New book about openings

 Just released my first  E-book, and of-course it's about chess,

in particular opening theory, especially geared at beginner level

         but also above, at average chess club level, until IM or so.

              Better Chess Openings E-book  (.pdf)

For beginning - intermediate chess players, or those who want to learn it, and then  it's dealing only with the specialty called opening theory.  No e-pub version (yet).

         (The only book at this level, as far as i know, with selected B & W variations for beginners via the 'repertoire' method ; also a rare book with diagrams with Black at the bottom, when it is Blacks move to play(*); thereby a high amount of - colored- diagrams to be an ideal learning tool.)

NB planning to release a printed book (paper)  version before the end of the year (2014), possibly via Ingram Spark, but if there is any (Chess-)publisher having interest, then they can contact me. Probably both a color version (expensive) and a B&W version (cheap) are foreseen.

             jef 

PS writing the book did cost time, but the underlying research has taken me some 15 years, and that's basically where the worth of the book is in.  Thereby also more advanced variations were investigated as Slav and Sicilian for Black, but i decided to split the book up into two parts, the first one for beginners to master level. Second part planned is from master to GM level, but i'm not in a hurry to publish that.

PS 2 About the first book, the current one,  while some people may object to the concept of finding and specifying the 'best' opening moves, my experience in correspondence chess, now at masterlevel on ICCF, has taught me it indeed is a valuable and useful concept; which works! In other words, it is a useful concept, and if it works in correspondence chess, you cannot go wrong by using (or even memorizing) such a repertoire in normal chess; although it might take some time to learn/master it. And GM's usually are at such higher levels
and preoccupied in their own struggles against their fellow GM's
that they usually are not suitable on an educational level
to explain opening theory to beginneers (besides few
exceptions, but such books are rare). As for the recommended
lines in my books, wellmost chess players are independent enough i
suppose to experiment sometimes with other variations.
Well at least in my  book i've provided now some clear
guidelines for the basic lines especially for beginners !

(*) a logical thing to do, obviously , but Chessbase does not
have such a feature, contrary to Chesspad for example

Update of Bookbuilder program

Recently made an update of the Bookbuilder program (4.2)
Now more than 900 thousand position in the default book.
It now gives a reasonable accurate overview of the 'best'
opening variations or defenses , after 1.d4!  1.e4 or 1.Nf3.

Add variation name possible again (it had disappeared
in the previous version).

The 'demo' version on shareit.com is a fully functional
version, working for 14 days.

jef

PS nowadays playing with the Stockfish engine on ICC,
with a 17Mb book made for the Chesspartner interface.

A little test

Above test games were played with time control 40 moves in 40 minutes, on Quad HP9300 with 3 cores, no pondering. Note that Houdini.2 was a modified version, whereby I had improved some values with the Houdini-config tool. And with the Houdini-2 engine, I used my ChessPartner (CP) userbook (about 16Mb), whereby with the new Houdini-3 engine, I used the 'Perfect2012' book by Sedat Canbaz version for ChessPartner(CP). Although these 'perfect' books by Canbaz already are quite good, with previous tests with more games, I concluded my book is about 50 points better. Nb the worst books, like the default CP book is worse, at least 50 rating points worse than 'perfect'.
So whats' the fuzz about new engine releases ? 50 points rating improvement isnt that much, it can also be achieved with better books, hardware and so on. But yes you can use all together as well obviously if you're really fanatic.. And better engines -like Houdini3-certainly help me to improve my opening books. So now eagerly waiting for the Komodo5-mp release; end 2013 maybe ?? :)
(will they catch up with Houdini ?)
And when i get some more time i'll see if i can compare my books with the strong Hiarcs14 book, which is in Chessbase (.ctg) format. First step is to compare the 'Perfect' with the Hiarcs14 book, if Hiarcs also is about 50 points better then i will conclude my CP book is equally good as the Hiarcs book. But maybe later i'll see if i can make a .ctg book myself.

Houdini hype, new theory ?

