A" player) and won. However, I would be very nervous to try it repeatedly. It strikes me as positionally wrong, and a lot of the analysis in NM West's book on the PCG is far too generous to black. I also recommend that you look into 3. ...Qf6 as a reply to 3. Bc4. This is a side line, invented (I think) by Lombardy. It's very solid despite its bizarre appearance. I suggest you give it a shot as a lot of folks essay 3. Bc4 and it's problematic for black to meet without improving on 3. ...Be7. I've won the 2 tournament games I've played with it, and a majority of the countless Blitz games I've played with it. > > Can you tell me what you mean by the deferred Hanham? I mean (as opposed to 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7?) 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6!, followed by ...Nd7. > > Thanks for the book recommendations. I have been thinking about getting the > Kosten book for some time. E-mail me at [email protected] if you want more details on any of this. |
Thanks for the Qf6 tidbit against Bc4. That is bound to get white's attention, I would think. When you played the Hanham Philidor, as far as strategy is concerned, were you most concerned about not causing any weaknesses for the endgame? Thanks, Sandy Breon "dan foley" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Sandy Breon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > Dan, > > > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Philidor. I agree that it is very > > underrated. In 50 blitz games with it I have the best win percentage of any > > defense I use with the black pieces. I have not tried it OTB yet, though. > > I had great results (nearly 100% against all levels of oposition)in > Blitz with the Philidor countergambit (3....f5) and I played one game > with it in tournament play (against an "A" player) and won. However, > I would be very nervous to try it repeatedly. It strikes me as > positionally wrong, and a lot of the analysis in NM West's book on the > PCG is far too generous to black. > > I also recommend that you look into 3. ...Qf6 as a reply to 3. Bc4. > This is a side line, invented (I think) by Lombardy. It's very solid > despite its bizarre appearance. I suggest you give it a shot as a lot > of folks essay 3. Bc4 and it's problematic for black to meet without > improving on 3. ...Be7. I've won the 2 tournament games I've played > with it, and a majority of the countless Blitz games I've played with > it. > > > > > Can you tell me what you mean by the deferred Hanham? > > I mean (as opposed to 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7?) 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 > d6 3. d4 Nf6!, followed by ...Nd7. > > > > Thanks for the book recommendations. I have been thinking about getting the > > Kosten book for some time. > > E-mail me at [email protected] if you want more details on any of > this. |
[email protected] (dan foley) wrote: > Whites who > believe such bunk as 'it's too cramped' or 'it blocks the k-bishop' > (does anyone still use such arguments to impugn the French??) and > therefore dismiss it as losing are especially vulnerable. Just as an aside, yes... one of the first things a player of the French has to learn is how to deal with his bad bishop. Otherwise, he'll lose dozens of games in simple good-knight-vs-bad-bishop endings. The different, I think, is that it's easier to see what you get in exchange for your bad bishop in the french than in the philidor. (I don't say this to impugn the philidor, but merely to point out the problems with it. I've played plenty of games against the Philidor--admitedly, mostly onlien--where black did play passively and ended up regretting the position of his bishop; relatively speaking, I've played fewer games against the french where black had no meaningful compensation for his postional disadvantage. This doesn't mean that the Philidor is bad, merely that you better learn how to play it right!) |
wrote: [snip] >I have played Philidor's since 1984, and have found it to be much >better than a mere 'drawing' weapon. I calculated my stats once and >found that I drew about a third of my games, won about a third, and >lost about a third. For black, these are pretty good results. They >are especially good considering that a significant number of the >opponents I drew or beat were masters/CM's (in one case a GM) and of >the games I lost were lost only a few were lost in the opening, and >this was not the opening's fault but mine. IMO if you have such an amount of experience with this opening (which I guess white players will not face often) IMO this is a pretty good proof that the Philidor is not a good opening. I'm playing the French for about the same time, and my overall stats are around 60% (usually opponents up to ELO ~2200). Considering that the white player will face the French *much* more often than the Philidor (and no one can say the French is an aggressive opening <g > ), IMO this shows that even specializing does not help with the Philidor, as it is just not a good choice. Andreas |
