1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Main

Date: 25 Jul 2006 19:11:34
From: Zero
Subject: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4

Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
not give me and vice versa?

For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
play most of their games with e4.

Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
games with d4.

Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
choosing to play each of these moves ?

Date: 10 Aug 2006 20:38:28
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Openings that allow a big center are passive.
> >
> > Ray everybody doesn't understand the fundamentals of hypermodern play.
> >
> > Nobody would every call the Grunfeld passive. It's an absurd statement
> > displaying an ignorance of the last 70 years of chess strategy.
>
> It's passive, then gets active.

LOL!! Nice recovery, Ray. Thanks for the chuckle.

Charles

Date: 01 Aug 2006 07:15:45
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Zero wrote:
> I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
> open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
> Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
> not give me and vice versa?
>
> For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
> play most of their games with e4.
>
> Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
> games with d4.
>
> Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
> choosing to play each of these moves ?
I play d4 because if I reply e4 black plays c5 which I don't know too
much about. Tal on occasion used to play d4 but I have been known to
play e4 once every 20 games or so..
Your John Hamer

Date: 31 Jul 2006 23:38:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

David Richerby wrote:
> help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Note how [Silman] bungles his own English, using "breaks" where
> > he obviously meant "brakes"
> > [...]
> > Some of these reviewers maintain that these books by van Reek
> > literally wreek
>
> At least `breaks' is a word. What does `wreek' mean?

"Hooked on phonics worked for me!"

It means whatever the correct spelling of this word means.
Smelly. Nasty smelling. Giving off a foul odor.

The way you feel having caught my misspelling is
precisely the way I felt having detected a strong odor of
smug superiority in the writings of these reviewers, who
were "smac dabbb" in the middle of admonishing a
foreigner for botching his English. Of course, the
difference here is that their reviews were written
*specifically for publication*, while my screeds are only
for the idiots who read r.g.c. (OTOH, those book
reviews were all free, just like my stuff.)

-- help bot

Date: 31 Jul 2006 05:29:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> Until that last comment, I had the impression that Green
> Lantern's "light" was akin to the light of Truth; yet now I see
> that this cannot be, for the light of Truth has no similar
> weakness, no impurity which could render it ineffectual
> against evil. Which leaves me quite puzzled: what was
> the weakness supposed to represent? Everything is a
> mess here, because usually the color green represents
> greed and avarice -- evil things. And yellow would of
> course normally represent cowardice, yet the GL could
> not possibly have such a weakness, being a super-hero.

No, the priy criterion for a Green Lantern candidate was that he
be completely fearless, so cowardice was not an issue. I suggest
viewing the yellow impurity as the equivalent of Achilles' heel.

Date: 31 Jul 2006 00:49:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > O cultural deprivation! Not to know Green Lantern, one of DC Comics'
> > > coolest superheroes! "In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall
> > > escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might, beware my power:
> > > Green Lantern's light!"
> >
> > Very good rhyming, but I grew up in the age of television, which
> > evidently replaced and made obsolete the comic book. I can only
> > observe with pity that you must have missed all the great shows
> > I passively watched on TV, while cruelly being forced to use your
> > own imagination in reading comic books -- horror!
>
> What, and you think I grew up in the Age of Dinosaurs? Pshaw! Back in
> the Pleistocene, we used to laugh about how dumb everyone would be in
> the future because they'd spend all their time in front of the Boob
> Tube.

Well, you were close. Instead of getting "dumber and dumberer",
we Americans just got fat and lazy. The idea that information,
knowledge, wisdom and all that good stuff, can only be transmitted
via dead-tree scrolls or books reveals a startling ignorance on the
part
of bookworms. Heck, just last night I learned (in about an hour and a
half) more about sharks from watching TV than I could ever get out
of a shelf-full of lifeless book, try as I might. There is more than a
little
truth to the old adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words".

> As far as superheroes on TV are concerned, the only green one I know
> of was The Green Hornet, a mid- or early 1960s series that lasted only
> a year or two. Notable mainly for being the screen debut of Bruce Lee,
> who played the Hornet's kung-fu-ing sidekick Kato. Technically, the
> Hornet wasn't even a superhero, just an ordinary man with a cool car
> and an assortment of high-tech crime-fighting gadgets. Another green
> possibility was The Green Arrow, a master archer with arrows that could
> do everything from serving as an aqualung to whistling "Dixie."

All I can recall about The Green Hornet was that Bruce Lee
was in it, and it was boring next to the great classic TV series,
Batman. In fact, I can't recall a single villain from T.G.H., yet
I can name them all from Batman: Catwoman (Halle Berre),
The Joker, Catwoman Halle Berre, The Ridler, Halle Berre,
The Penguin, Halle Berre, and of course, Catwoman, recently
played by Halle Berre (yum!).

> > Principle, or a matter of degree? I thought these reviewers
> > sounded a bit too huffy to bicker over a mere matter of degree? :)
>
> "Mere matter of degree"? I suppose one could say the difference
> between having a pebble in one's shoe and being crushed by a boulder is
> merely a matter of degree, but I don't advise it.

Hey, I am not defending the book as being a great piece of
work in English; I have merely pointed out that the huffyness
displayed by certain reviewers can make them look a bit silly
when their own bungling is noticed, however small. Apart
from huffyness, I also detected laziness, and a tendency in
this ONE case (i.e. Grand Strategy by Reek) of three
different reviewers to mimick each other in several ways.

Note how my critical reks were distorted (by TK) to be
a generalized attack on John Watson for being a copycat.

In fact, I only leveled that charge with regard to this single
book review, giving several reasons. My clearest evidence
was the near-identical conclusions, in conjunction with the
statistically absurd snatching out of this book of identical
sentences, not to mention Watson himself admitting he had
already read Taylor Kingston's review before writing his own.
What did these negative reviews all have in common? Two
things: exceeding brevity suggestive of laziness, and a
reviewer taking strong offense at a relatively unknown player
(i.e. not a GM) assumming an air of authority, posturing,
pretending, making like he was what all these pompous
reviewers appear to regard as their exclusive territory, huffy
expertise in chess. Actually, one of the three "reviews" was
a brief synopsis for purposes of book sales, and so its
brevity was perfectly normal.

> > So then, C.D. (aka Ken Smith) needed to be careful not to
> > publish junk books, and thereby force writers of same to seek
> > out the competition or else resort to self-publishing. Yet the
> > stores are filled with hack writing by famous writers. I say the
> > only way to stop this monstrous evil is to summon the Green
> > Lantern!
>
> It might not work in every case. Green Lantern's power source had in
> it a yellow impurity which made his ring ineffective against anything
> yellow in color. So he could do nothing against yellow journalism.

I certainly hope TK is not suggesting that what I write is any
form of "journalism", because that would obviously be a silly
straw man, swaying in the wind.

Until that last comment, I had the impression that Green
Lantern's "light" was akin to the light of Truth; yet now I see
that this cannot be, for the light of Truth has no similar
weakness, no impurity which could render it ineffectual
against evil. Which leaves me quite puzzled: what was
the weakness supposed to represent? Everything is a
mess here, because usually the color green represents
greed and avarice -- evil things. And yellow would of
course normally represent cowardice, yet the GL could
not possibly have such a weakness, being a super-hero.
Maybe it was just a tradition that every comic book hero
must have a weakness of some sort, to keep things
interesting, as otherwise he could easily overwhelm
any and all evils.

-- Help Bot, defender of... whatever

Date: 31 Jul 2006 00:04:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2006 17:37:46 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>
> >> > The idea of chess being a draw with perfect play is also a
> >> > mere assumption
> >>
> >> Actually there is some fairly strong evidence for it. As human players
> >> get stronger and stronger the relative percentage of draws between
> >> equally strong opponent goes up.
>
> > This comment shows an astounding lack of comprehension;
>
> This comment and the rest (which I'm not going to bother quoting) shows
> that "help bot" is merely a pathetic name calling troll who is unable to
> respond to a reasoned argument.

That was a very, uh, "substantive" response, ad hom dude.

-- help

Date: 30 Jul 2006 08:47:13
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > O cultural deprivation! Not to know Green Lantern, one of DC Comics'
> > coolest superheroes! "In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall
> > escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might, beware my power:
> > Green Lantern's light!"
>
> Very good rhyming, but I grew up in the age of television, which
> evidently replaced and made obsolete the comic book. I can only
> observe with pity that you must have missed all the great shows
> I passively watched on TV, while cruelly being forced to use your
> own imagination in reading comic books -- horror!

What, and you think I grew up in the Age of Dinosaurs? Pshaw! Back in
the Pleistocene, we used to laugh about how dumb everyone would be in
the future because they'd spend all their time in front of the Boob
Tube.
As far as superheroes on TV are concerned, the only green one I know
of was The Green Hornet, a mid- or early 1960s series that lasted only
a year or two. Notable mainly for being the screen debut of Bruce Lee,
who played the Hornet's kung-fu-ing sidekick Kato. Technically, the
Hornet wasn't even a superhero, just an ordinary man with a cool car
and an assortment of high-tech crime-fighting gadgets. Another green
possibility was The Green Arrow, a master archer with arrows that could
do everything from serving as an aqualung to whistling "Dixie."