Recently a new update of the top-engine Houdini-3 was released, and i have analyzed the endnodes of my medium-sized Bookbuilder book with this engine. Subsequently backsolved, and the new book can be downloaded as part of the trial-package for Bookbuilder at www.superchess.com
See link to download, and then -on new page- download 'demo'-version which is fully functioning program for a period of 14 days. Whereby I updated many booklines, i don't claim this is the ultimate theory now, but for intermediate players it gives a good repertoire. For the rest did quite some work on the E-book Chess opening theory, renewed, an innovative approach, for all levels!

Playing with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 against the Queens-Indian with 3.Nf3 b6 (3...d5 4.Nc3 also is good for White) 4.g3! (main line) leads to strong play for White, with my recent analysis; but Black will be able to equalize, if he/she knows precisely what to do. Which will be described in detail in our E-book about opening theory. So the Catalan with 3.g3 also remains a good choice for advanced players, and we found many novelties which are specified in the latest version of our book. Black can also deviate with 2...c6! going for the Slav or 2...g6 (Gruenfeld), but the 'best' lines found with computer analysis also are given in the E-book.

For those who register for the Bookbuilder program the latest version of the E-book will be sent. With lots of novelties, years ahead of current published theory!
Until end of 2012 with a reduction, thereafter i probably release a Bookbuilder-pro package in addition to the normal Bookbuilder, which will contain my ultrastrong handtuned Chess-Partner opening book, which contains years of work and has been checked against other theoretical works such as the Hiarcs14 book, several GM repertoire (paper)books from Quality Chess, and so on. But the price for the 'pro version will be higher, obviously Good luck with your chess,
jef

PS obviously only with minimax you don't get a really 'playable' computer chess book with statistics, but i have used the info about the best lines to develop a book for the Chess Partner interface, and there the book choice is made by a combination of learned score, statistics, and times played. PS coming weeks I am going to check/improve the book by analyzing (EPD) nodes in the book and then importing them again via the special book correction module in Bookbuilder3.6 (adding the position after one move more, and then backsolving the whole lot again.

Bogo-Catalan

Best wishes for 2012 !

update:
not nr one anymore on ICC; because of the faster
comps of the other guys i'm scoring more draws, and
the rating has gone down a bit. No problem,
the book is still ok, and when i get a faster comp
the rating will go up again, currently i'm not
getting benefits of the Houdini 2 Pro feature Numa
for which a more modern comp is required.

Recently done some research into the Catalan, which
appears quite strong for white. Ofcourse black can
avoid the Catalan by playing Slav or Gruenfeld,
but black can also simply play an anti-Catalan
usually transposing to Bogo-Indian with g3:

d4 Nf6
c4 e6
g3! Bb4!
Bd2
and now after Be7 (or Bxd2 Qxd2) Nf3 we transpose to
Bogo-Indian, the variation which g3. White also can
delay the Nf3 move however, with moves like Nc3 and
Bg2, and then its officialy not (yet) a Bogo-Indian.

So i call it the Bogo-Catalan :)

one of the preferred defenses maybe against
the Catalan ! More explanation/analysis maybe
later. Good luck with your opening play
(e4 for beginners, and d4 for advanced)

jef

PS 4.Nd2 also is possible, but then the pawn on c4 gets lost;
white then gets compensation but probably not enough
to get a structural advantage

NB after a later ..d5 by black we transpose to the
Catalan again, and this variation .. Bb4+ Bd2 Be7
also is mentioned in GM Avrukhs book GM repertoire
part 1, chapter 10. And he calls it one of the
strongest defences against the Catalan indeed..

Number One (on ICC)

(mainly) as result of the strong Houdini 1.5 engine(*), but
also due to the recent improvements in my Chess Partner book,
got a new 'standard' rating record of about 3050 on the
Internet Chess Club (ICC) with my 'bookbuilder' account,
on 28 December 2010, and nr 1 rating
for standard (rapid and slower_ play) !

On a 'simple' Quad comp, while there are some 6 core
comps around (with often an intel icore extreme), so
using a good book, does it matter ?

