@Toscani Why doesn't White simply take the Knight on e2 (12.0-0 Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2), but plays 13.Kh2?? instead?
@DERG_CHESS No, I unfortunately don't know what BUGHOUSE means in chess. A house full of bugs? A bugged game mod?
<Comment deleted by user>
You missed the point of using the 5th white line. The 5th white best line is not really the best move, but it's worse than the 4th or the 3rd or the 2nd or the 1st best move. @philodendron68
Looks like now the op is looking for the worst opening that ends in a draw. It still lacks to many details to narrow it down without assuming what the op real wants. So it's going to create a long list of forum posts and sooner or later peole will get feed up of trying to help.
So the way I see it, someone had to play well but not as well as the other player. If both players played best, than the worst game would be the longest game that ends in a draw. A real waste of time, is the worst best played game. The worst worst played game is really what. A game that was played so poorly that lasted so long that the guys got into a fight. Sorry but the topic is really not worth going any further without understanding what this is about.
I was really hoping it was not a joke and we could try to eliminate a few openings in the ECO code so others would not waste their time in those ECO codes that are the worst of the batch.
Looks like now the op is looking for the worst opening that ends in a draw. It still lacks to many details to narrow it down without assuming what the op real wants. So it's going to create a long list of forum posts and sooner or later peole will get feed up of trying to help.
So the way I see it, someone had to play well but not as well as the other player. If both players played best, than the worst game would be the longest game that ends in a draw. A real waste of time, is the worst best played game. The worst worst played game is really what. A game that was played so poorly that lasted so long that the guys got into a fight. Sorry but the topic is really not worth going any further without understanding what this is about.
I was really hoping it was not a joke and we could try to eliminate a few openings in the ECO code so others would not waste their time in those ECO codes that are the worst of the batch.
@Toscani You are right. I missed that White is only allowed to play the fifth best move in your game. I didn't read your comment fully.
I'm wondering if people actually have an ECO listing that is from best to worst. Or at least sorted in three groups. Wins, Draws, losses.
The opening is a cluster of moves, that has a particular value just before entering the middle game. Is there not enough games made since the beginning of time to sort something out ?
If only one player plays the worst moves, that will obviously end in a lose. The study in this forum shows that.
But what if both players play the fifth best move. Then the mate will be avoided in the end until all five lines give mate.
It's a theory to test out. But one game is not enough to prove it. A tournament of games played which would pick the 5th line every time would be more proof. Even if it's done, what's the purpose besides be curious...
So the usefulness of this forum post is sort the games into groups of what is worst to what is best and give values and then group the openings that have the same values together. Then the op will have the curiosity answered and so will everyone else. They will then want to save the info for future use.
The opening is a cluster of moves, that has a particular value just before entering the middle game. Is there not enough games made since the beginning of time to sort something out ?
If only one player plays the worst moves, that will obviously end in a lose. The study in this forum shows that.
But what if both players play the fifth best move. Then the mate will be avoided in the end until all five lines give mate.
It's a theory to test out. But one game is not enough to prove it. A tournament of games played which would pick the 5th line every time would be more proof. Even if it's done, what's the purpose besides be curious...
So the usefulness of this forum post is sort the games into groups of what is worst to what is best and give values and then group the openings that have the same values together. Then the op will have the curiosity answered and so will everyone else. They will then want to save the info for future use.
@Toscani said in #19:
> ... study named "Best of the worst openings"
Just that idea, if it is the context of your experiments reporting, is something i missed. I can't comment on the detail, but i guess known worse openings are likely to not have been as actively revisited in tournaments, unless somebody got very flippant with own need to win. (bad reasoning?).
So why not from time to time ask the programmed knowledge machines, not about opening knowledge, but the programmed awareness of what might matter to value on boards with position information, and the consequences in how they order legal candidate moves, in general, in their many in-game legal tree root searches (so not knowledge about known sequences directly).
How do those programming choices end up classifying those less explored worse openings moves..
This could be a series of possibly interesting experiments under the controlled point of view of specified engines. With the clear knowledge and tracability of which engine or list of which engines are being used as referential of such ordering. a reproducible set of experiments. Updatable across time periods as engine evolve.
I would not take it as truth about the openings. but as suggestion or hypotheses with the explicit assumption that this is engines let lose with their non-book programming choices. The ordering should be paired with that understanding. But hypotheses are the seed of knowledge that keeps advancing.. so why not that.
It is something to try on some time period basis, as where one trust engine or not for opening "accuracy", they still have increasing completion pool depending ELOs, so there might be a chance that it is about improved "accuracy" not just a faster deeper exploration (unless people equate deeper with increased accuracy, which i am not sure about myself).