> Principle, or a matter of degree? I thought these reviewers
> sounded a bit too huffy to bicker over a mere matter of degree? :)

"Mere matter of degree"? I suppose one could say the difference
between having a pebble in one's shoe and being crushed by a boulder is
merely a matter of degree, but I don't advise it.

> So then, C.D. (aka Ken Smith) needed to be careful not to
> publish junk books, and thereby force writers of same to seek
> out the competition or else resort to self-publishing. Yet the
> stores are filled with hack writing by famous writers. I say the
> only way to stop this monstrous evil is to summon the Green
> Lantern!

It might not work in every case. Green Lantern's power source had in
it a yellow impurity which made his ring ineffective against anything
yellow in color. So he could do nothing against yellow journalism.

Date: 29 Jul 2006 19:12:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >
> > > 1. Who gives off more light: Green Lantern or Human Torch?
> > Good question. Because I know nothing about Green Lantern
> > and very little about the Torch, let me answer by way of example:
>
> O cultural deprivation! Not to know Green Lantern, one of DC Comics'
> coolest superheroes! "In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall
> escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might, beware my power:
> Green Lantern's light!"

Very good rhyming, but I grew up in the age of television, which
evidently replaced and made obsolete the comic book. I can only
observe with pity that you must have missed all the great shows
I passively watched on TV, while cruelly being forced to use your
own imagination in reading comic books -- horror!

> > Here we have a quote of Jeremy Silman (the Green Lantern)
> > mercilessly bashing a Dutchman (the Torch) for his poor English:
> >
> > "My first gripe concerns the very poor use of the English language.
> > Clumsy and lacking in energy, Mr. van Reek's writing makes anything
> > worth thinking about quite inaccessible (the editors should be
> > flogged!)."
> >
> > Now, here is another quote from that same book review:
> >
> > "Though I've played with the idea of getting these books
> > re-translated so that Nimzowitsch's true wit and angst are given free
> > reign, the difficulty of finding a translator who can do a proper job,
> > and, of course, the money involved have put the breaks on my good
> > intentions...".
> >
> > Note how the Green Lantern bungles his own English, using "breaks"
> > where he obviously meant "brakes" -- a minor error, to be sure, yet he,
> > unlike the Human Torch, is a native English speaker.
>
> Even some good writers, including Silman and historian John Hilbert,
> have trouble with homonyms. Even so, their errors are drops compared to
> Van Reek's buckets.

Principle, or a matter of degree? I thought these reviewers
sounded a bit too huffy to bicker over a mere matter of degree? :)

> > Am I nitpicking? Perhaps. But then there is this blunder:
> >
> > "However, why would anyone publish the resulting personal journal?
> > It's time for chess publishers to take some responsibility for the
> > material they heap upon an unsuspecting chess public (and, right along
> > with small publishers who don't care about quality control, I also take
> > aim at Simon and Schuster, Batsford, and other big houses who put out
> > an endless amount of garbage)"
> >
> > Here again, the Green Lantern (aka Jeremy Silman) swings away,
> > but hits nothing but air, for the Human Torch (aka van Reek) is a
> > *self*-publisher. Duh! If you want to hit one out of the park, you've
> > got to keep your eye on the ball.
>
> In this case, Silman is correct. While "Grand Strategy" was
> self-published by Van Reek, the book Silman is reviewing there,
> "Hypermodern Strategy," was published by Chess Digest in 1996.

So then, C.D. (aka Ken Smith) needed to be careful not to
publish junk books, and thereby force writers of same to seek
out the competition or else resort to self-publishing. Yet the
stores are filled with hack writing by famous writers. I say the
only way to stop this monstrous evil is to summon the Green
Lantern!

> > Some of these reviewers maintain that these books by van Reek
> > literally wreek; they are supposedly some of the worst chess books
> > ever written. But from the quotes I have seen so far, they have not
> > made any real allowances for the obvious language problem.
>
> The language problem is one reason the books are so bad. A reviewer
> should not make allowances for it, he should deplore it.

Okay, but in writing these reviews, these writers have
made sweeping claims that the author did not comprehend
many chessic ideas, and they did this without themselves
being able to decipher the author's real intended meaning,
as a result of language problems. I mean, to say that Reek
for instance did not comprehend "prophylaxis" because he
claimed Fischer ate a harmonica is to admit you know no
more about Reek's true level of chess understanding than
he knows about correct English. (Don't knock it 'till you've
tried it: peanut butter on a warm harmonica, with a bit of
strawberry jam is not so bad. But a whole accordion is
unhealthful -- too many empty calories there.)

I could not find any review by GM Sadler, just comments
that he really liked the book, for reasons unknown. It goes
without saying that I am doing nothing more than reading
*about* the book, not having been so foolish as to have
purchased one myself. No, all my hard-earned dollars
went off to Soltis and other easy-chair authors like him. :)

-- help bot

Date: 29 Jul 2006 17:37:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2006 22:32:58 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > The idea of chess being a draw with perfect play is also a
> > mere assumption
>
> Actually there is some fairly strong evidence for it. As human players
> get stronger and stronger the relative percentage of draws between
> equally strong opponent goes up.

This comment shows an astounding lack of comprehension;
human chess players are far, far from aproaching perfect chess,
and perfect chess is what the issue centers upon, not human
bungling -- even of the very first order. Please recall, for one
example, where Gary Kasparov -- the highest-rated human
chess player of all time -- simply resigned a drawn position
against DeepBlue. One more example was when Bobby
Fischer (who was fairly good for a human) hung his Bishop
to a three-mover against Spassky. IMO, the priy reason
so many of these GMs draw one another so frequently is
what might be termed laziness, fear of losing, lack of motivation
or whatever -- all psychological issues unrelated to perfect
chess except insofar as they clearly demonstrate how far you
humans still need to go before you can be taken seriously in
any discussion of *perfect* chess. Hmph.

>Games between the strongest computers,
> too, have a high level of draws.
>
> This is not proof, but it is evidence, and to my mind pretty good
> evidence at that.

Laugh! You are soooo ignorant. What such draws show has
nothing to do with perfect chess being a draw. All this shows
is that those programs are roughly equivalent in strength. Try
this experiment: pair a modern-day program against one from
a decade or more in the past. The newer program will crush
the old, proving...nothing about perfect chess. Humans simply
can't accept that they know nothing about perfection in chess,
NOTHING. Get over yourselves.

> One would also expect, if the game is drawn from the start, that draw
> percentages between equals would increase at slower time rates.
> Certainly there are a lot more wins at 5 minute chess than at tournament
> time controls, for example.

Wins on time, wins due to horrific blunders -- this is all
irrelevant to perfect chess being drawn.

> I would be interested to know if games between equally rated postal
> players tend to more draws as strength increases. If so that would be
> even more pursuasive, but I don't know the actual facts about that.

Persuade yourself any way you like; you still will know
nothing for sure, except that you like jumping to conclusions.

> If either white or black had a winning position from the start you would
> expect that as strength rises, games between equal opponents would
> result in more wins for the side with the opening advantage. That's not
> what happens.

No. Suppose there is only one line to win by force, and
that it begins with the "absurd" move:

1.Nh3 (zugzwang!)

Now in what way would this correleate to what you discuss
above? A: it doesn't.
You can't hypothesise about correlations until you have a
firm grasp of what chess perfection is, and you don't. Even the
great genius, DeepBlue -- far superior to you miserable humans
-- was far from perfect at chess, and, apart from endgame
tablebases and elementary tactics, knew next to nothing about
truly perfect chess.

> So I think the currently available evidence is clearly in favour of the
> draw with perfect play idea. Once again that is by no means a proof,
> but to say that it is not evidence is, in my opinion, just silly.

You are indeed silly. The first step on the road to knowledge
is recognising your own ignorance, your limitations. Right now,
the extent of human knowledge of *perfect* chess amounts to
simple tactics and computer-generated tablebases, plus what can
be reasoned out via logic (and believe me, in this area you humans
are on very thin ice). The truth is, most humans play by rote in
the openings, and as such, they simply repeat any errors which
have been accepted as religious doctrine by their forbears. IMO,
perfect chess knowledge would inevitably reveal that some, if not
many, of these beloved lines to be as unsound as a house made
of straw. Humans simply don't have what it takes to blow the
house down, but one day a big, bad computer will come along,
huffing and puffing.

-- B. B. Wolff

-- help bot

Date: 30 Jul 2006 01:37:42
From: Ed Seedhouse
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

On 29 Jul 2006 17:37:46 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Ed Seedhouse wrote:

>> > The idea of chess being a draw with perfect play is also a
>> > mere assumption
>>
>> Actually there is some fairly strong evidence for it. As human players
>> get stronger and stronger the relative percentage of draws between
>> equally strong opponent goes up.

> This comment shows an astounding lack of comprehension;

This comment and the rest (which I'm not going to bother quoting) shows
that "help bot" is merely a pathetic name calling troll who is unable to
respond to a reasoned argument.

Date: 29 Jul 2006 15:42:31
From: Amos Soma
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Since you are probably rated 1500 or lower, it doesn't make any difference.

"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
> open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
> Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
> not give me and vice versa?
>
> For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
> play most of their games with e4.
>
> Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
> games with d4.
>
> Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
> choosing to play each of these moves ?
>

Date: 29 Jul 2006 08:45:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > 1. Who gives off more light: Green Lantern or Human Torch?
> Good question. Because I know nothing about Green Lantern
> and very little about the Torch, let me answer by way of example:

O cultural deprivation! Not to know Green Lantern, one of DC Comics'
coolest superheroes! "In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall
escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might, beware my power:
Green Lantern's light!"