Yes, indeed it matters, especially at higher levels
of play (i.e. slower time controls, like in standard),
this now simply is proven in actual play,
and it makes sense, a chain is as weak as its weakest
part, and for a chess program this means everything has
to be without weaknesses, opening book, middlegame
(engine) practical endgame (engine) and theoretical
endgame (tablebases); have a lousy book, and against
a similar or even slightly weaker engine the
game can be lost, it makes a difference +/- 100
Elo or so, is my experience..but above a certain
level you can't increase improvement ofcourse
anymore, some booklines are perfect, others
are weak, and to some extent you can tune it
for the engine, playing style blitz/standard,
but thereafter its up to the engine (and the
hardware ofcourse); some concrete examples later
as i'm currently testing my CP book against
other CP books offline (preliminary results:
about 63 % with my recent book, vs 37% with
the older , general CP book, with the
same engine. How much Elo difference that is,
you may calculate..
:)

until next time,

jef

PS (*) quite an improvement now with Houdini,
and it plays especially well in the endgame, so with
a good book, achieving a slight advantage after the
opening, a reasonable (but not extremely) fast comp,
maintaining the advantage, Houdini often converts
such a slight advantage to a win in the endgame,
especially in slow (standard) games.

intermediate repertoire

Having found some better repertoire for advanced players,
and simplified the 1.e4 repertoire for beginners (exchange
RL instead of closed RL), a repertoire for intermediate/
average players was still lacking.

So, using some more recent analysis with Rybka4, i added
such a repertoire in my book 'better chess opening play',
and now advise the Petrov (e5 e5 Nf3 Nf6!) against e4,
instead of the Ruy Lopez (RL). Whereas i found it to be
more solid, it also avoids variations as Scotch, Giuoco
Piano, and many related gambits.

For further info see the book, a new version now has been
uploaded, and is available for registered users of Bookbuilder.

NB End of year 2010 special offer:
50 % price reduction !

While the book is not finished yet, i'm sure the latest
version can help you ie most chess players except super GM's
a lot in your chess play, and i also am getting to get
some positive feedback (eg from one user in the USA:
"excellent E-book") .
And you'll get a download link to the hugebook as well,
which you can use to practice a bit with your own repertoire
(you'll quickly discover that the advised repertoire in
the book is based on many novelties, and profound modern
chess analysis, having used the absolute top engines)

until later,
kec

advanced repertoire with 1.d4

having done some more research with Rybka4, which in many cases
gives a better evaluation of some positions than eg. Rybka3,
another repertoire, which i use in my computerbook is emerging,
namely with 1.d4 .
Against e4, having done considerable analysis on many lines
and playing some testgames both on ICC and playchess.com,
the Sicilian 1..c5!, in particular Najdorf, (with d6 and a6)
looks quite a strong defence, currently even the strongest.
In fact these developments are not surprising, as many top
players also have switched their repertoire from e4 to d4, eg
world champion Anand. Although its often said that this is because
of the Petrov or the Marshall gambit defence in the Ruy Lopez,
for me the reason is the Najdorf, which in fact is played quite
often on playchess.com against e4. Highly accurate play is
required in this sharp, double-edged defence, so for average
players - and certainly beginners- i still advocate 1.e4
as most suitable repertoire.
By starting with 1.e4, you learn variations like the CaroKann
and the French, which knowledge a more advanced players can
still use in case of 1.d4, eg in case of 1.d4 c6?! 2. e4!
or 1.d4 e6?! 2. e4 ; another reason to start with e4,
and imho continue with it a long time, eg up to about 2000
or higher, is not only the difficulty of the Sicilian, in
particular the Najdorf, but also the simple fact that by
playing e4 a player usually will learn tactics, especially
opening tactics sooner than when playing the
*initially* more 'positional' 1.d4

Ofcourse i've updated my demo bookbuilder book (>500,000
positions) which you can download for free at:

http://shareit.com/product.html?productid=184868

(14 days trial, and you clearly can see after 1.e4
the Sicilian, .. c5 as preferred defence).
More detailed lines can be seen in my hugebook, now
almost 20 million positions, available for registered
users; results of coming testgames, mainly on
playchess.com will be included in coming months;
lets see if the Najdorf can still hold against the
English attack (with 6.Be3) ; and as 1.d4 is scoring
quite well i probably also will do some research
into the 'best' (more advanced) defence against 1.d4.

until later
jef

Improvements in the Ruy Lopez

found the Russian Firebird 64mp engine, of which it is said that it
has been made with reversed engineering of Rybka. Well anyway
tried some new analysis. While less solid than Rybka, Fire(bird)
very fast sometimes finds interesting lines, and i seemed
to be able to maintain some slight advantage against both
the Zaitsev (9.. Bb7) and the Chigorin defences in the Ruy Lopez.