My goal is to find a drawish defense against 1.e4. Do you have any recommendations other than the French or Petroff? The Caro-Kann perhaps? Thanks, Sandy > IMO if you have such an amount of experience with this opening (which > I guess white players will not face often) IMO this is a pretty good > proof that the Philidor is not a good opening. > I'm playing the French for about the same time, and my overall stats > are around 60% (usually opponents up to ELO ~2200). > Considering that the white player will face the French *much* more > often than the Philidor (and no one can say the French is an > aggressive opening <g> ), IMO this shows that even specializing does > not help with the Philidor, as it is just not a good choice. > > Andreas |
<[email protected] > wrote: >Andreas, > >My goal is to find a drawish defense against 1.e4. Do you have any >recommendations other than the French or Petroff? The Caro-Kann perhaps? I would not dare to recommend the Petroff. The novelties that appear currently are about move 20-25. The estimation of the different variations is constantly swinging, and you need to be up to date on every single day. This opening IMO is for workaholics only. The Caro-Kann may be no bad idea, but why not choose some special lines in the french? some examples: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7 (idea is playing Bc6). I guarantee that this will make some guys bang their head against a wall <g > 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Bd7 (Idea is ...Bb5) You need to learn one sharper line, the rest is easy. I will not cover the KIA and the French exchange here, as they are drawish from white's side. But more general: I would not recommend to choose an opening to draw. Psychologically this is more or less a guarantee to loose. Get a safe repertoire, and just try to play as good as you can. The more you know about an opening (not the moves, the plans and the ideas), the better. Any game enhances your experience, and will lead to a better understanding the next time. Andreas |
Thanks for the recommendation. I hate to move the same piece twice in the opening (Bd7-Bc6/Bb5), but it deals with the weakness of the opening and I am willing to give it a whirl in blitz sometime. Thanks, Sandy "Andreas Walkenhorst" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:41:37 GMT, "Sandy Breon" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Andreas, > > > >My goal is to find a drawish defense against 1.e4. Do you have any > >recommendations other than the French or Petroff? The Caro-Kann perhaps? > > I would not dare to recommend the Petroff. The novelties that appear > currently are about move 20-25. The estimation of the different > variations is constantly swinging, and you need to be up to date on > every single day. This opening IMO is for workaholics only. > The Caro-Kann may be no bad idea, but why not choose some special > lines in the french? > > some examples: > > 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7 (idea is playing Bc6). > I guarantee that this will make some guys bang their head against a > wall <g> > > 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Bd7 (Idea is ...Bb5) > You need to learn one sharper line, the rest is easy. > > I will not cover the KIA and the French exchange here, as they are > drawish from white's side. > > > But more general: I would not recommend to choose an opening to draw. > Psychologically this is more or less a guarantee to loose. Get a safe > repertoire, and just try to play as good as you can. > The more you know about an opening (not the moves, the plans and the > ideas), the better. Any game enhances your experience, and will lead > to a better understanding the next time. > > Andreas |
One French defense queston for you: What is the problem with delaying ..d5 and simply fianchettoing the problem bishop in the French? Thanks, Sandy "Andreas Walkenhorst" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:41:37 GMT, "Sandy Breon" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Andreas, > > > >My goal is to find a drawish defense against 1.e4. Do you have any > >recommendations other than the French or Petroff? The Caro-Kann perhaps? > > I would not dare to recommend the Petroff. The novelties that appear > currently are about move 20-25. The estimation of the different > variations is constantly swinging, and you need to be up to date on > every single day. This opening IMO is for workaholics only. > The Caro-Kann may be no bad idea, but why not choose some special > lines in the french? > > some examples: > > 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7 (idea is playing Bc6). > I guarantee that this will make some guys bang their head against a > wall <g> > > 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Bd7 (Idea is ...Bb5) > You need to learn one sharper line, the rest is easy. > > I will not cover the KIA and the French exchange here, as they are > drawish from white's side. > > > But more general: I would not recommend to choose an opening to draw. > Psychologically this is more or less a guarantee to loose. Get a safe > repertoire, and just try to play as good as you can. > The more you know about an opening (not the moves, the plans and the > ideas), the better. Any game enhances your experience, and will lead > to a better understanding the next time. > > Andreas |
<[email protected] > wrote: >Andreas, > >One French defense queston for you: What is the problem with delaying ..d5 >and simply fianchettoing the problem bishop in the French? > >Thanks, >Sandy Hi Sandy, playing 1...e6 and 2...b6 is no French defense, but AFAIK called English or Owen Defense. Andreas |