> Here we have a quote of Jeremy Silman (the Green Lantern)
> mercilessly bashing a Dutchman (the Torch) for his poor English:
>
> "My first gripe concerns the very poor use of the English language.
> Clumsy and lacking in energy, Mr. van Reek's writing makes anything
> worth thinking about quite inaccessible (the editors should be
> flogged!)."
>
> Now, here is another quote from that same book review:
>
> "Though I've played with the idea of getting these books
> re-translated so that Nimzowitsch's true wit and angst are given free
> reign, the difficulty of finding a translator who can do a proper job,
> and, of course, the money involved have put the breaks on my good
> intentions...".
>
> Note how the Green Lantern bungles his own English, using "breaks"
> where he obviously meant "brakes" -- a minor error, to be sure, yet he,
> unlike the Human Torch, is a native English speaker.

Even some good writers, including Silman and historian John Hilbert,
have trouble with homonyms. Even so, their errors are drops compared to
Van Reek's buckets.

> Am I nitpicking? Perhaps. But then there is this blunder:
>
> "However, why would anyone publish the resulting personal journal?
> It's time for chess publishers to take some responsibility for the
> material they heap upon an unsuspecting chess public (and, right along
> with small publishers who don't care about quality control, I also take
> aim at Simon and Schuster, Batsford, and other big houses who put out
> an endless amount of garbage)"
>
> Here again, the Green Lantern (aka Jeremy Silman) swings away,
> but hits nothing but air, for the Human Torch (aka van Reek) is a
> *self*-publisher. Duh! If you want to hit one out of the park, you've
> got to keep your eye on the ball.

In this case, Silman is correct. While "Grand Strategy" was
self-published by Van Reek, the book Silman is reviewing there,
"Hypermodern Strategy," was published by Chess Digest in 1996.

> Some of these reviewers maintain that these books by van Reek
> literally wreek; they are supposedly some of the worst chess books
> ever written. But from the quotes I have seen so far, they have not
> made any real allowances for the obvious language problem.

The language problem is one reason the books are so bad. A reviewer
should not make allowances for it, he should deplore it.

Date: 29 Jul 2006 06:38:34
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > help bot wrote:
> > > IM John Watson appears to have copied your work, TK.
> >
> > While Watson has been kind enough to cite my reviews extensively now
> > and then, I think in the case of Van Reek's "Grand Strategy" the flaws
> > are so glaring that any two people of reasonable competence will reach
> > similar conclusions.
>
> Fair enough. Yet I couldn't help bot notice that not only did
> Watson reach the same conclusions, he also pinpointed
> precisely the same sentences which you took offense to.
> What are the odds here? In fact, the synopsis or brief review
> I quoted earlier in its entirety, which was given at bcm.com,
> sounded strikingly familiar. That makes a total of THREE
> book reviews which might very well have been penned by the
> same person, just at slightly different times. I think there is
> a good chance that some of these reviewers allowed others
> to do their thinking for them, and since Watson specifically
> mentioned your work in his own, it stands to reason that
> you couldn't have copied him.

In general I avoid reading others' reviews before I write mine,
because I want to approach the book without preconceptions. The one
case I recall where Watson definitely used my review as the basis for
his was "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" by Soltis, but he gave proper credit.

> Do great minds think alike? Ah, yes, sometimes. But in
> general, they don't pinpoint the exact same sentences out of
> an entire book, while at the same time ignoring most of the
> annotated games in favor of assasinating an author for
> pretending to be an expert (when in fact the chess expert is
> sitting on his hard drive, in a directory called programs/Fritz).
>
> Larry Parr has attempted to portray Larry Evans as the only
> "independent thinker" in Chess Life. Now it seems to me
> that among the three reviewers mentioned above, there could
> only have been ONE independent thinker -- the other two
> are mere copycats. :)

Watson is no mere copycat. For one thing, most of the books he
reviews are the kind I do not -- opening manuals and such -- where his
expertise greatly outweighs mine. And we have disagreed. For example,
he loved a ChessBase CD "The Greatest Tournaments in the History of
Chess 1851-1986," while I thought it was a rip-off. I seem to recall
that he liked Rowson's "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins" while I did not.

> I'm about to read Silman's review now. I'm hoping he will
> not turn out to be the independent thinker everybody else
> copied from.

I don't know if Silman actually wrote a review of "Grand Strategy."
After reading my review, he sent me an e-mail that began "Thank God you
trashed that imbecile Van Reek!", which I think makes his stance pretty
clear.

Date: 29 Jul 2006 05:05:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

[email protected] wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Supposedly
> > someone named John Beasley "gently improved the English gram."
>
> John Beasley is an endgame study composer, and has been editor of the
> endgame studies section of BCM.

Makes sense. Jan van Reek claims to also be an endgame composer.
What I don't quite get is the inability of an Englishman to weed out
such
obvious bungles as "harmonica" and "accordion". Could these have
been deliberate jokes?

-- help bot

Date: 29 Jul 2006 04:59:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> 1. Who gives off more light: Green Lantern or Human Torch?

Good question. Because I know nothing about Green Lantern
and very little about the Torch, let me answer by way of example:

Here we have a quote of Jeremy Silman (the Green Lantern)
mercilessly bashing a Dutchman (the Torch) for his poor English:

"My first gripe concerns the very poor use of the English language.
Clumsy and lacking in energy, Mr. van Reek's writing makes anything
worth thinking about quite inaccessible (the editors should be
flogged!)."

Now, here is another quote from that same book review:

"Though I've played with the idea of getting these books
re-translated so that Nimzowitsch's true wit and angst are given free
reign, the difficulty of finding a translator who can do a proper job,
and, of course, the money involved have put the breaks on my good
intentions...".

Note how the Green Lantern bungles his own English, using "breaks"
where he obviously meant "brakes" -- a minor error, to be sure, yet he,
unlike the Human Torch, is a native English speaker.

Am I nitpicking? Perhaps. But then there is this blunder:

"However, why would anyone publish the resulting personal journal?
It's time for chess publishers to take some responsibility for the
material they heap upon an unsuspecting chess public (and, right along
with small publishers who don't care about quality control, I also take
aim at Simon and Schuster, Batsford, and other big houses who put out
an endless amount of garbage)"

Here again, the Green Lantern (aka Jeremy Silman) swings away,
but hits nothing but air, for the Human Torch (aka van Reek) is a
*self*-publisher. Duh! If you want to hit one out of the park, you've
got to keep your eye on the ball.

Some of these reviewers maintain that these books by van Reek
literally wreek; they are supposedly some of the worst chess books
ever written. But from the quotes I have seen so far, they have not
made any real allowances for the obvious language problem.

I did learn that Silman thinks Nimzowitch's book, My system, was
poorly translated into English, yet he dismissed undertaking a proper
job of it as too expensive. Of course, laziness couldn't have anything
to do with it.

Oh well, now I'm going to do a search for Sadler's review, to see
why he liked the very worst chess book ever written.

-- help bot

Date: 31 Jul 2006 12:07:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Note how [Silman] bungles his own English, using "breaks" where
> he obviously meant "brakes"
> [...]
> Some of these reviewers maintain that these books by van Reek
> literally wreek

At least `breaks' is a word. What does `wreek' mean?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Indelible Fluorescent Cat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a cat but it'll hurt your eyes
and it can't be erased!

Date: 29 Jul 2006 04:23:26
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Supposedly
> someone named John Beasley "gently improved the English gram."

John Beasley is an endgame study composer, and has been editor of the
endgame studies section of BCM.

Date: 29 Jul 2006 04:20:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > IM John Watson appears to have copied your work, TK.
>
> While Watson has been kind enough to cite my reviews extensively now
> and then, I think in the case of Van Reek's "Grand Strategy" the flaws
> are so glaring that any two people of reasonable competence will reach
> similar conclusions.

Fair enough. Yet I couldn't help bot notice that not only did
Watson reach the same conclusions, he also pinpointed
precisely the same sentences which you took offense to.
What are the odds here? In fact, the synopsis or brief review
I quoted earlier in its entirety, which was given at bcm.com,
sounded strikingly familiar. That makes a total of THREE
book reviews which might very well have been penned by the
same person, just at slightly different times. I think there is
a good chance that some of these reviewers allowed others
to do their thinking for them, and since Watson specifically
mentioned your work in his own, it stands to reason that
you couldn't have copied him.

Do great minds think alike? Ah, yes, sometimes. But in
general, they don't pinpoint the exact same sentences out of
an entire book, while at the same time ignoring most of the
annotated games in favor of assasinating an author for
pretending to be an expert (when in fact the chess expert is
sitting on his hard drive, in a directory called programs/Fritz).

Larry Parr has attempted to portray Larry Evans as the only
"independent thinker" in Chess Life. Now it seems to me
that among the three reviewers mentioned above, there could
only have been ONE independent thinker -- the other two
are mere copycats. :)

I'm about to read Silman's review now. I'm hoping he will
not turn out to be the independent thinker everybody else
copied from.