For example, whereas i previously thought black is ok in the
main line Zaitsev (9..Bb7 10.d4 Te8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a4 h6 etc.),
with new analysis a rather obscure line, namely with 12.Ng5
seems to be able to achieve a white advantage.
After 12.Ng5 black plays 12.. Re7 to cover f7, and now
the (rare) move is 13.Ndf3! In Guez(2177)-Colin(2402),2005 black
played exd4?! (.. h6 also has been played, but 12.. Qe8N is
probably best), white played 14.cxd4 (Nxf7 would have been
better), and after 14. .. Qe8?! (Na5 would have been better)
we get the following position:


Now white could have got the advantage with 15.e5!N but
being a lower rated - and most likely worse- player,
he played 15.Bc2? and lost the game.

Well anyway the Zaitsev is anyway difficult to play,
especially for beginners, but the Chigorin still (9.. Na5)
is useful in practical play, because of the complexity
and many sideslines despite the slight advantage for white
according to my extensive analysis. For a similar reason,
black can also choose for other defences than the closed
defence, eg. 3.. g6 (Smyslov/fianchetto defence), etc.
See for example a recent book by Solokov on such lines.


But for advanced players, well now my analysis indeed points
to the Sicilian 1..c5 as 'best' defence for black.
Especially the lines with ..d6, possibly leading to
the Najdorf are solid, eg. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 but sometimes very sharp,
eg. with 6.Bc4!

And black also needs to know how to maintain equality
against 3.Bb5! instead of d4, with 3..Bd7 4.Bxd7 Nxd7
(or Qd7 c4!) etc. as described eg in a book by Pedersen.

One chessplayer advised me, that one should not
play the Sicilian below 2000, and he might be right,
a few weeks ago i played a youthful player who
in retrospect told me he wanted to play the Dragon.
But i simply tried the wing gambit, 4.b4!? after 3..d6
and won the game. So i'll keep on recommending
1..e5! in my book, except for advanced players.

and as for Fire(bird), well i expect the new version
Rybka 4 will be stronger again, especially if you
hire the online version, eg. on a cluster with 16 cpu's.

So more theoretical improvements expected to come
(update Dec 2010): with Rybka 4 the variation with Ng5
isnt best anymore, instead now against the Zaitsev
'best' play is going like 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Rfe8 11.Nbd2 Bf8
12.a3! with only a slight advantage for white.
Also with some new analysis in the Chigorin defence
against the RL (9..Na5) this variation appears to be
just as 'solid' as the Zaitsev, but also quite difficult.
(note: as result now the Petrov is advised for average
players with black, see the latest message in this blog

Some updates

As result of many testgames on playchess.com
and including the games with Rybka analysis
in my large database, some variations in my
book have been updated. For example in the
Queens Indian, after d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6!
g3! i've replaced the bookmove Bb7 with
the more modern Ba6.

Also, against the Sicilian Najdorf, my
preferred bookmove is now Bc4!, the Fischer
attack. While not always getting an advantage
for white, at least the results are better
than with the English attack, Be3, which
still is played often, but against which
black can hold equality with carefult defence.

For the rest many update were made to my book
'Better chess opening play', of which you can
see some selected pages at:



More in general, when comparing the results
achieved when looking for the 'best' bookmoves
or opening variations -as result of Rybka3 analysis-
seem to become in line with mainstream theory,
as published in many specialized opening books,
which in principle is an encouraging result;
and proves that the evaluations made with
the Rybka 3 engine indeed make sense.

When appropriate, and possible, with deeper
analysis ofcourse some improved lines can
be found, and in such a way computer chess
is getting ahead of GM games, even games
played by the top-GM's..

