Recently Cliff Pickover asked who would win if Magnus Carlsen played this position with White against AlphaZero. The answer is that Magnus would win. Eight pawns may be almost as many points as a queen, but they won’t have much luck fighting her from their starting squares. White’s lack of pawns is almost a bonus here, because along with the queen it plays into the plan of quickly mobilizing the pieces and mopping up Black’s forces. AlphaZero is much stronger than any human, even Magnus, but it still needs something to work with. In this position if White plays decently Black will never have a chance. The position is so winning for White that it doesn’t take a Magnus Carlsen to beat AlphaZero.
This was an interesting read, thank you. I love the Ben Finegold anecdote.
I think about this often, and I've also heard the advice to play more gambits and open games when starting out. I think it does help ingrain the importance of initiative and piece activity. In addition, those positions are often more fun to play than trying to fend off an attack and trade pieces to get to an endgame up a pawn.
I have a hard time with it personally. I rarely play gambits and I almost always accept them. If I think they shouldn't work, I'm determined to prove it (of course they often do, esp in shorter time controls, but I try to view it as a learning experience. I no longer fear the Stafford Gambit, but only after many losses against it).
I had the privilege of experiencing grandmaster play last year when I was paired against Brandon Jacobson round 1 of the US Open. I played a Rossolimo as White and the game felt very balanced. He slowly built up a better position and undermined mine, eventually launching a kingside pawn storm that slowly suffocated me, but material was equal the whole game, if I remeber right. Of course, I'm certain he was in complete control of the game the entire game, but I felt good, and I went into subsequent rounds with my head held high, only to lose pieces in opening traps to opponents rated 1100-1300.
At the very least I don't underestimate such gambits and dubious attacks anymore, and I often decline them in blitz. In a recent OTB game I played the Scotch Potter Variation and my opponent played a sac I had never seen: 5...Bxf2+. I thought "that shouldn't work" but spent the entire game getting to a slightly better endgame that was just enough to win.
I'm reminded of your "there are often many decent moves in a position" and I have really come to appreciate that a move that looks dubious (or that the engine screams is a blunder) doesn't just give away the game. At least the opponent has a clear plan and is all in on it. The burden is then on you to find the refutation, and this can be a real challenge, especially for those of us who tend to get in time trouble.
(Sorry for the long comment, but I'm really enjoying the blog: it gives me a lot to think about. Keep up the good work!)
I agree with all this but I think something else is also going on with the score of these gambits at low levels. Someone who is rated the same as me who always plays objectively bad openings like the Stafford is probably stronger than me tactically to begin with - else they’d lose more than half their games and be rated lower. Then you add development and activity compensation in a dynamic position and in practice they win about half the time - as expected.
This was an interesting read, thank you. I love the Ben Finegold anecdote.
I think about this often, and I've also heard the advice to play more gambits and open games when starting out. I think it does help ingrain the importance of initiative and piece activity. In addition, those positions are often more fun to play than trying to fend off an attack and trade pieces to get to an endgame up a pawn.
I have a hard time with it personally. I rarely play gambits and I almost always accept them. If I think they shouldn't work, I'm determined to prove it (of course they often do, esp in shorter time controls, but I try to view it as a learning experience. I no longer fear the Stafford Gambit, but only after many losses against it).
I had the privilege of experiencing grandmaster play last year when I was paired against Brandon Jacobson round 1 of the US Open. I played a Rossolimo as White and the game felt very balanced. He slowly built up a better position and undermined mine, eventually launching a kingside pawn storm that slowly suffocated me, but material was equal the whole game, if I remeber right. Of course, I'm certain he was in complete control of the game the entire game, but I felt good, and I went into subsequent rounds with my head held high, only to lose pieces in opening traps to opponents rated 1100-1300.
At the very least I don't underestimate such gambits and dubious attacks anymore, and I often decline them in blitz. In a recent OTB game I played the Scotch Potter Variation and my opponent played a sac I had never seen: 5...Bxf2+. I thought "that shouldn't work" but spent the entire game getting to a slightly better endgame that was just enough to win.
I'm reminded of your "there are often many decent moves in a position" and I have really come to appreciate that a move that looks dubious (or that the engine screams is a blunder) doesn't just give away the game. At least the opponent has a clear plan and is all in on it. The burden is then on you to find the refutation, and this can be a real challenge, especially for those of us who tend to get in time trouble.
(Sorry for the long comment, but I'm really enjoying the blog: it gives me a lot to think about. Keep up the good work!)
I agree with all this but I think something else is also going on with the score of these gambits at low levels. Someone who is rated the same as me who always plays objectively bad openings like the Stafford is probably stronger than me tactically to begin with - else they’d lose more than half their games and be rated lower. Then you add development and activity compensation in a dynamic position and in practice they win about half the time - as expected.
Another interesting piece. Bob