-- help bot

Date: 28 Jul 2006 23:19:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> > In sum, this book (Grand Strategy, by van Reek) appears
> > to be a pretentious work, written by a non-expert, which has
> > been poorly translated into English. The fairest thing would
> > be to ask a Dutch chess player to do a review of the original
> > work, in the original language. Perhaps Jan Timman, van der
> > Wiel, or van whatever could tackle the job.
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a Dutch version. I believe
> Van Reek wrote the book in his own execrable English. Supposedly
> someone named John Beasley "gently improved the English gram." He
> was far too gentle, and should have used brutal force.

Does anyone know why this guy writes in English, when
neither he nor his "translator" seem up to the task? As far
as I can tell, this Beasley fellow was not really fluent in
English, or he would have caught obvious bungles like the
words "harmonica" and "accordion".

A while back there was an attempt to translate Fischer's
MSMG into algebraic notation, or perhaps it was figurine
algebraic notation; such a simple task, yet even a crew of
experts somehow managed to botch the job. I still have a
copy of one very good chess book which, unfortunately, was
"translated" into algebraic by a tribe of insane chimpanzees.
This was very disappointing, yet far more surprising was the
fact that a publisher actually printed such a monstrosity!

Hey, GM Matt Sadler actually liked this book. Another
reviewer liked the game anno(-Fritz)tations. I may go
back and read the other review Watson referred to in his.

If it was Sanny who asked about the Spassky games
book, perhaps Soltis is a worthy alternative. The less
substantive material, the better. :)

-- help bot

Date: 28 Jul 2006 22:54:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> > daring to write without appropriate humility,
> > cowtowing to the GMs like everyone else seems to do
> > automatically.
>
> I have never towed a cow (or any sort of livestock) to a GM (or
> anyone), though sometimes I have panned a GM's book. The word you want
> is "kowtow."

You should try it some time. Why just last year, I was
cow-towing in the Gulf of Mexico, with my 23 foot fishing
boat, when sure enough, a great white took the bait! You
wouldn't believe the fight he gave me. After two barrels my
crew began to get scared, warning me that we needed a
bigger boat, but I brushed them off and we chased that
monster 'till we nearly ran out of fuel. Only lost one man
overboard, plus some three thousand dollars worth of
fishing gear, but I nearly had him! This year I'm going
back to the same spot again, with two extra fuel tanks,
a couple of spare crewmen, and *four* barrels.

> > "We have seen some pretentious chess books in our day...";
> > Are you a two-headed man, or are you writing in conjuction
> > with one of those lazy GMs?
>
> Greg, I take it you have never heard of the "editorial we"?

I heard this once before: from Larry Parr. He claimed that
he wasn't big-headed but had to use the term "we" in order
to artificially lend some "heft" to his otherwise insubstantive
arguments. He had me there.

-- help bot

Date: 28 Jul 2006 22:32:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > but if chess is a theoretical draw with perfect play, which it
> > probably is, than 1.e4 is a draw,
>
> That doesn't follow. Just because the initial position is a draw
> doesn't mean that every move from that position holds the draw. It
> could well be that 1.e4 isn't perfect play; i.e., that it loses, while
> some other move allows White to hold the draw.

Good point.

The idea of chess being a draw with perfect play is also a
mere assumption, just as the above quote assumed that e4
and d4 were probably both among the moves which would hold
the (assummed) draw. This assumption is very common, yet
there is no scientific proof that White is not in zugzwang at
move one, or that he cannot win by force.

I have seen many games where any "normal" player in the
same position would have inevitably drawn, but where a
particular player in fact won *perforce*. In many of these
games, there were published annotations by grandmasters
which supported the idea of a draw, and it was obvious that
what one player knows is not necessarily common knowledge
to all others of similar or even higher rank.

The best known examples are the endgames which were
"revised" to fit the new tablebase data. For decades (centuries?)
the experts have mistakenly proclaimed that many types of
endgames were drawn or won, when in fact they weren't.

Occasionally, a book is published where the original notes to
a set of games is presented, along with each subsequent
analyst's published notes, including his corrections to those
who beat him to press. When this continues through several
stages, we get a much clearer picture of how the experts are
quite often mistaken, however self-confident in their analysis.

To me, this is ample reason to dismiss any arguments
which rely upon a consensus of experts, for example GMs,
to support a theory that say, chess must be a draw with
perfect play.

For many experts, the admission of ignorance (such as
admitting they don't know whether or not chess is a draw)
is too painful for their overblown egos to handle. For me it is
easy.

-- help bot

Date: 29 Jul 2006 19:54:52
From: Ed Seedhouse
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

On 28 Jul 2006 22:32:58 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected] >
wrote:

> The idea of chess being a draw with perfect play is also a
> mere assumption

Actually there is some fairly strong evidence for it. As human players
get stronger and stronger the relative percentage of draws between
equally strong opponent goes up. Games between the strongest computers,
too, have a high level of draws.

This is not proof, but it is evidence, and to my mind pretty good
evidence at that.

One would also expect, if the game is drawn from the start, that draw
percentages between equals would increase at slower time rates.
Certainly there are a lot more wins at 5 minute chess than at tournament
time controls, for example.

I would be interested to know if games between equally rated postal
players tend to more draws as strength increases. If so that would be
even more pursuasive, but I don't know the actual facts about that.

If either white or black had a winning position from the start you would
expect that as strength rises, games between equal opponents would
result in more wins for the side with the opening advantage. That's not
what happens.

So I think the currently available evidence is clearly in favour of the
draw with perfect play idea. Once again that is by no means a proof,
but to say that it is not evidence is, in my opinion, just silly.

Date: 31 Jul 2006 11:54:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The idea of chess being a draw with perfect play is also a mere
>> assumption
>
> Actually there is some fairly strong evidence for it. As human
> players get stronger and stronger the relative percentage of draws
> between equally strong opponent goes up. Games between the
> strongest computers, too, have a high level of draws.
>
> This is not proof, but it is evidence, and to my mind pretty good
> evidence at that.

I'm not sure how good the evidence is. GM chess is drawish, yes, but
the current generation of GMs are teaching the next generation to play
the same kind of drawish chess. So they're reaching a local optimum
in strength but that isn't necessarily a global optimum. Because we
don't know what `perfect chess' looks like, we don't know whether the
chess that GMs play looks anything like it.

For example, maybe the only winning move for White is 1.a3 and modern
GMs are wasting their time (from the point of view of the hypothetical
search for perfection) by getting really good at the positions after
1.c4/d4/e4/Nf3.

> One would also expect, if the game is drawn from the start, that
> draw percentages between equals would increase at slower time rates.
> Certainly there are a lot more wins at 5 minute chess than at
> tournament time controls, for example.

I don't buy that argument at all. At short time controls, the result
is decided by errors so this tells us nothing about `perfect chess'.

> If either white or black had a winning position from the start you
> would expect that as strength rises, games between equal opponents
> would result in more wins for the side with the opening advantage.
> That's not what happens.

That depends on how much gin for error there is in, say, White's
forced win. Even if White has a 90% chance of picking the right move
at each stage, he only has a 1.5% chance of winning a forty-move game,
on the unrealistic assumption that Black is playing perfectly.

It may be that there is a threshold in strength that has to be reached
before the advantage of the first move really becomes apparent.
Perhaps nobody's reached that strength yet.

> So I think the currently available evidence is clearly in favour of
> the draw with perfect play idea. Once again that is by no means a
> proof, but to say that it is not evidence is, in my opinion, just
> silly.

I think that all the evidence we have points towards chess being a
draw. I think the evidence is reasonably strong but I'm really not
sure how strong.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Disposable Strange Painting (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a Renaissance masterpiece
but it's totally weird and you never
have to clean it!

Date: 11 Aug 2006 08:57:41
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

In article <WCn*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> That depends on how much gin for error there is in, say, White's
> forced win. Even if White has a 90% chance of picking the right move
> at each stage, he only has a 1.5% chance of winning a forty-move game,
> on the unrealistic assumption that Black is playing perfectly.
>

You're assuming the chances of picking the right move are independent
from move to move. This is a poor assumption, since some moves will be
more obvious (or even forced) than others.

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 28 Jul 2006 06:50:04
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> IM John Watson appears to have copied your work, TK.

While Watson has been kind enough to cite my reviews extensively now
and then, I think in the case of Van Reek's "Grand Strategy" the flaws
are so glaring that any two people of reasonable competence will reach
similar conclusions.

> In sum, this book (Grand Strategy, by van Reek) appears
> to be a pretentious work, written by a non-expert, which has
> been poorly translated into English. The fairest thing would
> be to ask a Dutch chess player to do a review of the original
> work, in the original language. Perhaps Jan Timman, van der
> Wiel, or van whatever could tackle the job.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a Dutch version. I believe
Van Reek wrote the book in his own execrable English. Supposedly
someone named John Beasley "gently improved the English gram." He
was far too gentle, and should have used brutal force.

> This could be a
> good opportunity to examine just what a nobody can do when
> armed with Fritz and Microsoft Publisher, and compare that
> to similar efforts by the experts (who, IMO, are dreadfully lazy).

Ken Whyld told me that prior to this book Van Reek wrote several
pamphlets about endgames. Whyld described them as being printed on
paper of various colors, with a variety of ludicrously inappropriate
fonts and other irrelevant flourishes. They looked to Whyld like the
work of a child playing with his new toy computer.