'best' opening lines

sometimes, -less advanced- chess players ask me what are
the best opening lines ? well such an answer cant be
given, as it depends on personal style, but for
average players some solid advice can be given,
as developed over the years with the program Bookbuilder:

- start with 1.e4! aiming for Spanish (Ruy Lopez), closed Sicilian,
or others (the program Chess openings Wizard is advising
1.d4 aiming for the London system, which also is good,
but more for advanced players i would say)

- answer 1.e4 with 1... e5! and aim for closed Spanish (Ruy Lopez)
- answer 1.d4 with 1.. Nf6 aiming for Indian systems (Nimzo-
Indian or Queens Indian)

that's all, for more advise see

http://superchess.com

and eg. order our book 'better chess opening play'
where some 'perfect' (and drawish) variations are
analysed in detail (with world champion chess program Rybka)
eg. the Ruy Lopez Zaitsev, and many more

good luck with your chess

and beginners remember:
first study elementar chess, and
especially tactics !

look eg at:

http://www.stappenmethode.nl/stepsmethod/index.html

jef

new update for Bookbuilder

it took some time (busy with the e-book) but now
there's a new update for the program Bookbuilder,
4.08 ! For download (two-week trial) go to:

http://shareit.com/product.html?productid=184868

Newer book (analyzed with Rybka3), UCO names added, etc.
and a newer Crafty engine; setup file now about 6.8 Mb
for other changes see the readme.txt

jef

chess solved in a few centuries ??

according to a recent article in the magazine of the Dutch
computer chess association, chess could be 'solved' (like
checkers) in a few centuries, e.g. by approx. the year 2600.

well, if the Fide rules are applied, the result will
a draw, according to the following reasoning:

1) due to the 50-move draw rule- and 3 move repetition,
the maximum length of a chess game is about 6000 moves
(haven't found the proof for this, but by computer
simulation we probably could confirm this, in
fact i suspect 6000 is already quite high)
2) if chess would be a forced win for white, then
in the final stages of the game, i.e. the transition
to the endgame, lets say by move 4000, but probably
much earlier, the evaluation function (or simply
material balance) for white should definitely be
an advantage, otherwise the endgame cant be
won in a sufficiently small nr of moves

but.. 3) due to the fact that all openings can result
in drawish positions -provided black plays
correctly-, in about 50 moves, often earlier,
the above criterium, i.e. a white advantage
cannot be achieved, and certainly not in *all*
cases (ie. when investigating all possible defences
for black after either 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.Nf3 etc.

Ergo, chess is a draw.
QED.

A useless exercise to let computers crunch
on this game with these endgame rules for
the coming centuries..
:)

or we should change the rules for computer chess,
which certainly would make endgame theory a
lot more interesting, for the coming future !

New rating record(s)

yes, again achieved a new rating record
for standard play (mostly 16/0) on the
top (computer) chess server playchess.com !
Now in the top 10 %, on about 11th place,
with a rating of 2669, not bad with some
skulltrails or xeons (8 cpus') in higher places. And
on ICC, with standard play place nr5 has been achieved
(handle bookbuilder).

So my repertoire with 1.e4, found with Bookbuilder,
after lots of testing and fine-tuning seems to
be confirmed, and is becoming quite solid.

some recent changes:

in the Ruy Lopez Zaitsev (9..Bb7) with black, i
dont play 16..g6?! anymore, as it doesn't give
much active counterplay; better seems the old
well known variation with 16..Nd7, and after
17 Ra3 f5! 18. exf5=! (or 18.Nh2 Qe7!)
Rxe1 19. Qxe1 Nxd5!

and yes chess looks drawish again..

more news later

Practical relevance/opening repertoire

Now after the previous ideas and perfect opening lines, whereby black can maintain a draw, one can (and indeed should) ask what's the practical relevance in chess..

Well first of all, by using such almost perfect opening lines, an opening book for a chess program becomes much better of course. Much better ? Well, at least slightly better. For example i've tested my Arena book against the main book by H.Schapp, and achieved improvements of about 60 Elo points. Not really very much, and indeed, the engine/tactics still are much more important.

So what's the relevance of such opening theory for human players ? Well, having thought about this a bit more, i suspect that the approach of finding 'best' opening
moves is not really suitable for human players, having not such perfect memory as computers of course.

Yet another approach can be worthwile, namely choosing opening lines which restrict the number of playable options
for the opponent. Does this mean choosing the sharpest lines like gambits etc.?

