Author: chandler yergin
Date: 23:03:36 01/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2006 at 21:03:40, John Merlino wrote: >On January 28, 2006 at 19:40:08, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On January 28, 2006 at 17:30:32, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2006 at 16:27:48, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>Mark Twain once said.. "There are Lies, Damn Lies and .. Statistics" >>> >>>And your post has all three, with the most obvious of the non-statistical >>>variety being your use of the words "will win" below. >> >>I'm sorry.. ya lost me..What is non-statistical? >>Please explain what you mean? >>What is it you disagree with? >>Thanks, >>Chan > >Your statements are quoted: > >>>>Black cannot overcome this [White's "significant advantage with the first move], in fact Black cannot even equalize. > >If Black cannot equalize, how can Black score 45% of the time? You call Black Perf. 45% Equal? > >>>>Whichever Human or Computer plays the Openings by ECO Classification >>>>that are better for White will Win. Thought I said 'should/will' win. If not sorry. In the long run White's Perf. will be 55% compared to Black's 45%. Millions of games have proven this to be true. > >Here is a game where Black played the Center Counter game, known to be better >for White (White has historically scored around 58%), in which Black won (and >therefore disproving your statement that if White plays an "Opening by ECO >Classification that [is] better for White" then White will win. Note that person >playing White was World Champion Anatoly Karpov and had an 85 ELO advantage, >which should have increased his chance of scoring by about 11%. > >[Site "Montreal CAN"] >[Date "1979.04.??"] >[White "Karpov, Anatoly"] >[Black "Larsen, Bent"] >[Result "0-1"] >[ECO "B01"] >[WhiteELO "2705"] >[BlackELO "2620"] > >1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bd2 Bg4 6.Be2 Bxe2 7.Ncxe2 Qb6 >8.Nf3 Nbd7 9.O-O e6 10.c4 Be7 11.b4 O-O 12.a4 c6 13.Qc2 Qc7 14.Rfe1 b6 >15.a5 Rfb8 16.a6 b5 17.c5 Nd5 18.Nc1 Re8 19.Nd3 Rad8 20.g3 Bf6 21.Re4 >Nf8 22.h4 Rd7 23.Kg2 Red8 24.g4 Re8 25.g5 Bd8 26.Nfe5 Rde7 27.Bf4 Qc8 >28.Bg3 f6 29.Nf3 Rf7 30.Qd2 fxg5 31.Nxg5 Rf5 32.Ra3 Ng6 33.Nf3 Ref8 >34.Nfe5 Nxe5 35.Rxe5 Rf3 36.Ra1 Bxh4 37.Qe2 Bxg3 38.fxg3 Qd7 39.Qxf3 >Rxf3 40.Kxf3 Nxb4 41.Rd1 Qxd4 42.Re4 Qd5 43.Nf2 Qh5+ 44.Kg2 Nd5 45.Rxe6 >h6 46.Rd3 Kh7 47.Rf3 b4 48.g4 Qg5 49.Kg3 Qc1 50.Nh3 Qc4 51.g5 h5 52.Re8 >h4+ 53.Kg2 b3 54.Rb8 Qe2+ 55.Nf2 Ne3+ 0-1 > >>>>Whichever Human or Computer plays the Openings by ECO Classification >>>>that are better for Black will win. > >And here is a game where White played the Polish Opening, known to be better for >Black (White has historically scored around 46%), in which White won (and >therefore disproving your statement that if Black plays an "Opening by ECO >Classification that [is] better for Black" then Black will win. > >[Site "Las Palmas ESP"] >[Date "1974.04.??"] >[White "Larsen, Bent"] >[Black "Browne, Walter S"] >[Result "1-0"] >[ECO "A00"] >[WhiteELO "2630"] >[BlackELO "2575"] > >1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Bf5 3.Nf3 e6 4.e3 Nf6 5.a3 c5 6.c4 cxb4 7.axb4 Nc6 8.Qa4 >Be7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Nd4 Bd7 11.b5 Nb4 12.Ba3 a5 13.Nc3 O-O 14.Be2 Ne4 >15.O-O Nxd2 16.Rfd1 Nc4 17.Nxd5 Nxa3 18.Nxe7+ Qxe7 19.Qxa3 b6 20.Rd2 >Rac8 21.Rad1 Rc7 22.h3 Rfc8 23.Qa1 g6 24.Nf3 Be8 25.Rd6 Qxd6 26.Rxd6 >Rc1+ 27.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 28.Kh2 a4 29.Rxb6 a3 30.Rb8 Kf8 31.b6 a2 32.Bb5 Nc6 >33.Bxc6 a1=Q 34.Rxe8+ Kg7 35.b7 Rb1 36.b8=Q Rxb8 37.Rxb8 Qa5 38.Rb7 Kf8 >39.e4 Qc5 40.Bd5 f5 41.Ne5 1-0 > >And don't say that GM Larsen is the exception proving the rule.... :-) > >jm Individual games are not Statistically significant. Morphy, Lasker, Steinitz, Fine, all lost games in under 15 moves. So what?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.