Date: 28 Jul 2006 06:30:23
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf
>
> According to this review, the book is not nearly so great as
> it appeared from reading others.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

> But I have some issues with
> the review itself, not in direct relation to Grand Strategy.
>
> For one thing, the reviewer seems to have a giant chip on
> his shoulder, directed squarely at any author who is not a
> famous GM,

Nonsense, Greg. It's simply that this is a very bad book. If you
think I was tough on it, you should have seen what Jeremy Silman and
Ken Whyld said.

> daring to write without appropriate humility,
> cowtowing to the GMs like everyone else seems to do
> automatically.

I have never towed a cow (or any sort of livestock) to a GM (or
anyone), though sometimes I have panned a GM's book. The word you want
is "kowtow."

> "We have seen some pretentious chess books in our day...";
> Are you a two-headed man, or are you writing in conjuction
> with one of those lazy GMs?

Greg, I take it you have never heard of the "editorial we"?

Date: 28 Jul 2006 02:11:07
From: Sanny
Subject: I prefer e4 than d4.

e4 is better than d4 as with e4 we get 3 advantages.

1. With one Move Our Queen and Bishop Files Open.
2. With Bishop file open one can do chastling fast.
3. With d4 a scope to attack White King from d diagonal increases.

But in my Chess game I have included both e4 and d4 So that you get
different games.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

If you know openings it does not make sense whether you start with d4/
e4/ Nf3 as opening knows how to overcome the shortcommings by new
moves.

Bye
Sanny

http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 30 Jul 2006 19:48:55
From: Ron
Subject: Re: I prefer e4 than d4.

In article <[email protected] >,
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote:

> e4 is better than d4 as with e4 we get 3 advantages.
>
> 1. With one Move Our Queen and Bishop Files Open.
> 2. With Bishop file open one can do chastling fast.
> 3. With d4 a scope to attack White King from d diagonal increases.

One could just as easily say the 1.d4 is better because after 1.d4, your
d-pawn is protected, making an immediate counterattack against it less
productive, and furthermore it's easier to increase the pressure on d5
than it is on e5, because the c4 pawn push is less costly than the d4
one.

Chess defies this sort of oversimplified analysis. Yes, 1.e4 has certain
advantages ... but it also has clear disadvantages.

It's really a matter of taste.

Date: 28 Jul 2006 00:03:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> To this I would add these other burning questions:
>
> 1. Who gives off more light: Green Lantern or Human Torch?

A Red Herring. You are ducking the real question: is the ML or
the Enterprise faster?

> 2. Is there an equivalent to Kryptonite for Popeye?

Popeye eats kryptonite for breakfast. His real problem is
that Bluto and he both *want the same girl*. This means he
simply *has* to eat spinach, don't you see? It makes no
difference how bad it tatstes. I'd do the same thing, only
far more often. Heck, I'd probably eat nothing BUT spinach.

> 3. Are The Mighty Mighty Bosstones twice as mighty as The Mighty
> Thor?

Not if Thor has his Warhammer.

> > Spassky games book? A: "Grand Strategy" by Jan Van Reek

IM John Watson appears to have copied your work, TK. And
let me be the first to note that my expectations were dead wrong.
Watson is definitely lazy when it comes to reviewing books he
doesn't care for; this is (at least) the second skimpy effort I have
stumbled across recently, sharply contrasting to his better efforts.

However, Watson did notice the "nice" pictures (which TK failed
to mention).
Here is a revealing quote: "What little I could bear of the game
annotations immediately revealed some misjudgements and odd
claims." My observation is that this phrasing reveals a lack of
real effort by Watson, for I had no trouble "translating" some of
his examples into plain English. This example should suffice:

"Fischer carries out an active consolodation with _______"?

Reek or his purported translator chose the word "accordions",
but obviously he probably meant "harmony" (find an appropriate
musical term which fits the bill). This requires a bit of thought
on the part of a reader (or reviewer), and it is obvious from the
get-go that certain reviewers are disinclined to put forth the
effort, due to an exceeding annoyance with some nobody who
pretentiously claims to be an expert on chess.

"I get angry when I see a book like this", writes Watson.
He also encourages readers to "buy the works of legitimate,
hard-working authors instead". Unfortunately, he failed to
list here even a single example of same. In fact, he didn't
bother to name even a single alternative book about Spassky's
chess games. As we can see, being an acknowledged expert
on chess in no way guarantees a thorough, well-thought out
piece of work. OTOH, all the book reviews are free.

In sum, this book (Grand Strategy, by van Reek) appears
to be a pretentious work, written by a non-expert, which has
been poorly translated into English. The fairest thing would
be to ask a Dutch chess player to do a review of the original
work, in the original language. Perhaps Jan Timman, van der
Wiel, or van whatever could tackle the job. This could be a
good opportunity to examine just what a nobody can do when
armed with Fritz and Microsoft Publisher, and compare that
to similar efforts by the experts (who, IMO, are dreadfully lazy).

-- help bot

Date: 27 Jul 2006 23:12:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Uh-oh. I have just located the Grand Pubah of all book
reviewers, John Watson, and he says that GM Matt Sadler's
comment that Grand Strategy is "an exceptionally good book"
was reason enough for him to "set the record straight". I have
a baaaad feeling about this. Turn the ship around! LOL

Before reading that review, I want to go on record as noting
that my *expectations* are a more in-depth version of Taylor
Kingston's assasination of Reek and his pretentiousness/
utter incompetence. But I have become accustomed to this
sort of thing. Edward Winter annihilated Larry Evans, Ray
Keene, and Eric Schiller in his articles and/or book reviews,
And it was very funny -- except to them and their hardcore
supporters, of course. So one more casualty is not going
to raise any eyebrows. Yet in these reviews, we often get
a vivid picture of the reviewer -- and his many pet peves --
as much, if not more, than we truly learn about the books
under review. Some of these reviewers seem to desperately
*need* to destroy everything in their path, with few exceptions.
Even so, writers like Keene, Soltis, and Schiller seem to have
somehow survived all the flying schrapnil -- in fact, it may
have even helped them by eliminating the competition! :)

In the end, I may be forced to admit (no, not that the French
Defense is sound) that Soltis' book on Spassky was a much
better choice than the one I listed, and if so, this is a sad
reflection of the state of things.

-- help bot

Date: 27 Jul 2006 22:51:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf

Here is a commentary from bcmchess which takes a far less
negative approach, yet sounds strikingly familiar:

-----------------------------------------------------
The front and back covers of this book are quite beautiful - being
two striking and colourful Japanese prints - but the only clue that
you are holding a chess book lies in the words, underneath the
author's name, "supported by Boris Spassky". This is just the
start of a series of jolts and jerks that lie in wait for the reader as
he embarks on this weird and perplexing book. In what way did Spassky
support the book? Well, he played in all 50 games contained within it,
but we do not learn that he had some input to the book until a few
pages in. The author (who disconcertingly refers to himself in the
third person) claims that there are four previously unpublished Spassky
annotations in it, resulting from some meetings between author and
subject. Spassky supplied "his tactical wit" while Van Reek used
computers to check the analysis. Frustratingly, it is not entirely
obvious which is the new Spassky material in the skimpily indexed book.

There is no false modesty displayed here; the author tells us that
earlier analyses by the likes of Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer and
Botvinnik were "valuable but needed correction" and "most other
analyses were useless". Earlier we are told that "chess strategy
made a leap forward in 1927 when Euwe wrote sagacious articles about
pawns in the centre and the attack on the king and Nimzowitch published
his system of prophylaxis". We might be prepared to go along with
that, but then, staggeringly, in the next sentence: "Van Reek
completed, clarified and combined these approaches into a general
theory for human and computer chess in 1997." Utter tosh, of course:
but if you skip the author's irritating hyperbole in the game intros,
and simply sit back and enjoy Spassky's superlative games and the
well-edited annotations, you might still derive a considerable degree
of enjoyment from this maddening but interesting book.
------------------------------------------

(British Chess Magazine synopsis, from their catalog)

-- help bot

Date: 27 Jul 2006 22:33:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf

According to this review, the book is not nearly so great as
it appeared from reading others. But I have some issues with
the review itself, not in direct relation to Grand Strategy.

For one thing, the reviewer seems to have a giant chip on
his shoulder, directed squarely at any author who is not a
famous GM, daring to write without appropriate humility,
cowtowing to the GMs like everyone else seems to do
automatically. It's a tradition, I suppose.

Another problem would be the harsh approach to non-
native English speakers, who for obvious reasons, muck
up their handling of a fairly difficult language. Hey, the
reviewer himself made more than a few such gaffes,
though not with nearly the same frequency or magnitude
as Van Reeks'.

Third, the reviewer hammers away at Reek's posturing
(perhaps this is the elusive Nick "Boobaki"?) and utter
lack of appropriate humility befitting a non-GM player.
Yet at the same time, the reviewer assumes a posture
of authority, in being able to sumily judge whether
Reek/Fritz spotted a real error by Fischer et al, or was
an arrogant dufus for even contemplating such a feat!
IMHO, it is far from impossible for any decent player to
find such errors when armed with today's strongest
programs, and the view that the world's best players --
even when in agreement with one another -- are immune
to simple errors is, frankly, outmoded. Please, if you
want to argue that ...Bxe5 is not good, this ad hominem
approach is simply not valid. You might just as well
identify the exact program/version Reek used, and
go at it for having some bugs. If you personally are not
convinced by Reek's [i.e. Fritz's] analysis, this is no
reason to attack him for not cowtowing to the GMs like
so many writers have done for so long. For gosh sakes,
entire books have been written about GMs and their
many blunders!

