Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

[Kevin Pacey]

This is a poll to see if respondents with a highest peak rating of any kind (CFC, FIDE, etc) of 2000+ tend to use more Black openings regularly against 1.e4 and 1.d4.

Conversely, I also wish to see whether respondents with a highest peak rating of 1999 or less tend to use fewer Black openings regularly against 1.e4 and 1.d4.

I noticed in my previous two recent polls (for number of regular openings against 1.e4, and for vs. 1.d4) so far in each poll roughly half of respondents used fewer than three defences vs. each first move. Hence that helped shape my options in the poll itself (the last on this kind of topic for some time at least, I promise :) ).

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

Have you considered that a database analysis might give a more accurate answer? Be ready to meet our old friend, the null hypothesis.

A rating is quantitative, a one-dimensional number. I think it is an interesting question whether there is a qualitative difference between say the typical 1500, 1900 and 2300 player which would make the 2300 player more likely to roll out a less-familiar opening scheme against the 1900, than the 1900 would against a 1500. There are a lot of other factors at play, though, for example a 2300 in Canada is likely to be the strongest--or among the strongest--player(s) in his city or suburb. Hence many 1900s will be prepared to study his (regular) openings. Somehow the same emulation by a 1500 for a 1900 strikes me as unlikely, except perhaps on a club level or a smaller centre. In any case, I don't think you'll find the answer in this survey.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

A database study may prove more accurate, sure, but this is a fun poll of chesstalkers, who all get to view the results. :)

I think a lot of players below 1999 (or above, for that matter) might tend to emulate international stars' opening repertoires to some extent (perhaps choosing fewer of their openings to use than that of their favourite star). Either that, or they emulate top Canadian players.

I started out in my career using the French against 1.e4 (because that's what gave Fischer trouble), and also the Rat, since Canadian GM Suttles used it (even though he lived on the other side of the country). Against 1.d4 I also used Rat formations, like Suttles, plus the Nimzo-Indian (like Botvinnik, who used the French), plus the Benko Gambit, because it gave me trouble initially as White. As you say Jonathan, lots of factors involved. It's still fun to take a poll on this topic. :)

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

Yes. As Kevin Spraggett claimed about his own writing, it's all entertainment.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

I have a 2000+ friend who just uses one defence each against 1.e4 and 1.d4. When I suggested to him that, besides perhaps eventually boring himself, he might bore his opponents eventually too, he smiled and said "I'm not here to entertain". :)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

I started out in my career using the French against 1.e4 (because that's what gave Fischer trouble), and also the Rat, since Canadian GM Suttles used it (even though he lived on the other side of the country). Against 1.d4 I also used Rat formations, like Suttles, plus the Nimzo-Indian (like Botvinnik, who used the French), plus the Benko Gambit, because it gave me trouble initially as White.

I perhaps should point out that I didn't have the most complete/logical repertoire at that time in my career, as I used 1.d4 e6 (hoping for the French) sometimes as a way to get to the Nimzo-Indian. Hence it matched with 1.e4 e6, the 1.e4 Rat matched with the 1.d4 Rat, but at that time I believe I had nothing to match on the 1.e4 level with the Benko (at the 1.d4 level). An example of what might be called having a 'superflous' defence (the Benko).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

I'm a bit surprised that so far there have been relatively so few respondents with a highest peak rating (of any kind, e.g. FIDE) of 1999 or less, compared to the number of respondents with a highest peak rating of 2000 or more.

With just the limited number of responses so far, it seems at the moment that within both of the two rating ranges of responding chesstalkers (i.e. either equal to or above, or below, a highest peak rating of 2000), there is a definite preference to have just one or two regular defences each against 1.e4 or 1.d4. A clear trend, to my untrained statistical eye. :)

I would have thought most respondents with a highest peak rating of 2000 or more might have acquired (and kept) more regular defences against both 1.e4 and 1.d4, as for one thing these respondents might have tended to have been playing longer in order to obtain such a rating.

Significantly more responses to this poll would be needed to be more sure of any sort of conclusions, assuming a clear trend continues to exist.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

Thought I'd bump up this poll closer to the top of page 1, since people are still voting in my 1.e4 defences poll thread.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

Another vote came in! I'm bumping this poll up again. :)

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

Another vote came in! I'm bumping this poll up again. :)

Don't forget that you are taking a self selected poll, which will have no statistical meaning and cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding anything except the population of those who answered the poll. There is no basis for inferring from the results anything about the population of Canadian chess players as a whole.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Highest peak rating relative to number of regular openings vs. 1.e4 & 1.d4

Doing a study of Canadian players' repertoires based on all games in CanBase would of course be much more reliable regarding the number of defences Canadian players as a population tend to use against a given first move by White, e.g. based on their highest rating. However that would be a massive undertaking. A random sampling of players in CanBase would be more practical, but perhaps not as entertaining as a chesstalk poll. :)

I have something of an ulterior motive for seeing how many defences chesstalkers tend to use, regardless of this being an unreliable poll. For years I've agonized about whether to specialize with my opening repertoire (and if so, which and how many defences/openings to use, with either colour).

GM Bareev is considered a specialist, by IM Watson in print at least. As far as I can tell from my databases, Bareev basically plays six independent defences against each first move (e.g. one vs. 1.d4 is the Benko Gambit combined with the Staunton Defence using ...Nf6, ...c5, ...g6 and ...d6, i.e. without an early ...e5 or ...e6, when White avoids his Benko). He uses 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 as White, but not 1.e4. That's some specialist. :) Probably Watson meant that at international level, Bareev would be classified as one. For myself, deciding what to do as an aging Ottawa master level player who seldom travels is another story. I'm sort of happy with a relatively huge repertoire with both colours, but wonder if I can do better. Maybe in another twenty years I'll be at the board, with cane in hand, playing a narrow, strictly positional, repertoire. :)