The worst opening from whites perspective I ever seen is f4, e6 2. g4, Qe4 checkmate. Foolmate is a dream, but I didnt find a player to allow me this yet.
@ST4RSCR34M said in #20:
> fools mate is the worst opening coincidentally I had to solve it to make my answer
I agree. A related question could be: what is the worst opening excluding fool's mate?
> fools mate is the worst opening coincidentally I had to solve it to make my answer
I agree. A related question could be: what is the worst opening excluding fool's mate?
Up to move 3, the game I assembled was a book opening.
Fools mate does not count, because it did not complete an opening to reach a middle game.
I took the time to read a definition and concluded an opening can last a long time. It is the first phase of a game, so that means there is another phase. Without a second phase that type of opening does not count.
www.definitions.net/definition/chess+opening
Fools mate does not count, because it did not complete an opening to reach a middle game.
I took the time to read a definition and concluded an opening can last a long time. It is the first phase of a game, so that means there is another phase. Without a second phase that type of opening does not count.
www.definitions.net/definition/chess+opening
@Toscani said in #23:
> Up to move 3, the game I assembled was a book opening.
> Fools mate does not count, because it did not complete an opening to reach a middle game.
In my beliefs there is no a bad opening for a good player and there is no a good opening for a bad player. I heard pros choose openings based on opponents weaknesses, not on objectivity of computerized 0.01 advantages it would provide.
> Up to move 3, the game I assembled was a book opening.
> Fools mate does not count, because it did not complete an opening to reach a middle game.
In my beliefs there is no a bad opening for a good player and there is no a good opening for a bad player. I heard pros choose openings based on opponents weaknesses, not on objectivity of computerized 0.01 advantages it would provide.
@Toscani said in #19:
> The worst opening... I would need a free software that would sort the moves from best to worse.
[clipped by me]
good idea bringing a study as complement feature.. also the thread title, is opening a door on the general question of what makes a truncated chess game sequence, worthy of an opening name or existence in some DB accepted as instances or data reprensenting opening knowledge ("theroy"?, data?, data about theory, )..
Should there not be a systematic annotation code subset to go with their existence.. Also, some allowance for the history of them.. and as new variations keep shortening the main lines, should the previous mainlne outcome theory or expert outcome annotation
I hear MCO does have comments attached, i suppose to the last position at end of line (the leaf? the last position defining the opening existence).
what is the variability of the knowledge attached to all the opening variations now part of the growing body of opening knowledge.
that would allow a more productive set of questions to be discussed (i mean less noise due to using words with overlapping meanings and possibly also different depending on each limited experience or exposure to any parts of the whole body of knowledge, with different authorships, or autorative certificaiton of construction... please use the better words if understanding what i am trying to pin down. or ask?.
I am not asking to dismiss anything, but to find the boundaries of that thing called opening "theory", or the possibilities, the gamut of forms in which such body of information set that the various members of the chess community commonly refer to as opening "theory". I don't care how it is called. I have my theories about why it is called theory (that is the extent of derision i intend in this post).. I am proposing constructive criticism.
we need to gathers the different critters that fall under the same hat called opening theory. Concretely speaking, the bottom things we can call data implementation of the various forms i am asking here a survey, databases of such sequences with defined start ply of variations, end ply of variations, and the prefix sequence that ends at the start of any variation. like lichess has an example of in some github repository partly using ECO address system, in some "artful" combination with other sources of names.. There is a downloadable source we could call the release version of the lichess ECO database. There is also a live version of that, that the opening explorer tool is based on.
I assume that last statement, but i do not master the content of that repository and how it is used by lichess.
This is just to give an example of something concrete if needed to approach the questions above.. Is that the whole of opening theory? It does not have the historical information of expert calls in it. Given its possible use as data source for the defining sequences variations in there, and the lichess choices of naming addresses, in the opening explorer, such "theory" annotations that may have backed up the very existence in our minds of openings and their names, are not there and may not be needed given the tool needing that DB. because that tool also uses other databases. not the lichess ECO database i was just reffereing to, but own games database, and something exclusively populated of OTB tournaments games curated somehow to end up being called the Master DB.