Granted, a book chock full of English errors is less
enjoyable than one without, yet the reviewer -- with a
straight face -- lists among alternatives the author Andy
Soltis, who I believe is famous as the foremost American
chess writer who never leaves his easy chair, who seldom
puts any meaningful work into his stuff anymore. Not to
take anything away from Eric Schiller, mind you. But E.S.
has it set up so that his computer "writes" chess books
automatically, with almost no human intervention. ;)

The ChessCafe review does give quite useful information
on alternative choices for chess strategy, though most of
these are easily identifiable as being badly dated. Note that
my reply was to a post asking specifically for works on
Spassky's games, and apparently the works needed to be
targetted at very weak players, so I deliberately avoided
mentioning the heavy-duty works, Informant style books,
etc. I will say that one review failed to mention any of the
criticisms noted at ChessCafe, and gave a rather misleading
impression of perfection, and hearty endorsement by some
guy named Boris!

"We have seen some pretentious chess books in our day...";
Are you a two-headed man, or are you writing in conjuction
with one of those lazy GMs? Tell the guy to get voice-
recognition software, and stop *using you* to type for him.
Or write two seperate reviews; that would at least give us
(all the readers here) a look from two (hopefully) different
perspectives. C'mon: how can "one" use words like "we" and
in the same breath, pound the table and demand that *others*
stop being pretentious? Is it a contest of sorts? Who is
winning? "And many with bad English...". That should be
"poor" English, my friend. The "bad" English were defeated
in the American Revolution by ingrateful rebels with help
from the French. We accepted their help in spite of our
overwhelming self-righteous pride, because we needed it to
win. Unfortunately, winning seems to have gone to our heads.
Not only are our heads bigger than ever, but we can't stand it
when anyone else shows a lack of humility. Like a whack-a-
demon machine, we go after anyone who pokes its (swelled)
head out of its hole.

-- help bot

Date: 28 Jul 2006 00:52:37
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

I play 1. e4 because I consider it objectively best, with 1. c4 not far
behind.

"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
> open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
> Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
> not give me and vice versa?
>
> For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
> play most of their games with e4.
>
> Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
> games with d4.
>
> Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
> choosing to play each of these moves ?
>

Date: 27 Jul 2006 12:08:39
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

I'm one of those guys who actually switched from 1.e4 to 1.d4 after
twenty plus years of playing the former. ( Man, reaching for that d
pawn felt like jumping out of an airplane! Old habits die hard.) After
getting a rip-roaring attack, that was sound, I'm pretty much sold.

I think there is less of an Okey-Doke factor with d4. (Less trickery
and more chess.)

Zero wrote:
> I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
> open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
> Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
> not give me and vice versa?
>
> For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
> play most of their games with e4.
>
> Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
> games with d4.
>
> Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
> choosing to play each of these moves ?

Date: 27 Jul 2006 06:34:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

help bot wrote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
> > Some other Zero questions:
> > _
> > Why should I study endgames??
> > Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
> > Why should I play chess???
> > Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation]
> > is strongest one to learn ?
> > How come people who play chess act so weird and
> > strange?
> > Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames
> > when the opening comes first ?
> > I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The
> > TD told me that he submitted them online and the
> > USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated
> > them yet. Why is that the case?
> > Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer
> > Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number
> > of minimum players required in a tournament that
> > would prevent any pairing conflicts.
> > can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's
> > best games?
> > are you the Don of chess ?
> > Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because
> > Kasparov retired from chess?
> > why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he
> > used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a
> > lot of sidelines in the Sicilian.
> > I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the
> > standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play
> > the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav
> > _
> > _
> > Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after
> > they try to help him?
>
> Zero is obviously a newly released chatter-bot, specially
> "tuned" for the chess newsgroups.
>
> I am surprised Louis Blair did not give the obvious answers to
> all the elementary questions above. Here, let me do it:
>
...

> Which ship is faster? A: the Enterprise [the Millennium Falcon only makes .5 past
> light speed]

To this I would add these other burning questions:

1. Who gives off more light: Green Lantern or Human Torch?
2. Is there an equivalent to Kryptonite for Popeye?
3. Are The Mighty Mighty Bosstones twice as mighty as The Mighty
Thor?

...

> Spassky games book? A: "Grand Strategy" by Jan Van Reek

Greg, I hope you are kidding:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf

Date: 27 Jul 2006 01:38:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Louis Blair wrote:
> Zero wrote (25 Jul 2006 19:11:34 -0700):
>
> 7 ... Which move is best to open a chess game with? ...
>
> _
> Some other Zero questions:
> _
> Why should I study endgames??
> Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
> Why should I play chess???
> Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation]
> is strongest one to learn ?
> How come people who play chess act so weird and
> strange?
> Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames
> when the opening comes first ?
> I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The
> TD told me that he submitted them online and the
> USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated
> them yet. Why is that the case?
> Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer
> Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number
> of minimum players required in a tournament that
> would prevent any pairing conflicts.
> can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's
> best games?
> are you the Don of chess ?
> Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because
> Kasparov retired from chess?
> why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he
> used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a
> lot of sidelines in the Sicilian.
> I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the
> standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play
> the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav
> _
> _
> Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after
> they try to help him?

Zero is obviously a newly released chatter-bot, specially
"tuned" for the chess newsgroups.

I am surprised Louis Blair did not give the obvious answers to
all the elementary questions above. Here, let me do it:

Which move is best? A: 1.Nf3

Why study endgames? A: just in case

Which ship is faster? A: the Enterprise [the MF only makes .5 past
light speed]

Why play chess? A: there is no good reason

Why are chess players strange? A: Chess destroys the mind.

Why did Capa say study the endgame *first*? A: sorry, answer too long
to give here

Why do TD's take your money but not USCF-rate your games? A: because
they can

Is Ray Gordon really Bobby Fischer? A: no; just watch him play

Is there a chart? A: Yes; try a recent FIDE/USCF rulebook

Spassky games book? A: "Grand Strategy" by Jan Van Reek

Who is the "Don" of chess? A: that would be the president of FIDE

Is Kamsky back because Kasparov retired? A: No; Kamsky is back because
chess is an incurable addiction, like heroin or cocaine or
serial-killing.

Why does Kamsky play lines of the Sicilian Defense now? A: Because his
opponents let him.

Why do super-GMs avoid the dxc4 Slav? A: because they need to play for
a win even as Black, just as Botvinnik did when he was champ.

Is Zero for real? A: yes and no

Does Zero thank people who try to help him? A: no; what you seek is a
thank-bot; Zero is merely a chatter-bot. Which is not to say that one
could not combine the two.

-- help bot

Date: 26 Jul 2006 15:08:10
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Zero wrote:

> I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose
> to open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4

For the same reasons that much weaker players make similar choices. A
particular opening move, or series of moves suits their style better.

> Is one better than the other?

Probably. But nobody know which it is. That's the main reason why everybody
doesn't play the same opening move.

Also note that there are other possible opening moves that are probably as
good as, or possibly better than, either of those. For example, c4 and Nf3.
Many grandmasters, and weaker players too, may prefer one of these--at least
some of the time--or even some other, less common first move.

A players choice of opening moves may also be dictated by who his opponent
is. I may decide that I can do better with e4 against player A, but I'm
better with d4 against player B.

Or I may know that a particular player plays a particular line against e4
if he gets the chance, and I've analyzed that line at home, and have a new
move in it I think I can win with. So even thoiugh I normally play d4, in
that case I'll play e4.

If you are looking to find out whether you should play e4 or d4, there is no
answer to that question. Play the first move and the rest of the opening to
get you into opening lines and positions that you find congenial to your
style. It's an big oversimplifification, but if you generally do better in
open positions, play e4, and if you prefer closed positions, play d4
instead.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Date: 26 Jul 2006 07:20:40
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

LSD wrote:

> In theory, 1.e4 is best

You are misquoting the theory.

> because you partially develop both the Bishop
> and Queen with one move.

The 1.d4 move has it's advantages over 1.e4
too. The white e pawn, after 1.e4 is not
protected; it may become an object of an
attack. On the other hand white pawn d after
1.d4 is protected.

> It gives you the most options for your
> second move.

Oh, you mean those four options:
2.Qe2 2.Qf3 2.Qg4 2.Qh5 ?

> Personally, I always open with 1.e4.

It may get boring after a while. For a while
I played 1.e4 in all my skittles, while 1.d4
in all my tournament games. Then I switched
in my torunament games to 1.e4 (to king's gambit).
In my most recent time on Internet I was
mixing it. It all may depend on your mood.

> I hope better players than I will reply
> and offer more insight.

Oooops! Sorry. I gave you another patzer
comment.

Regards,

Wlod

Date: 26 Jul 2006 06:32:34
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Zero wrote (25 Jul 2006 19:11:34 -0700):

7 ... Which move is best to open a chess game with? ...

_
Some other Zero questions:
_
Why should I study endgames??
Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
Why should I play chess???
Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation]
is strongest one to learn ?
How come people who play chess act so weird and
strange?
Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames
when the opening comes first ?
I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The
TD told me that he submitted them online and the
USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated
them yet. Why is that the case?
Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer
Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number
of minimum players required in a tournament that
would prevent any pairing conflicts.
can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's
best games?
are you the Don of chess ?
Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because
Kasparov retired from chess?
why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he
used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a
lot of sidelines in the Sicilian.
I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the
standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play
the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav
_
_
Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after
they try to help him?

