What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?

[Kevin Pacey]

In an attempt to see how many chesstalk readers, if pressed, would agree with Gary Ruben that the French is a poor choice, this poll asks what 1.e4 defence is objectively best, in each respondent's opinion, for a lower rated player to upset a 2500+ player.

[Ernest Klubis]

Only Hugh Brodie with his colossus database can give you a definite answer. I will be surprised to see a recent game where a 2500+ player who plays 1.e4 gets a "slightly" weaker position in the opening. They know it upside down and you will be lucky to get an even position for Black, no matter what opening you choose.

[Kevin Pacey]

I voted for the Najdorf even though the Winawer is close to my heart. The Winawer was good for upsetting some of the world's (former) best players (e.g. Kasparov, and the late Fischer), but it is often difficult to handle since it is normally positionally sharp. The Najdorf is more tactical, and gives White more fatal traps to fall into. The Najdorf has the highest Black win percentage score at top levels in my largest database.

[Zeljko Kitich]

its not so much the opening its how well you know it, if you study DVDs, Yearbooks, Informant games and are steeped in an opening, are prepared for its tactics and strategy and especially if you are prepared for the transition to the endgame and to play the endgame well then you might upset a much higher rated player

so a complicated opening that should have chances for black is best, except the Sicillian takes a lot of time to study the theory, the French is more manageable in terms of time required & resulting chances of upsets

[Ernest Klubis]

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey

The Najdorf has the highest Black win percentage score at top levels in my largest database.

In how many Najdorf games Black had better position in the opening? Point is, opening will not beat the GM, even if you get slightly better position in the opening, but strategy, tactics and knowledge of the endgame after the opening.

[Lucas Davies]

Caro-Kann, obviously...

[Gary Ruben]

Originally Posted by Lucas Davies

Caro-Kann, obviously...

I'm working on a game which completely busts a known line of the Caro-Kann after black's move 6, in that line. When it's finished I'll post the game, provided I win. I don't post my loses. We're only at move 22, he's asked for a draw three times even though he's up a piece.

Next time he asks for a draw I'm going to tell him to "Resign, Moron". His position is busted.

[Lucas Davies]

Is it a line that I play, though... Probably not.

[Craig Sadler]

Originally Posted by Gary Ruben

..

Next time he asks for a draw I'm going to tell him to "Resign, Moron".

...

did "Resign, Moron" make the chess quotes website?

looking forward to seeing the game...

[Adam Cormier]

Gary if you say you busted a line why are you not so-sure if you will win or not??

I'm going with najdorf, it busts 1.e4.

[Gary Ruben]

Originally Posted by Adam Cormier

Gary if you say you busted a line why are you not so-sure if you will win or not??

I'm going with najdorf, it busts 1.e4.

There is always a chance I am missing something. I sacrificed a knight in the first 10 moves. Here's the first 10 moves. The games is more than twice this far.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 h6 7.Ne6 Qa5+ 8.Bd2 Qb6 9.Nf3 fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8

To play this in correspondence chess I had to feel certain it couldn't be beaten by a strong chess program and a fast computer.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Since the question asked depends on personal factors and therefore must be a subjective one, asking for an objective answer to it is illogical in the first place.

[Kevin Me]

When I was 13 I managed to draw Ivanchuk in a simul with the Najdorf ('05). My chess has degenerated completely ever since.

[Tyler Longo]

In Edmonton? I drew him in that simul playing the french (rubenstein).

[Kevin Pacey]

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse

Since the question asked depends on personal factors and therefore must be a subjective one, asking for an objective answer to it is illogical in the first place.

The respondent is being asked implicitly to try to be objective, in spite of any personal preferences.

Fischer was once described (by Euwe) as trying to be utterly objective when choosing his moves. That is, he tried to make the best/strongest move regardless of his opponent. Of course you could argue that trying to be objective is illogical, as you put it, but is that pronouncement objective in itself? . In short, one might say only God can be objective (or sin-free), but we are asked to try our best to come as close as we can to that.