Those 2 games databases have been digested into other types of databases called books (not exactly database of games, some further "curation" steps have had to be done, in order to be called a book, opening book).
Both game databases and book reduction of them, contain the extra statistical data of the terminal outcome, because the game databases are full games with attached outcomes, even if the books had to truncated the sequence data in some step, for some declination of the opening explorer, that outcome data is still attached to the shorter game sequence). Since that is, there, the original information that would help explain what made an sequence become a worth variation, even get a name, did not need to be preserved.
Now the ECO database comes as a spreadsheet at least, the part we can download. These are well defined sequences with start and end plies.. There might also be the question of how many terminal outcomes do they contain, as part of opening theory knowledge. Does opening theory also include pure data about real game outcomes, (not expert estimation of the odds, upstream of any termination.. to be clear). Putting aside that additional question, that DB does not contain any odds or annotation calls, that does not mean that there have not been orginally, so I ask can we use that DB, to figure out the reasons, possibly via the orignial sources annotations for last positions, for the very existence of each included variations...
This would allow more handle or control or understanding of the wide hat word that is opening theory.
is the fool's mate only there for its shallow depth? is there a cutoff to all openings. rational, or empirical.
what is the proportion of within defining seqeunce terminal outcome last positions, and those with a theory estimation about odds.
We could then have outcome theory based opening DBs. . say i just want balanced odds ending variations, that i could use for games starting from those. Or find people with same repertoir knowing, who would cooperatively do the move of the main line and the variation suffixes down or up to that position.. and test the thoery with our games...... all sorts of teaching/ learning opportunity about chess body of knwoedlge could come from being more precise about certain things. thank you for reading such a long post. this is not first iteration of my thinking about this.. I shared such concerns before in parts, and recently with at least one or 2 persons also interest in looking at openings as a whole thing.
> The worst opening... I would need a free software that would sort the moves from best to worse.
[clipped by me]
good idea bringing a study as complement feature.. also the thread title, is opening a door on the general question of what makes a truncated chess game sequence, worthy of an opening name or existence in some DB accepted as instances or data reprensenting opening knowledge ("theroy"?, data?, data about theory, )..
Should there not be a systematic annotation code subset to go with their existence.. Also, some allowance for the history of them.. and as new variations keep shortening the main lines, should the previous mainlne outcome theory or expert outcome annotation
I hear MCO does have comments attached, i suppose to the last position at end of line (the leaf? the last position defining the opening existence).
what is the variability of the knowledge attached to all the opening variations now part of the growing body of opening knowledge.
that would allow a more productive set of questions to be discussed (i mean less noise due to using words with overlapping meanings and possibly also different depending on each limited experience or exposure to any parts of the whole body of knowledge, with different authorships, or autorative certificaiton of construction... please use the better words if understanding what i am trying to pin down. or ask?.
I am not asking to dismiss anything, but to find the boundaries of that thing called opening "theory", or the possibilities, the gamut of forms in which such body of information set that the various members of the chess community commonly refer to as opening "theory". I don't care how it is called. I have my theories about why it is called theory (that is the extent of derision i intend in this post).. I am proposing constructive criticism.
we need to gathers the different critters that fall under the same hat called opening theory. Concretely speaking, the bottom things we can call data implementation of the various forms i am asking here a survey, databases of such sequences with defined start ply of variations, end ply of variations, and the prefix sequence that ends at the start of any variation. like lichess has an example of in some github repository partly using ECO address system, in some "artful" combination with other sources of names.. There is a downloadable source we could call the release version of the lichess ECO database. There is also a live version of that, that the opening explorer tool is based on.
I assume that last statement, but i do not master the content of that repository and how it is used by lichess.