paper). After the Bb7 fianchetto, it appears like Black can attempt to rip white's e4/d4 pawn center with moves like c5 or even f5. Seems very hypermodern and dynamic. Very interesting. S. Breon "Andreas Walkenhorst" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:07:05 GMT, "Sandy Breon" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Andreas, > > > >One French defense queston for you: What is the problem with delaying ..d5 > >and simply fianchettoing the problem bishop in the French? > > > >Thanks, > >Sandy > > > Hi Sandy, > > playing 1...e6 and 2...b6 is no French defense, but AFAIK called > English or Owen Defense. > > Andreas |
news:[email protected]... > I looked up some games with this so-called Owen Defense and I like it (on > paper). After the Bb7 fianchetto, it appears like Black can attempt to rip > white's e4/d4 pawn center with moves like c5 or even f5. Seems very > hypermodern and dynamic. The Owen is certainly playable. However, Black has trouble equalizing after c5 because a natural setup is hard to reach because of the lack of space. The following line is very far from forced, but lines like this led to the investigation of 1.-a6 and 2.-b5 since it secures d5 as an outpost. (And 1.-a6 is too unbalanced to be used as a drawing line.) 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Nf6 6.Qe2 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 0-0 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.e5 Nd5 11.c4 The Classical Caro-Kan 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 would be one of my choices. The Ruy Lopez / Berlin is another option: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 <Pierre/ > |
Thanks for the insight on the Owens Defense. I hadn't thought much about white's central control and moves like c3 and a3. I really like your idea about using the Berlin Defense vs. the Ruy. The game could quickly get the queens off the board and go into an endgame. And then maybe I could use the Hungarian Defense versus the Italian game. Very passive, but attempting to keep the fireworks to a minimum. For a more counterattacking game or playing against weaker players, I will use the Sicilian Defense or Alekhine defense to create an unbalanced game. I played the Alekhine Defense last night for the first time on ICC in blitz versus a 1700, and won! It was a fun game. Thanks, Sandy "Pierre Boutquin" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:%[email protected]... > "Sandy Breon" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > I looked up some games with this so-called Owen Defense and I like it (on > > paper). After the Bb7 fianchetto, it appears like Black can attempt to rip > > white's e4/d4 pawn center with moves like c5 or even f5. Seems very > > hypermodern and dynamic. > > The Owen is certainly playable. However, Black has trouble equalizing after > c5 because a natural setup is hard to reach because of the lack of space. > The following line is very far from forced, but lines like this led to the > investigation of 1.-a6 and 2.-b5 since it secures d5 as an outpost. (And > 1.-a6 is too unbalanced to be used as a drawing line.) > > > 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Nf6 6.Qe2 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 0-0 > 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.e5 Nd5 11.c4 > > The Classical Caro-Kan 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 would be > one of my choices. > > The Ruy Lopez / Berlin is another option: > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 > > <Pierre/> > > |
"Sandy Breon" <[email protected] > wrote: > Andreas, > > My goal is to find a drawish defense against 1.e4. Do you have any > recommendations other than the French or Petroff? The Caro-Kann perhaps? Don't be too dismissive of the French. While the main variations tend to be very counter-attack oriented, playing an early dxe4 (which is the Rubenstein, right?) and setting up "fort knox" (pawns on a7, b7, c6, e6, f7, g7, and h7 against an c4-d4 pawn center) is a very good (and fairly easy to play) way to go for a solid game. Obviously, these positions have a lot in common with some of the main-line caro-kanns-- blacks QB position is worse, but because he usually hasn't had to weaken his kingside after the x.h4 h6 variations, kingside castling is usually a very reasonable (and solid) choice. Unless you're very strong, however, I'm not sure that looking for a drawing weapon is neccesarily a wise choice. Against stronger players, it's a way to lose a lot of very dry, long, technical games (tactical complications are your friend against strong players!), while against weaker players you should probably be playing for a win. Also remember the old advice that the best way to get a draw is to play for a win. (Few strong players below master will accept a draw against a player 100 points or more lower than them even in a completely even position, because they beleve they can outplay you from that even position.) |