The situation asked for in the question could theoretically arise in an internet chess match, if the players are told only the rating of their opponent, not the name (or it could be neither player has ever heard of their opponent).

In trying to make an objective decision respondents might vary on what their criteria is for objectivity. For my choice of the Najdorf I considered statistics for the opening to some extent, for example, in judging how good it was. I didn't let my love of the French Defence with Black get in the way. I am considering what is best for most underdogs when faced with a random 2500+ player.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey

The respondent is being asked implicitly to try to be objective, in spite of any personal preferences.

Well he said "objective" but framed the question in such a way that "objective" doesn't seem to me to be applicable to the situation. So the question appears to internally contradict itself to me.

[Kevin Pacey]

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse

Well he said "objective" but framed the question in such a way that "objective" doesn't seem to me to be applicable to the situation. So the question appears to internally contradict itself to me.

Humour me, Ed. The question poser (me) is trying to pose the question in a way consistent with Gary's apparent view that the French (and the Winawer in particular) is (in practice, if not objectively) a bad choice. I want to see if the vast majority of chesstalk viewers who respond agree with him. Apparently not, unless the ones who chose the French (with Winawer if allowed) are largely having fun dishonestly disagreeing at Gary's expense.

[Gary Ruben]

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey

Humour me, Ed. The question poser (me) is trying to pose the question in a way consistent with Gary's apparent view that the French (and the Winawer in particular) is (in practice, if not objectively) a bad choice. I want to see if the vast majority of chesstalk viewers who respond agree with him. Apparently not, unless the ones who chose the French (with Winawer if allowed) are largely having fun dishonestly disagreeing at Gary's expense.

Did you notice what Pascal did to Sambuev, a seasoned French Defence player, with his French Tarrasch? I'll grant you Jean defeated a French Tarrasch in round 7 against someone or other. I forget who. I didn't look over the game because it took 110 moves to win. Like it must be real fun to have to play 110 moves in round 7. I'm too old to play through such long games.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey

Humour me, Ed. The question poser (me) is trying to pose the question in a way consistent with Gary's apparent view that the French (and the Winawer in particular) is (in practice, if not objectively) a bad choice. I want to see if the vast majority of chesstalk viewers who respond agree with him. Apparently not, unless the ones who chose the French (with Winawer if allowed) are largely having fun dishonestly disagreeing at Gary's expense.

Well, if you are going to ask a question and want a good answer it's best that your question be well formed and at least not internally inconsistent which, it seems to me, both the original and your restating of it still are.

For instance the "best way to win" could mean different things depending on the context. You might intend the meaning "What is the best way to win at any risk since I will likely lose anyway and a draw won't help?" or "What is the best way to obtain the chance of a win while keeping a draw a realistic possibility and minimizing the chances of a loss?", and that's only two possibilities.

For one thing the best answer to either form would depend on how much you know about both your weaknesses and strengths, and your opponent's. But then you use the word "objective" which seems to me to contradict the spirit of the question as otherwise expressed.

Objectively the best way is simply to play without mistakes. In practice it is not possible or often even desireable to do that.

[Gary Ruben]

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse

Well, if you are going to ask a question and want a good answer it's best that your question be well formed and at least not internally inconsistent which, it seems to me, both the original and your restating of it still are.

An important part of my original comment seems to get lost. That being the French Winawer is a poor choice for a lower rated player to play against a higher rated and particularly a higher rated titled player.

There are exceptions. Sometimes the database shows a higher rated player doesn't have much success against the Winawer. Then it's worth seeing if he's learned to handle the defence.

In these days, when pairings are posted before the rounds, I think the entire poll is flawed. It assumes a certain method of preparation.

I do my preparation differently. I find my opponents games in the databases. Then the idea is to find what he plays poorly and see if he's learned to play it better. There's no point playing a defence to which white hasn't lost in a decade, unless I can find a bust for the line he uses.