Well, not necessarily, when playing e.g. a gambit like Kings Gambit, after 2. f4?! black still has a lot of playable options (ie. resulting in = lines) options,
and probably 2. Nf3 with such an approach still fundamentally is better.

Yet.. when looking at opening theory in such a (new?) way, other lines than 2.Nf3 also can be played, e.g
2. Nc3, or even 2.d4!? And in the latter case, after 2.exd4, white can also play interesting gambit lines
with eg. 3. c3 (Danish gambit) !

In such a way opening play is a bit similar as middle game play, in the sense that it is useful to gain
mobility of your pieces for your own side, whereas simultaneously trying to restrict mobility of
your opponent(s) pieces.. (i suspect many chess programs still are not very good in evaluating mobility,
especially not in end games, eg. when looking at positions like 'fortresses'and so on..).

Anyway, using such an approach (of trying to restrict nr of playable moves for the opponent, already
in the opening stage) of course the human player would benefit a lot of practical knowledge of the
variations he would choose, especially in sharp lines, such as the above mentioned Danish gambit.

So the practical relevance of this idea is that knowing opening theory, having a repertoire aiming for
above strategy, and using for such purposes a program like Bookbuilder, can be useful for the human chess
player in practical (otb) play !
(and yes, i've experienced this myself as well ofcourse; my standard rating on playchess.com now is more
than 1700, and still increasing..)

So, enough for the moment about computer chess, and back to the more interesting human chess again, i would say.. :)

Criticism, theory, etc.

In a recent discussion on Usenet, rec.games.chess.analysis
my 'conjecture' (hypothesis) that chess fundamentally is
a draw, was critized by some people. Trying to give
some evidence, i showed some standard comp-comp
games, eg. with Rl Zaitsev, and Queens Indian,
where black clearly could maintain a draw.
But people may still question such 'evidence'
of course, as there are many many other lines.

Yet, with perfect play for both sides, assuming
white tries to maintain some initial positional
advantage, i found that often Ruy Lopez, and
against d4 black Nimzo Indian or Queens Indian
are the result of such 'perfect'games.

Then again, one may wonder whats the relevance
of mentioning the RL Zaitsev variation as the
main drawing line for black after 1.e4 , as
white for example doesnt have to play 9.h3
in the Ruy Lopez. Well this doesnt matter,
otherwise i wouldnt have mentioned such
lines. Of course i also have analyzed other
possibilities, eg. with 9 d4, the Boguljubow
variation, but then i found even easier
drawing lines for black.

Same after 1.d4 Nf6, white could play instead
of 2.c4 lines as 2.c3, or Bg5, but also then
theoretically black has no problem in
achieving drawish positions. So indeed, its
my conviction that chess fundamentally
is a draw; in case of perfect play of
both sides, of course.

Black is ok, chess is a draw with perfect play..

With some more Rybka analysis, i'm convinced that
chess is a draw, with perfect play for black.
After e4 e5!, and with the Ruy Lopez it seems not
possible anymore to obtain a structural advantage
for white. Neither with the Bobuljubow Ruy Lopez
variation (8.d4) nor with the Closed RL with 9.h3,
as not only the Zaitsev (10..Bb7) but maybe also
the Breyer (10..Nb8) can maintain equality
for black, i.e. equally valued positions.

Of course careful play for black is needed,
to anticipate any winning plans for white,
but i've analyzed these lines deep enough i think
that a draw seems 99.999 % likely with perfect
play for black.

If one would talk about 'solving' chess, ie.
trying to find a forced win for white against any
defence for black (like eg. in four-in-a-row) then
proving chess would be a draw, also would be a
'solution' of chess. So, i now can say that
chess has been 'solved', its a draw.. :)

'Proof':
*if* there would be a forced win for white, then
there would be (deep) opening lines where a clear
advantage can be obtained against any defence for
black. As this is not the case (against 1.e4 e5!),
and against d4 eg. Nimzo-Indian or Queens Indian,
we can say with almost 100 % confidence that chess
is a draw.

And with end game rules like eg. the 50 move rule,
it also is not a suprising result, as with many
conventional 'main' opening lines it already appears
almost impossible to achieve a winning endgame
for white. Also it is known that the better GM
players or computers are playing, the higher the
chance of a draw will be; nevertheless its an
interesting result, now also verified with
computer analysis.