> On 23 Sep 2003 14:25:29 -0700, [email protected] (dan foley) > wrote: > > >I have played Philidor's since 1984, and have found it to be much > >better than a mere 'drawing' weapon. I calculated my stats once and > >found that I drew about a third of my games, won about a third, and > >lost about a third. For black, these are pretty good results. They > >are especially good considering that a significant number of the > >opponents I drew or beat were masters/CM's (in one case a GM) and of > >the games I lost were lost only a few were lost in the opening, and > >this was not the opening's fault but mine. > > IMO if you have such an amount of experience with this opening (which > I guess white players will not face often) IMO this is a pretty good > proof that the Philidor is not a good opening. > I'm playing the French for about the same time, and my overall stats > are around 60% (usually opponents up to ELO ~2200). > Considering that the white player will face the French *much* more > often than the Philidor (and no one can say the French is an > aggressive opening <g> ), IMO this shows that even specializing does > not help with the Philidor, as it is just not a good choice. > > Andreas "It isn't any good" is a bit black and white, don't you think? What's the refutation? What your stats with the French (60% with the black pieces is highly unusual) suggest to me is that you haven't been facing equal opposition on the whole ('up to' 2200 doesn't say much about the whole sampling). They also show that you do well with the positions resulting in the French, and that you're comfortable with them. What I do NOT claim is that MY results demonstrate anything about the Philidor writ large. My experience with the philidor is this: (i) I'm comfortable with the resulting positions (ii) my losses with it were, for the most part, the result of middlegame/endgame errors or tactical blunders, and (iii) when I've faced opposition stronger than myself, I performed better with the Philidor than with other openings. Finally, enough players stronger than myself have had success with it and/or SAID that it was sound (if not to everyone's taste) that I have no reason to disbelieve it. I stand behind my assessment that it's a viable option. I also alluded to a problem with the philidor that I ran into, which was that after a time I began to run into certain lines that were too drawish against WEAKER opposition. Although only a few players actually did play these lines, the positions were hard to avoid. This is one of the reasons I started playing the Larsen variation 3. ...ed4: followed by 4. ...g6, the French (I'm with you on that one!) and the modern against weaker players- all are more dynamic but still positionally solid. |
wrote: [snip] >"It isn't any good" is a bit black and white, don't you think? What's >the refutation? Just some general comments: AFAIK the Philidor is not refuted. It is playable (whatever that means). If you look at the repertoire of *heavyweights* you'll hardly find a IM or GM who plays it regularly (occational use is irrelevant, that is more about surprise values). Even looking in the past (lets say the last 50 years) does not change anything on this observation. The use of the Philidor of players like Alekhine IMO is irrelevant, as then chess was quite a different game. Theory was more or less undeveloped, but at least not comparable to the current situation. IMO all this tells a lot about the *quality* of this opening. It is just worse than most other (non-refuted) openings that one can choose vs 1.e4. It is lacking dynamics, it is very passive. Anyway, if you like the resulting positions, you should play it, no doubt. This may be the most important measure for any choice of an opening Andreas |
> Andreas Walkenhorst <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > On 23 Sep 2003 14:25:29 -0700, [email protected] (dan foley) > > wrote: > > > > > IMO if you have such an amount of experience with this opening (which > > I guess white players will not face often) IMO this is a pretty good > > proof that the Philidor is not a good opening. > > I'm playing the French for about the same time, and my overall stats > > are around 60% (usually opponents up to ELO ~2200). > > Considering that the white player will face the French *much* more > > often than the Philidor (and no one can say the French is an > > aggressive opening <g> ), IMO this shows that even specializing does > > not help with the Philidor, as it is just not a good choice. > > > > Andreas > > "It isn't any good" is a bit black and white, don't you think? What's > the refutation? > > What your stats with the French (60% with the black pieces is highly > unusual) suggest to me is that you haven't been facing equal > opposition on the whole ('up to' 2200 doesn't say much about the whole > sampling). They also show that you do well with the positions > resulting in the French, and that you're comfortable with them. > > What I do NOT claim is that MY results demonstrate anything about the > Philidor writ large. My experience with the philidor is this: (i) I'm > comfortable with the resulting positions (ii) my losses with it were, > for the most part, the result of middlegame/endgame errors or tactical > blunders, and (iii) when I've faced opposition stronger than myself, I > performed better with the Philidor than with other openings. Finally, > enough players stronger than myself have had success with it and/or > SAID that it was sound (if not to everyone's taste) that I have no > reason to disbelieve it. > > I stand behind my assessment that it's a viable option. > > I also alluded to a problem with the philidor that I ran into, which > was that after a time I began to run into certain lines that were too > drawish against WEAKER opposition. Although