On Oct 9, 12:56 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

C'mon bot, White's fourth is the main line in the Center Game.

This looks suspiciously like an assumption that a
line's having been named equates to it being good.


It was played at one time

Indeed, this comment speaks volumes. At one time,
surgeons did not wash their hands.


or another, often more than once, by Paulsen

So then, a famous player has played a poor opening
line.


Tarrasch, Chigorin, Maroczy, Marshall, Spielmann, Tartakower, and
more recently Shabalov and Judith Polgar.

So then, if famous players have blundered, then
it is "good" for everyone to blunder; if famous
players once played an inferior opening move, we
should all endorse it; and if famous players have
ever resigned prematurely, then should we not all
make a practice of it? I find that sort of logic
appalling. How about this: what strong player,
today, plays this line as his main weapon? If
somebody can reach the top with that sort of
handicap, we should all be very impressed.


Take a look at some of the games at GetClub.
When I play the Ruy Lopez, for instance, I get a
good position as White which I can work with to
try and build some sort of decisive edge, and then
convert and win. Yet this slop -- especially the
Qe3 move -- yields nothing; zero. Objectively,
the White Queen stands better on her home
square, d1, than on e3 -- except for purposes of
landing a tricky cheap shot very early on.

Black has every reason to try and win after such
inferior moves. It reminds me a bit of the Grob, or
the Orangutan; good for a laugh or two, perhaps.
Certainly a good choice where two players have
secretly agreed in advance to draw their game, as
it gives the joke away to those in the know" while
not being quite so obvious as to attract due
attention.

Another thing it might be good for is where it is
deemed "necessary" to surprise an unwary
opponent, as for example after a loss as White
where no suitable improvement has yet been
found; the point is, the enemy's minions will very
likely suddenly turn their efforts to this unfamiliar
line, while neglecting the real defense
(I am here referring to match play). This idea can
be seen in the famous Fischer/Spassky match,
where GM Fischer threw in an Alekhine's Defense,
among other things, while carefully avoiding any
"discussion" of his published bust to the King's
Gambit.

Here's the real point: the programmers have
apparently added on a bonus to the position score
after early Queen forays, spite checks like ...Bb4+,
and Knight invasions like ...Ng4. (You may have
noted that White chose Bd2 -- a hideous-looking
move that prevents spite checks.) At about move
twelve, White had yet to develop either Knight --
these are tell-tale signs of a misbegotten eval.
function.

In strong chess programs, with no openings book
loaded from which to fetch moves by rote, you will
often notice a decided tendency to favor development
over cheap shot potential; in particular, you will note
how it is best to develop the Knights early, as Black
did in this game. To oversimplify a bit: weak players
like to move the Queen out early; strong ones prefer
to develop their Knights. (You may notice that once
I run out of book, I tend to play moves like ...Qa5 a
lot. LOL)


-- help bot