Then why on average is white winning more than
black ? Well this answer is not so difficult, in
general there are less good (non-losing) move-
possibilities for black after every white move.
Thus the chances that black makes a mistake is
larger, especially with lower-ranked/non
perfect playing people/computers.

And think about this: after white has made a
move, i.e. a certain choice about opening strategy,
(eg 2. Nf3 after 1.e4) he is gradually revealing
his plans to black, who can respond accordingly.
Another reason that we can be confident that black
always can equalize. Theoretical we can even think
about the concept of 'zugzwang' , white *has* to
move, and black can respond accordingly. So its
probably fair enough to say that white's (positional)
starting advantage is minimal, certainly less
than 1/3 of a pawn; this seems to be confirmed by
Rybka, if i let if freely analyze the starting
position, its positional value seems to converge
to a value of only about 1/10 of a pawn..

Some another questions:
--------------------------
can white win against the Sicilian (with 1.e4)
or against queens gambit (with d4) ?

Well i don't know, probably not, the Sicilian
certainly seems more difficult to play for black
(less correct moves after every 'best' move by white),
but this is not so important anyway in our theoretical
discussion, as 1..e5! is already 'ensures' a draw;
when after 2.Nf3 black aims for Ruy Lopez 2..Nc6 !
Whereas 2.Nc3 Vienna also doesn't impose much threat.
Would Petrov 2..Nf6?! also lead to a draw for black
with perfect play ? Well, again, irrelevant, RL
is fine, and it's confirmed by a book like
'The Ruy Lopez, a guide for black' :
http://www.amazon.com/Ruy-Lopez-Guide-Black/dp/1904600670

although i have found some improvements to this
book.. And yes, other moves like 1.c4 (e5!!) or
1.Nf3 (similar to d4) of course also don't lead to
advantage for white.

So what's the practical meaning of all this ?
Well, for me at least it indicates that opening
knowledge especially is useful for black,
as its always easier to remember the
correct/non-losing moves, than having
to analyze them Otb..

For white, well moves like 1.f3!? are not
recommended of course, but in general, depending
on personal style, any starting reasonable
move seems possible.

But for beginners, as they anyway often have
to face 1.e4 as black, i still would recommend
to often start with 1.e4, as described in my
e-book; which soon will be updated with the
latest variations; ie equalizing for black..

And for advanced players, well instead of
a draw you can always aim for a win with
black of course, choosing gambits like Benko,
Marshall, or other dynamic & well established
gamits which are hard (or impossible) to refute;
depending on style & preferences..
Books by A.Adorjan (Black is ok) confirm this:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Forever-Chess-Andras-Adorjan/dp/0713489421

Opening theory and the art of bookmaking

Having looked more in detail into 'my' repertoire,
i.e. the opening book(s) i made for Arena it
appears that gradually i'm getting into new theory.

This is because conventional theory, and also
most 'conventional' opening books are based on (top)
GM games. But the deeper you get into a line, the
fewer games there are, after which the theory gets
very dependent on just one or a few games.

The statistics then get unreliable, and it the of
course is interesting to analyze some of the most important/frequent positions with the top engine
Rybka (in the past most computer chess programs,
i.e. 'engines' were positionally not good enough
to make good moves/ evaluations, but with the latest
Rybka 2.3.2 i believe it can be used to make
professional/GM quality evaluations); this sometimes
leads to interesting results, eg. more solid defences
for black in lines such as the closed Ruy Lopez,
Zaitsev or Breyer variations (doing a full minimax
with the old Bookbuilder 3.6 certainly was useful
in such cases, a/o because of transpositions;
but ofcourse much depends then on the
engine evaluation, and the subvariations which
are already in the book, whether played by GM's ,
having been analyzed myself, or being added
as result of computergames, either downloaded
or played myself in some Arena tournaments..)

In some cases i've checked the results against the
latest Rybka book (rybka2.ctg), and in the
Ruy Lopez i found some improvements for black;
with, i must confess, the conclusion that black is ok.

A similar exercise to check my repertoire against
d4 confirmed that black also is ok in this case,
although the defence with the QueensIndian
(against 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nf3!) was most difficult.