only a few players > actually did play these lines, the positions were hard to avoid. This > is one of the reasons I started playing the Larsen variation 3. > ...ed4: followed by 4. ...g6, the French (I'm with you on that one!) > and the modern against weaker players- all are more dynamic but still > positionally solid. A search of chessbase yielded the following statistical results: On the whole, (i.e. all openings considered) black wins 30%, Draws 32%, and loses 38% of all games. Therefore, my results are statistically better than average. However, the Philidor doesn't score quite so well on the whole: Black wins 29%, draws 30%, and loses 41% of the time. This is not, however, enough of a statistical deviation from the average to conclude that "it isn't any good". The French does better, and in fact scores almost precisely the same as the whole: 29% black wins, 33% draws, and 38% losses. This also shows what I suspected, that your 60% results are highly atypical and are explained not by how good the French is (and I do think it's great) but by chance or by the strength of your opponents relative to you. |
wrote: [snip] > > >A search of chessbase yielded the following statistical results: On >the whole, (i.e. all openings considered) black wins 30%, Draws 32%, >and loses 38% of all games. Therefore, my results are statistically >better than average. IMO the overall score of an opening does not tell so much about the quality of an opening. If this were the case one *had* to play a variation of the Sicilian <g >. But a very good hint is IMO that you are able to find one or more of the following points: - Use in World Championships (after WWII) - Regular use by several (!) GM and / or IM - Regular use in Correspondence Chess, by correspondence GMs / IM's - Several Books from different authors Concerning your own reults: IMO it is quite normal that you have a better score than the average in a DB, if you're playing one special opening for years or even decades. Even more, this is a *must* IMO. The assumption is this: Every player (as long as he is not at this or that end of the ELO ranking) will play about the same average strength - compared to his own - over the years. And as his experience rises, his score *must* rise too. I mean if you have the same position in an OTB game after move 15 or 20 for the 10th time, and you are not performing better than when you faced that position for the first time, something is going terribly wrong. Andreas |
> IMO the overall score of an opening does not tell so much about the > quality of an opening. If this were the case one *had* to play a > variation of the Sicilian <g>. Ah, now weren't you the one who said that my (individual) stats were "pretty good proof" that the Philidor is no good, and you cited your 60% with the French as contrasting evidence to back this claim up? Let me get this right - the statistical score of an individual has probative value, but the collective score of many STRONGER individuals doesn't? Something seems awry with your logic here. Anyway, if anything, the database stats I cited above, if anything, back YOU up, because white wins less often with the French than the Philidor - even though he loses the same percentage of the time. Remember, my results were proffered only as anecdotal evidence - someone asked for advice / experience on the opening, I have more than most - so I responded. > Concerning your own reults: > IMO it is quite normal that you have a better score than the average > in a DB, if you're playing one special opening for years or even > decades. Even more, this is a *must* IMO. > > The assumption is this: Every player (as long as he is not at this or > that end of the ELO ranking) will play about the same average strength > - compared to his own - over the years. > And as his experience rises, his score *must* rise too. > I mean if you have the same position in an OTB game after move 15 or > 20 for the 10th time, and you are not performing better than > when you faced that position for the first time, something is going > terribly wrong. Uhlmann won with the French 35% of the time - only 6% better than the database. Perhaps he should have given it up because he didn't score 60%. Incidentally, I'm having more fun with this thread than I've had in years on a newsgroup--thanks for the repartee :) |
wrote: >Andreas Walkenhorst <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... >> IMO the overall score of an opening does not tell so much about the >> quality of an opening. If this were the case one *had* to play a >> variation of the Sicilian <g>. > >Ah, now weren't you the one who said that my (individual) stats were >"pretty good proof" that the Philidor is no good, and you cited your >60% with the French as contrasting evidence to back this claim up? >Let me get this right - the statistical score of an individual has >probative value, but the collective score of many STRONGER individuals >doesn't? Something seems awry with your logic here. Anyway, if >anything, the database stats I cited above, if anything, back YOU up, >because white wins less often with the French than the Philidor - even >though he loses the same percentage of the time. Remember, my results >were proffered only as anecdotal evidence - someone asked for advice / >experience on the opening, I have more than most - so I responded. Ok, I admit all that does