In any case if not about chess itself, that ordering could be a statement about the state of the art engine point of view, in their current evolution snapshot. But it might give some incentive to look as humans more closely to possibly overlooked historically expertly considered bad opening last defined positions.
edit: not read yet the other comments after that one. mayeb just glanced. maybe then hypotheses about which not to explore in tournaments in priority.... kind of same idea.. just ordering.. one can use those results however they interpret them.
> ... study named "Best of the worst openings"
Just that idea, if it is the context of your experiments reporting, is something i missed. I can't comment on the detail, but i guess known worse openings are likely to not have been as actively revisited in tournaments, unless somebody got very flippant with own need to win. (bad reasoning?).
So why not from time to time ask the programmed knowledge machines, not about opening knowledge, but the programmed awareness of what might matter to value on boards with position information, and the consequences in how they order legal candidate moves, in general, in their many in-game legal tree root searches (so not knowledge about known sequences directly).
How do those programming choices end up classifying those less explored worse openings moves..
This could be a series of possibly interesting experiments under the controlled point of view of specified engines. With the clear knowledge and tracability of which engine or list of which engines are being used as referential of such ordering. a reproducible set of experiments. Updatable across time periods as engine evolve.
I would not take it as truth about the openings. but as suggestion or hypotheses with the explicit assumption that this is engines let lose with their non-book programming choices. The ordering should be paired with that understanding. But hypotheses are the seed of knowledge that keeps advancing.. so why not that.
It is something to try on some time period basis, as where one trust engine or not for opening "accuracy", they still have increasing completion pool depending ELOs, so there might be a chance that it is about improved "accuracy" not just a faster deeper exploration (unless people equate deeper with increased accuracy, which i am not sure about myself).
In any case if not about chess itself, that ordering could be a statement about the state of the art engine point of view, in their current evolution snapshot. But it might give some incentive to look as humans more closely to possibly overlooked historically expertly considered bad opening last defined positions.
edit: not read yet the other comments after that one. mayeb just glanced. maybe then hypotheses about which not to explore in tournaments in priority.... kind of same idea.. just ordering.. one can use those results however they interpret them.
If an engine can completely solve the worst of openings. Then there is hope to guarantee the rest are better.
Assuming something is best, when we have not removed the worst, is not the right patch to solving the main paths to follow.
There maybe more bad moves that good moves. But the worst are really what? More than a blunder is losing a game.
So the help mates are probably the solution to removing the worst of openings.
Sitting ducks are easy to get at, so the openings that develop the least are the worse too.
Assuming something is best, when we have not removed the worst, is not the right patch to solving the main paths to follow.
There maybe more bad moves that good moves. But the worst are really what? More than a blunder is losing a game.
So the help mates are probably the solution to removing the worst of openings.
Sitting ducks are easy to get at, so the openings that develop the least are the worse too.
i have some trouble wrapping my head about the procedure using mutli PV lines. if that is what was meant. What would it change about the engine exploration or outcome interpretation value about the preceding sequence (assuming that procedure is about testing a certain line, from some defined position within defined opening. i might read again tomorow.
The multi PV lines: There are 5 on Lichess analysis.
Only the first move of every PV line is useful, the rest is the reason why the engine says it's in first place or second and so forth.
If Black always picked the Best of the Best, then the rest are weaker moves, according to the analysis.
White remained stuck in using the firth best move, but we already saw in the study that on move 13 it caused a blunder. Some times the 1st move is the only correct move. The rest are incorrect. So after a while picking incorrect moves add up to a losing game.
Engines prune, but they might be pruning to early. I don't believe an engine should be pruning on every ply, because it removes combinations that could add up in the long term and not the short term.
So if someone is looking for combination of plys that is so bad that within two move, the game can be considered a loss, then that is a very bad opening. Can an engine play a near fools mate, and in the nick of time get of of the bad situation and not loss?
Worst is the opposite of best. So playing the worst case scenario moves does not guarantee a draw.
Only the first move of every PV line is useful, the rest is the reason why the engine says it's in first place or second and so forth.
If Black always picked the Best of the Best, then the rest are weaker moves, according to the analysis.
White remained stuck in using the firth best move, but we already saw in the study that on move 13 it caused a blunder. Some times the 1st move is the only correct move. The rest are incorrect. So after a while picking incorrect moves add up to a losing game.
Engines prune, but they might be pruning to early. I don't believe an engine should be pruning on every ply, because it removes combinations that could add up in the long term and not the short term.
So if someone is looking for combination of plys that is so bad that within two move, the game can be considered a loss, then that is a very bad opening. Can an engine play a near fools mate, and in the nick of time get of of the bad situation and not loss?
Worst is the opposite of best. So playing the worst case scenario moves does not guarantee a draw.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.