So although we cannot say that 1.e4 is the best
move, but for beginners of course it still is
highly recommended.
This also in some ways 'follows' the history
of chess, where initially (19th century) almost
only 1.e4 was played, whereas the more positional
1.d4 (with sometimes some highly complex play
, eg. against the Benko gambit) came
later, i.e. in the 20th century.

Some preliminary conclusions:
------------------
1) conventional chess is a draw (but not dead,
as RJ Fischer who passed away just recently,
claimed in his later years)
2) the repertoire given in my e-book basically
still is correct and can be used both by
beginners as well as more advanced players,
especially if they play against players of almost
equal ability
3) with Rybka analysis the lines have been improved
although i still have to write them down in detail
4) as a result some of the recommended subvariations
eg. against Caro Kann have changed again a bit
5) against weaker players it would be interesting
to develop a gambit repertoire, both for white
(then i still recommend e4) and with black (where
possible); currently i'm in the process of
researching such a repertoire and making a 2nd
Arena 'gambit' book
6) when becoming stronger chess players can
also develop a '3rd' repertoire with 1.d4 also
this will be a tedious task if it is done
in detail, but the spinoff could be it would
be useful against highly tactical (better?)
players; in such a way it might also be
useful to aim for a draw against stronger players
(maybe later i'll make a 3rd Arena book with
d4 for white but i like to do this as thoroughly
as i've done for e4, so it might take a few years..)

A new start

First of all best wishes to all for the new year 2008.

For this year, i've got some plans to renew my chess repertoire.
After comprehensive analysis and computer games with
the top engine Rybka, it appears that 1 e4 still is
slightly better than d4. Games by Rybka with the Noomen book,
and also human games by Anand seem to confirm this idea.

In my own computer-repertoire, there will be some changes,
and i will write them down in the e-book 'better chess opening play',
so i'm planning a new version, probably ready in a few months.
Writing down the new variations will take less time,
probably only a few weeks.

Some noticeable changes: the Caro Kann defense has become
stronger for black, and the 'best' line for white now isnt
the advance line anymore, but more in line with the
classical lines, with a few improvements of course.
Against Sicilian, both in the Kalashnikov/Pelikan/Sveshnikov
as well as the Najdorf (English attack with Be3!) it appears white
can maintain a positional advantage, according to the Rybka
analysis. So also for advanced players, 1 ..e5 ! now seems the
best defense. Especially the Zaitsev defense (9..Bb7) seems
strong, especially when first 9.. Rfe8! is played, and then
later either 10 .. Bb7 (after 10.d4) or 10.. Bd7 (after 10.d3).

Yes i found some improvements, but i'll have to do some
more testing for a while before i will mention them here.

Until later,
Jef

Some (but slow) progress..

Well, my windoze64 expired, so i did an upgrade with a Vista OEM;
for the rest, updated my positional database again, with lots
of games analyzed (endnode values) with Rybka, now
more than 15 million positions. Full minimax again, and started some
finetuning/checks of the 'best' lines; then had to struggle quite a bit
with the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian.

First it appears that the variation with Bg5 was the best for white,
and i had to look a bit further to the complex poisoned pawn
variation. But in the end i went back to a more common variation,
namely with Be3, the English attack. With a plan of long castling
(after Qd2), it looks promising for white, but i have to play
much more games before i have a conclusive result.

Any other results ? Well not many, i'm starting to update my
main lines of the closed Ruy Lopez (in which i still managed
to keep a slight advantage , ie += for white), and then
have to plug them into my Arena book. Have played
some comp tournaments with the new Arena beta4,
which again looks much better, but unfortunately
it doesnt seem to play on the internet yet.

And still have to update my 'superchess' website,
coming year trying to switch it to my domain name
bookbuilder.nl, and maybe add some more fancy
stuff about opening theory and/or computer chess.

Last rating record ? Well with quite a big selfmade book now
with Arena (50M), almost the size of the 'Schnapps' book,
and the latest Rybka (using the lkmp64 version), i achieved
a new bullet record on ICC in March, namely 2994.
Latest records were from November last year (standard),
but i'll try to improve on that again coming months..
:)

Until later,
jef