not sound logical at all. But I hope this is just because I did not make it clear so The quality of an opening - in general - is undoubtfully reflected by the statistics of DB results. The quality of an opening for a *person* (who is no GM <g >) - in using it - is quite a different thing. For me for example I can only say that I just have the impression that I never understood the Sicilian. The player's choice does not deal with statistics (or at least I hope so), but with positions that he likes. But IMO the chosen opening sets some borders that the player cannot cross. If one plays the Damiano, he'll not gonna have a good score on the long term, no matter how experienced he is. I guess the score of a player - on the long term - reflects his experience, *and* the quality and the potential of the opening. [snip] >Uhlmann won with the French 35% of the time - only 6% better than the >database. Perhaps he should have given it up because he didn't score >60%. As I said in a former post, If you have a very high ELO, things are different. Many things appear that the average player usually does not face. Preparation of the opponents is much more specific, and by this much more dangerous and effective. If a player has 200 of your games, and has the time to prepare, I guess he'll find some *holes* in your repertoire. Something like this happened to me some years ago, when I lost to a player who knew me and my opening repertoire very well, and - though about 200 points weaker than me killed me straight away with a line in the Winawer with 7.h4. I have some ideas what would happen to my 60 percent if all opponents would prepare in that way <g > > >Incidentally, I'm having more fun with this thread than I've had in >years on a newsgroup--thanks for the repartee :) Full ACK, it is nice to find out that thare are still some people out there that are able to discuss things without all these insults. Just arguing. Seems to vanish these days. |
> I am considering using the Philidor defense as my drawing line in my black > opening repertoire vs. 1.e4 > > going for a draw - Philidor - Antoshin variation > going for a win - Siclian Defense > > I have read that the Hanham variation of the Philidor is played more often > than the Antoshin variation, and I was wondering why. I have been very > successful with the Antoshin variation and find that the Hanham variation is > very cramped for black. > > Also, I would be interested in anyone who plays the Philidor, and what > variation they prefer. > > Thanks, > S. Breon I've played the Hanham from time to time when I've needed a win against a weaker player. Alekhine also did this. But I would never never play any variation of the Philidor against a *stronger* opponent!! warm regards, grey_hipster |
"GreyHipster" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[email protected]... > I've played the Hanham from time to time when I've needed a win > against a weaker player. I played it once against a weaker player and had no real chance against the repetition of moves (Ng5 Nh6 - Nf3 Ng8 ...) Burkart |
of one's repertoire. Is this true? Thanks, Sandy "Burkart Venzke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "GreyHipster" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:[email protected]... > > > I've played the Hanham from time to time when I've needed a win > > against a weaker player. > > I played it once against a weaker player and had no real chance against the > repetition of moves (Ng5 Nh6 - Nf3 Ng8 ...) > > Burkart > > |
experience. Burkart "Sandy Breon" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[email protected]... > It sounds like you guys are not really endorsing this defense as a big part > of one's repertoire. Is this true? > > Thanks, > Sandy > > > "Burkart Venzke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > "GreyHipster" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > I've played the Hanham from time to time when I've needed a win > > > against a weaker player. > > > > I played it once against a weaker player and had no real chance against > the > > repetition of moves (Ng5 Nh6 - Nf3 Ng8 ...) > > > > Burkart > > > > > > |
> I've played the Hanham from time to time when I've needed a win > against a weaker player. Alekhine also did this. But I would never > never play any variation of the Philidor against a *stronger* > opponent!! warm regards, grey_hipster I have played it with success against stronger opposition (which for me is 2100-experts, and a few masters). I even beat Kudrin with it in a simul once. The 'bad' bishop is rarely actually bad since white seldom plays d5 (as opposed to the French, where he often plays e5). If White does play d5, the position can take on an OID, KID, or even Czech-benoni character - hardly a major victory for White. Secondly, as in the French, black has many standard manuevers to activate the bishop - including Bf6, Bf8-g7, Bd8-b6 (or c7), or in some instances Bg5 to trade it for White's dark squared bishop. I will agree with you - to the extent that few people have the temperment to play the philidor successfully, I wouldn't recommend it in general. A sicilian groupie is likely to become bored with the positions quickly. But if you are comfortable with trench warfare and do your homework, it's an extremely dangerous weapon against all levels of opposition. (can you guess - I love the French too) |