Date: 26 Jul 2006 11:05:01
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose
> to open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
> Is one better than the other?

Of course not! If one were better than the other, all the GMs (let
alone World Champions) would be playing the better move.

> If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does not give me and vice versa?

1.e4 most often leads to a more open, tactical game; 1.d4 to a more
closed, positional game. This is just a caricature, of course:
Kasparov is famous for having shown that 1.d4 could be a tactical
weapon, too.

> For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
> play most of their games with e4.
>
> Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of
> their games with d4.

It's not that simple. At the start of his career, Kasparov played
mainly 1.d4 and later switched to playing mainly 1.d4. Karpov did the
exact opposite (partly because he wasn't getting very far against
Kasparov's Sicilian).

20% of Geller's games started with 1.d4 and another 18% with
1.c4/Nf3. Tal played 1.d4 200 times (14%) and 1.c4/Nf3 362 times
(25%). Botvinnik, it is true, played 1.e4 comparatively rarely (14%)
but played 1.c4/Nf3 almost as often (38%) as 1.d4 (46%). Likewise
Petrosian: 1.e4 5%, 1.c4/Nf3 44%, 1.d4 50%.

It's grossly inaccurate to claim that Smyslov opened most of his games
with 1.d4: he played all of the four main opening moves with roughly
equal frequency:

1.e4 425 (32%)
1.d4 395 (30%)
1.c4 268 (20%)
1.Nf3 225 (17%)
others 13 ( 1%)

Stats from the chessgames.com openings explorer.

> Which move is best to open a chess game with?

Try both. See which you do better with. That one's better for you.

> Why are these players choosing to play each of these moves ?

Because it suits their style of play and gets them into positions they
like.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Simple Slimy Chicken (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a farm animal but it's covered in goo
and it has no moving parts!

Date: 11 Aug 2006 08:50:34
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

In article <roj*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> It's not that simple. At the start of his career, Kasparov played
> mainly 1.d4 and later switched to playing mainly 1.d4. Karpov did the
> exact opposite (partly because he wasn't getting very far against
> Kasparov's Sicilian).
>

So Karpov switched from 1. d4 to 1.d4 as well? :-)

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 11 Aug 2006 15:29:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Harold Buck <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's not that simple. At the start of his career, Kasparov played
>> mainly 1.d4 and later switched to playing mainly 1.d4. Karpov did
>> the exact opposite (partly because he wasn't getting very far
>> against Kasparov's Sicilian).
>
> So Karpov switched from 1. d4 to 1.d4 as well? :-)

Er, I guess so, yes. Glad *somebody* reads my posts. :-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Hat (TM): it's like a hat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but you can never put it down!

Date: 11 Aug 2006 20:35:04
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Harold Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> It's not that simple. At the start of his career, Kasparov played
> >> mainly 1.d4 and later switched to playing mainly 1.d4. Karpov did
> >> the exact opposite (partly because he wasn't getting very far
> >> against Kasparov's Sicilian).
> >
> > So Karpov switched from 1. d4 to 1.d4 as well? :-)
>
> Er, I guess so, yes. Glad *somebody* reads my posts. :-)

Oh! Have you been posting (equestrian-speakwise)? ;-D

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

Date: 25 Jul 2006 20:30:02
From: Mike
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Zero wrote:
> I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
> open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
> Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
> not give me and vice versa?
>
> For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
> play most of their games with e4.
>
> Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
> games with d4.
>
> Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
> choosing to play each of these moves ?

It is probably the case that with best play on both sides either e4
or d4 (and probably c4 or nf3 or perhaps any first move) will result in
a draw. Hence it is probably meaningless to ask in some mathematical
sense which move is best. It does, of course, make sense to ask which
move gives me better practical chances since both I and my opponent are
fallable human beings who cannot play perfectly.

Date: 25 Jul 2006 23:08:13
From: LSD
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

At the approximate date and time 25 Jul 2006 19:11:34 -0700, someone
posting as "Zero" <[email protected] > posted:

>I was wondering why some strong GMs and world champions always chose to
>open with only 1.e4 or 1.d4
>
>Is one better than the other? If I play e4, what do I get that d4 does
>not give me and vice versa?
>
>For example, Kasparov, Anand, Fischer, Geller, Tal, etc. all seem to
>play most of their games with e4.
>
>Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Onischuk, all play most of their
>games with d4.
>
>Which move is best to open a chess game with? Why are these players
>choosing to play each of these moves ?

Realistically, until Chess is solved no one will know the answer for
sure.

Practically speaking, the best opening for you will vary from match to
match, depending on the interplay of the following two factors: (1)
which opening you know better, and (2) which opening you think your
particular opponent knows better--e.g., don't play e4 against someone
whose hobby is writing books on the Sicilian defence.

In theory, 1.e4 is best because you partially develop both the Bishop
and Queen with one move. It gives you the most options for your
second move.

Personally, I always open with 1.e4.

I hope better players than I will reply and offer more insight.

LSDave

Date: 11 Aug 2006 08:52:40
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

In article <[email protected] >,
LSD <[email protected] > wrote:

> In theory, 1.e4 is best because you partially develop both the Bishop
> and Queen with one move. It gives you the most options for your
> second move.

That doesn't mean it's better.

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 11 Aug 2006 11:22:27
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Harold Buck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> LSD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In theory, 1.e4 is best because you partially develop both the Bishop
>> and Queen with one move. It gives you the most options for your
>> second move.
>
> That doesn't mean it's better.

Of course not. By that logic, 1.e3 would be better than 2.e4, because
(unless Black plays 1...e5) it gives you the additional option of 2.e4

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Date: 11 Aug 2006 11:30:33
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ken Blake wrote:
> Harold Buck wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> LSD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In theory, 1.e4 is best because you partially develop both the
>>> Bishop and Queen with one move. It gives you the most options for
>>> your second move.
>>
>> That doesn't mean it's better.
>
>
> Of course not. By that logic, 1.e3 would be better than 2.e4, because
> (unless Black plays 1...e5) it gives you the additional option of 2.e4

That sentence reads terribly, and totally obscures my meaning. Sorry. What I
meant was that if you play 1.e3, you always have the additional option of
2.e4. But if you play 1.e4, you only have the additional option of 2.e5 if
Black doesn't play 1...e5

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Date: 26 Jul 2006 10:37:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

LSD <[email protected] > wrote:
> In theory, 1.e4 is best because you partially develop both the Bishop
> and Queen with one move. It gives you the most options for your
> second move.

That's often quoted as an advantage of 1.e4 but it doesn't really make
sense: you usually don't want to be moving your queen that early so
who cares if it's blocked in by pawns?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Adult Shack (TM): it's like a house
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ in the woods that you won't want the
children to see!

Date: 28 Jul 2006 00:48:34
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

> LSD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In theory, 1.e4 is best because you partially develop both the Bishop
>> and Queen with one move. It gives you the most options for your
>> second move.
>
> That's often quoted as an advantage of 1.e4 but it doesn't really make
> sense: you usually don't want to be moving your queen that early so
> who cares if it's blocked in by pawns?

White WANTS to move the queen early, but Black can give him a reason not to.

After 2. Nf3, White "wants" to play 3. Nxe5, but can't after 2....Nc6. Does
this make 2. Nf3 a bad move?

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 28 Jul 2006 11:37:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> After [1.e4 e5] 2. Nf3, White "wants" to play 3. Nxe5, but can't
> after 2....Nc6. Does this make 2. Nf3 a bad move?

After 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 forces Black to do something about his e5-pawn
and gets White closer to castling. 1.e4 isn't at all forcing, unless
you count the prevention of 1... b5. Black just doesn't need to care
about the idea of White putting his queen anywhere else on the d1-h5
diagonal.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it's frozen in a
block of ice!

Date: 28 Jul 2006 14:01:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

>> After [1.e4 e5] 2. Nf3, White "wants" to play 3. Nxe5, but can't
>> after 2....Nc6. Does this make 2. Nf3 a bad move?
>
> After 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 forces Black to do something about his e5-pawn
> and gets White closer to castling. 1.e4 isn't at all forcing, unless
> you count the prevention of 1... b5. Black just doesn't need to care
> about the idea of White putting his queen anywhere else on the d1-h5
> diagonal.

However, White may want to castle queenside, and can keep his development
options open.

1. e4 "forces" 1. e5 in order to stop 2. d4. Only 1...e5 and 1...e5 (and,
at a price, 1...d5) accomplish that, so the move is forcing.

Date: 31 Jul 2006 11:59:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> After [1.e4 e5] 2. Nf3, White "wants" to play 3. Nxe5, but can't
>>> after 2....Nc6. Does this make 2. Nf3 a bad move?
>>
>> After 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 forces Black to do something about his e5-pawn
>> and gets White closer to castling. 1.e4 isn't at all forcing,
>> unless you count the prevention of 1... b5. Black just doesn't
>> need to care about the idea of White putting his queen anywhere
>> else on the d1-h5 diagonal.
>
> However, White may want to castle queenside, and can keep his
> development options open.
>
> 1. e4 "forces" 1. e5 in order to stop 2. d4. Only 1...e5 and 1...e5

(I assume you mean `Only 1... e5 and 1... c5'.)

