winning with e4

[Jef]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

hello

for those struggling with opening theory
(and especially those who like to play 1.e)
here are some selected pages of my new book
(in pdf), "A better chess repertoire"
>
http://home.planet.nl/~k.e.c/chessbk_sel_chapters.pdf
>
comments , especially suggestions for
improvement are welcome, (research
in some variants, incl. search for
novelties, etc. are still going on)
best regards,
>
jef
>
http://superchess.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

jef <kec@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> http://home.planet.nl/~k.e.c/chessbk_sel_chapters.pdf
>
> comments , especially suggestions for improvement are welcome,
> (research in some variants, incl. search for novelties, etc. are still
> going on)

The section _`Solving' chess, a starting point_ is built around a
fundamental misconception. To solve chess does not mean to prove that it
is a win for White with best play. It means to determine what the result
of a `perfectly played' chess game would be or, even better, to work out
what moves lead to this or, better still, to work out what the best move
is in any position. Thus, one cannot falsify the hypothesis `Chess can be
solved' by proving that the game is drawn with best play. Far from
refuting the hypothesis, this would prove it!

A quick note on terminology: a series of related lines within an opening
system is a `variation', not a `variant', which is a game based on chess
but differing from it in some way (e.g., Fischer random, bughouse,
suicide chess, etc.).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Devil Tongs (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pair of tongs that's possessed by
Satan but it's completely natural!

 

[Jef]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

hello,

David Richerby schreef:
>
> The section _`Solving' chess, a starting point_ is built around a
> fundamental misconception. To solve chess does not mean to prove that it
> is a win for White with best play. It means to determine what the result
> of a `perfectly played' chess game would be

ok that is a matter of terminology, in principle i agree with
your comments, having 'solved chess' could indeed mean
we can prove it is a draw.
what i meant with 'solving' is proving that is a win for white;
in a later edition i will be more clear on this (please note as well
that in the selected pages not all my text has been shown)

> A quick note on terminology: a series of related lines within an opening
> system is a `variation', not a `variant',

ok thx for this comment, while i suspect readers
will understand what i meant, i will change it asap

best regards
jef
PS yes, trying to find the best move in every position was
my goal, but this only would be possible if chess in theory
would be a win for white. Otherwise there are many
possible moves, which lead to a draw.
anyway saying that 1.e4 is the best move is a new paradigm,
and many chess players won't agree with such a statement.
yet it might be true, and while presently controversial,
as i mentioned in the book, in future i'm sure we will
find out if it is true; meaningless for humans maybe,
who still might prefer 1.d4, but not for computer programs.
Not coincidentally Hydra also often start with 1.e4.
PS2 whether moves like 1.f3 or g4 lead to a loss, i don't
know; anyway i don't think it are good opening moves.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

jef <kec@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> David Richerby schreef:
>> A quick note on terminology: a series of related lines within an opening
>> system is a `variation', not a `variant',
>
> ok thx for this comment, while i suspect readers will understand what i
> meant, i will change it asap

Yes, it was obvious what you meant.


> PS yes, trying to find the best move in every position was my goal, but
> this only would be possible if chess in theory would be a win for
> white. Otherwise there are many possible moves, which lead to a draw.

Not at all. Regardless of what the best result White can hope for is,
it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he has more than one way of
getting there. Consider the position WPa7, WKanywhere, BKh1 -- White can
do almost anything at all for several moves and still win. There's no
reason that the initial position can't have this property too.


>anyway saying that 1.e4 is the best move is a new paradigm,

Hardly! Bobby Fischer described the move as being ``best by test''
decades ago.


> PS2 whether moves like 1.f3 or g4 lead to a loss, i don't
> know; anyway i don't think it are good opening moves.

Well, playing both should lead to a loss. But it would be interesting
to know the theoretical result of each possible opening move.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Hungry Flower (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a flower but it'll eat you and it
doesn't work!

 

[Jef]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

hello
David Richerby wrote:
> Consider the position WPa7, WKanywhere, BKh1 -- White can
> do almost anything at all for several moves and still win. There's no
> reason that the initial position can't have this property too.

in theory not; Hans Berliner claimed 1.d4 could lead to a win,
but i doubt that; in his book 'the system', he also hasn't
given variations against Nimzo-Indian or Queens-Indian
which could get an advantage. imho 1.d4 is drawish

other example: in the game four-in a row, which
has been solved, there is only one 'best' first move,
which is moving dropping a stone in the middle row.
>
>
> >>anyway saying that 1.e4 is the best move is a new paradigm,
> > Hardly! Bobby Fischer described the move as being ``best by test''
> decades ago.

yes i know, but he didn't claim that it could solve chess.

only think i am saying is that *if* 1.e4 could solve chess,
and no other first moves can than it would be the best move;
than Fischer also would have been right, maybe because
of luck, or maybe because of a better insight.
>
>
>>PS2 whether moves like 1.f3 or g4 lead to a loss, i don't
>>know; anyway i don't think it are good opening moves.

> Well, playing both should lead to a loss.
yes it would, if the black queen could move to h4, wouldn't it.

>But it would be interesting
> to know the theoretical result of each possible opening move.

that could be for further research.
many grand masters simply call certain positions
unclear, but imho that only means further research
is needed to get a better idea about it's
fundamental outcome, draw, win or loss. yes,
that would be quite a lot of work, i agree..

but concluding, i still think it would be useful
to have a concise opening book with one simple
repertoire, instead of generating thousands
of variants like in NCO and ECO, without
giving any guidance for chess players on
which variations they should concentrate.

at least the variations which i have recommended
are fundamentally correct, and if a beginner
would choose such a repertoire, he could carry
on with the study of the tactics middle game
strategy, endgame theory, practical play etc.
that's the main message of my book. no big
deal, it's not a Phd thesis, you know..

best regards,
jef