This is just to give an example of something concrete if needed to approach the questions above.. Is that the whole of opening theory? It does not have the historical information of expert calls in it. Given its possible use as data source for the defining sequences variations in there, and the lichess choices of naming addresses, in the opening explorer, such "theory" annotations that may have backed up the very existence in our minds of openings and their names, are not there and may not be needed given the tool needing that DB. because that tool also uses other databases. not the lichess ECO database i was just reffereing to, but own games database, and something exclusively populated of OTB tournaments games curated somehow to end up being called the Master DB.
Those 2 games databases have been digested into other types of databases called books (not exactly database of games, some further "curation" steps have had to be done, in order to be called a book, opening book).
Both game databases and book reduction of them, contain the extra statistical data of the terminal outcome, because the game databases are full games with attached outcomes, even if the books had to truncated the sequence data in some step, for some declination of the opening explorer, that outcome data is still attached to the shorter game sequence). Since that is, there, the original information that would help explain what made an sequence become a worth variation, even get a name, did not need to be preserved.
Now the ECO database comes as a spreadsheet at least, the part we can download. These are well defined sequences with start and end plies.. There might also be the question of how many terminal outcomes do they contain, as part of opening theory knowledge. Does opening theory also include pure data about real game outcomes, (not expert estimation of the odds, upstream of any termination.. to be clear). Putting aside that additional question, that DB does not contain any odds or annotation calls, that does not mean that there have not been orginally, so I ask can we use that DB, to figure out the reasons, possibly via the orignial sources annotations for last positions, for the very existence of each included variations...
This would allow more handle or control or understanding of the wide hat word that is opening theory.
is the fool's mate only there for its shallow depth? is there a cutoff to all openings. rational, or empirical.
what is the proportion of within defining seqeunce terminal outcome last positions, and those with a theory estimation about odds.
We could then have outcome theory based opening DBs. . say i just want balanced odds ending variations, that i could use for games starting from those. Or find people with same repertoir knowing, who would cooperatively do the move of the main line and the variation suffixes down or up to that position.. and test the thoery with our games...... all sorts of teaching/ learning opportunity about chess body of knwoedlge could come from being more precise about certain things. thank you for reading such a long post. this is not first iteration of my thinking about this.. I shared such concerns before in parts, and recently with at least one or 2 persons also interest in looking at openings as a whole thing.
@philodendron68 said in #2:
> The worst opening for White, as we all know, is the 'True King's gambit', where White sacrifices his King in order to get a strong grip on the squares e4, g4, f5 and h5. 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4#. The same gambit works even better for Black, since his King survives one half move longer, and White loses a tempo: 1.e4 f6 2.d4 g5 3.Qh5#. By the way: What's the Botez gambit?
YES :)
> The worst opening for White, as we all know, is the 'True King's gambit', where White sacrifices his King in order to get a strong grip on the squares e4, g4, f5 and h5. 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4#. The same gambit works even better for Black, since his King survives one half move longer, and White loses a tempo: 1.e4 f6 2.d4 g5 3.Qh5#. By the way: What's the Botez gambit?
YES :)
I want to clarify that it's the worst opening that isn't a checkmate. That's what I meant by the botez gambit is the worst.
So the worst opening would most likely be a game that was played and finishes with a fortress.
You think you're winning and all of a sudden a fortress is built and it becomes a draw.
You think you're winning and all of a sudden a fortress is built and it becomes a draw.
Another worst would be a game that lasts the longest and still creates a draw.
Well what was the longest chess master game that ended in a draw?
The answer is in the wiki link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_chess#:~:text=The%20longest%20tournament%20chess%20game,to%20complete%20a%20drawn%20game.
Well what was the longest chess master game that ended in a draw?
The answer is in the wiki link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_chess#:~:text=The%20longest%20tournament%20chess%20game,to%20complete%20a%20drawn%20game.
Worst opening to new players.
I am Magnus Carlsen and I really suck at Chess.
I am Magnus Carlsen and I really suck at Chess.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.