> (and, at a price, 1...d5) accomplish that, so the move is forcing.

How very classical of you. Black seems to do quite well with 1.c6,
1.d6 and 1.e6 and the various 1.d4 systems where White is allowed to
play a swift e4. So 1.e4 isn't particularly forcing at all, as your
scare quotes indicate.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 followed by the capture of the unprotected e5 pawn is
pretty bad for Black, on the other hand. So I say again that 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 is forcing and 1.e4 isn't.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Homicidal Car (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a high-performance luxury
car but it wants to kill you and it
doesn't work in the dark!

Date: 02 Aug 2006 16:53:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

>> However, White may want to castle queenside, and can keep his
>> development options open.
>>
>> 1. e4 "forces" 1. e5 in order to stop 2. d4. Only 1...e5 and 1...e5
>
> (I assume you mean `Only 1... e5 and 1... c5'.)
>
>> (and, at a price, 1...d5) accomplish that, so the move is forcing.
>
> How very classical of you. Black seems to do quite well with 1.c6,
> 1.d6 and 1.e6 and the various 1.d4 systems where White is allowed to
> play a swift e4

On what is this based?

Those openings are all passive, and while playable, they are not very
"forcing" the way something like a double-king-pawn game is.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 03 Aug 2006 09:58:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> How very classical of you. Black seems to do quite well with 1.c6,
>> 1.d6 and 1.e6 and the various 1.d4 systems where White is allowed to
>> play a swift e4
>
> On what is this based?

Oh, you know. Just observation of a few GM games...

> Those openings are all passive, and while playable, they are not
> very "forcing" the way something like a double-king-pawn game is.

The French, King's Indian and Gruenfeld are passive? News to me.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Accelerated Puzzle (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an intriguing conundrum but
it's twice as fast and it wants to
kill you!

Date: 03 Aug 2006 05:12:19
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

>> Those openings are all passive, and while playable, they are not
>> very "forcing" the way something like a double-king-pawn game is.
>
> The French, King's Indian and Gruenfeld are passive? News to me.

It is true that one need not play 1...e5 against 1. e4, but I was talking
about how 1. e4 "threatens" the "big center."

After 1. d4 d5, White can't get a big center or even threaten one.

Date: 03 Aug 2006 11:03:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

In article <[email protected] >,
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>> Black seems to do quite well with 1.c6, 1.d6 and 1.e6 and the
>>>> various 1.d4 systems where White is allowed to play a swift e4
>>>
>>> Those openings are all passive, and while playable, they are not
>>> very "forcing" the way something like a double-king-pawn game is.
>>
>> The French, King's Indian and Gruenfeld are passive? News to me.
>
> It is true that one need not play 1...e5 against 1. e4, but I was
> talking about how 1. e4 "threatens" the "big center."

Actually, you were talking about how these openings (Caro-Kann, Pirc,
French, KID, Gruenfeld) were `passive'.

> After 1. d4 d5, White can't get a big center or even threaten one.

And after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.c3 White
does have a big centre but Black seems to do pretty well. A moment
ago, you were calling this opening passive.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Miniature Game (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a family board game but you can
hold in it your hand and it wants to
kill you!

Date: 03 Aug 2006 10:13:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

>>>>> Black seems to do quite well with 1.c6, 1.d6 and 1.e6 and the
>>>>> various 1.d4 systems where White is allowed to play a swift e4
>>>>
>>>> Those openings are all passive, and while playable, they are not
>>>> very "forcing" the way something like a double-king-pawn game is.
>>>
>>> The French, King's Indian and Gruenfeld are passive? News to me.
>>
>> It is true that one need not play 1...e5 against 1. e4, but I was
>> talking about how 1. e4 "threatens" the "big center."
>
> Actually, you were talking about how these openings (Caro-Kann, Pirc,
> French, KID, Gruenfeld) were `passive'.
>
>
>> After 1. d4 d5, White can't get a big center or even threaten one.
>
> And after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.c3 White
> does have a big centre but Black seems to do pretty well. A moment
> ago, you were calling this opening passive.

Openings that allow a big center are passive.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 04 Aug 2006 18:42:25
From: Ron
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > And after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.c3 White
> > does have a big centre but Black seems to do pretty well. A moment
> > ago, you were calling this opening passive.
>
> Openings that allow a big center are passive.

Ray everybody doesn't understand the fundamentals of hypermodern play.

Nobody would every call the Grunfeld passive. It's an absurd statement
displaying an ignorance of the last 70 years of chess strategy.

-Ron

Date: 06 Aug 2006 22:57:11
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

>> Openings that allow a big center are passive.
>
> Ray everybody doesn't understand the fundamentals of hypermodern play.
>
> Nobody would every call the Grunfeld passive. It's an absurd statement
> displaying an ignorance of the last 70 years of chess strategy.

It's passive, then gets active.

Big centers can be torn down.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 28 Jul 2006 14:02:50
From:
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

statistically 1.d4 used to score better,
probably because of the feared Sicilian
defense against e4.

But in computer chess, e4 is catching up,
for example in the Noomen book for Rybka,
e4 is indicated with a 56 % winning chance,
and d4 with 55 %

but if chess is a theoretical draw with perfect
play, which it probably is, than 1.e4 is a draw,
so theoretically it's not better than 1.d4.

best regards,
sc

www.superchess.com

David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> After [1.e4 e5] 2. Nf3, White "wants" to play 3. Nxe5, but can't
>> after 2....Nc6. Does this make 2. Nf3 a bad move?
>
> After 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 forces Black to do something about his e5-pawn
> and gets White closer to castling. 1.e4 isn't at all forcing, unless
> you count the prevention of 1... b5. Black just doesn't need to care
> about the idea of White putting his queen anywhere else on the d1-h5
> diagonal.
>
>
> Dave.
>

Date: 28 Jul 2006 13:24:49
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

<[email protected] > wrote:
> but if chess is a theoretical draw with perfect play, which it
> probably is, than 1.e4 is a draw,

That doesn't follow. Just because the initial position is a draw
doesn't mean that every move from that position holds the draw. It
could well be that 1.e4 isn't perfect play; i.e., that it loses, while
some other move allows White to hold the draw.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Hilarious Beer (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing lager but it's a
bundle of laughs and you can never
put it down!

Date: 28 Jul 2006 15:35:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1. e4 or 1. d4, which is better and why??

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:zuz*[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> but if chess is a theoretical draw with perfect play, which it
>> probably is, than 1.e4 is a draw,
>
> That doesn't follow. Just because the initial position is a draw
> doesn't mean that every move from that position holds the draw. It
> could well be that 1.e4 isn't perfect play; i.e., that it loses, while
> some other move allows White to hold the draw.

Interesting theoretically, isn't it? It is not even clear that there is any
objective basis for saying that the game is a draw, or that white has an
advantage.

Adorjan loves to point out that we spend more energy with white since our
belief is that we should produce better results with the white bits by
virtue of the initiative and so on, and this produces statistical results
which favor white. Psychologically we do not 'believe' that black has the
same chances, and must even 'fight to get equal' and so on - though this too
is not any objective measure.

He says that Black actually choses the line played and usually controls the
course of the game, channeling it to his own knowledge and best-liked
pattern.

I know this is contentious material, on the other hand, Adorjan's students
were Leko and Kasparov. Its also true that chess is not a metaphysical game,
and any expectations placed on it must take account of actaul players
engaged in real-time engagements.

The advantage for average players in opening d4, and following some such
position as the Colle, eg, is that it is not sharp, and black has fewer
opportunities to overwhelm white during the opening phase of the game, and
this reduces the worth of much opening knowledge, and tends to optimise
mid-game play - Ray Keene has just suggested a similar idea for Black in
his article on A Universal Defence.

The Colle can be characterised as a conservative opening for White with, one
piece, one developing move, being its raison d'etre, until all pieces are
developed and the King castled, and with typical set-up:

d4, e3, c3, Bd3, Nf3, QNd2, 0-0, which is followed by Re1 and sometimes Rc1,
and the Bd3 goes to b1 and 1 to c2. Then e3-e4. Two variations of this
opening are to develop the Q bishop outside the pawn chain, at either f4 or
g5.

if play against it seeks to capture the d pawn, recapture is with the
e-pawn, allowing a half open K file for white's rook to 'observe' the enemy
position.

Varianats: in play with Bg5 an exchange for the f6 knight can be made if the
Bishop is challenged by h6, and then after white has later played e4 can
push it to e5 splitting the board in half and allowing him a big K-side
attack where black typically cannot shall nor organise enough defensive
pieces, or if the e pawn is exchanged on e4 the N on d2 captures, then
threatens the [usually] bishop which stands on f6 [and black's other bishop
is usually 'bad'.]

its a simple system difficult to overwhelm or engage tactically in the
opening.

to answer the question 'which is better' its necessary to ask 'better at
what?' since the d4 system described above is better at SECURITY and
harmonious development to achieve a simple plan, whereas 1 e4 is better at
optimising COMPLICATIONS and attacking chances.

Certainly this hapless program should opt for d4 at this stage of its
5-ply-horizon life

Phil Innes

>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Addictive Hilarious Beer (TM):
> it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing lager but
> it's a
> bundle of laughs and you can
> never
> put it down!