Why is the polish opening so good yet never played?

which lines score better for white than black? of those that do, what does the engine say? what is the rating differential between the two masters in the top games played? where does the engine deviate from the previous theory? which of the  games in database are blitz or standard or correspondence?

like there is a million variables a database can tell you and you looking at the tip of the iceberg. 

Lmao, are you still salty about the closed Sicilian thing? That's funny.

"Polish opening isn't good. Closed Sicilian isn't as good."

darkunorthodox88:

You ask a lot of questions but fail to give your own analysis.

We can look at all the deeper variables and try to find the best ideas for white or mistakes for black within the lines. Nf3 appears to give some better chances for white and can start to look hopeful but that hope is shattered when you also realise you have to consider black's best ideas.

The Polish is somewhat playable if you enjoy that type of thing but it's an inferior opening.

He likes to play the offbeat stuff, so he will defend it almost dogmatically. To his credit, in order to play these kinds of openings well, you have to be rather creative to find lines where you can trick your opponent. That becomes increasingly tricky as engines get stronger.

I think the Polish opening gained popularity through strong bots like it seems to me Alphazero. 

The problem is that a strong bot does not play with a human method but manages to be efficient due to its computing power and "memory capacities" that a human cannot match.  

In short I think this opening is not so played by humans because humans rather play with a chess culture and prefer to fall into game patterns they know or understand better. 

Yeah, I can tell. He called me a chimp because I said his favourite opening wasn't good lol.

You can maybe outplay your opponent but that doesn't mean the opening is good. It's like the Stafford Gambit. We all know the Stafford Gambit isn't right but it does better than it should do on the lichess database because everyone who plays it has probably looked at Eric Rosen's study.

Eric Rosen admits it's bad but he's heavily revised with computer analysis all the possible lines, deviations, traps and mistakes to make it work. Naturally it doesn't work and if opponent knows the same things then it doesn't work.

This is the ultimate contradiction of this type of person who plays gambits and offbeat openings.

They say they like aggressive gambits and sharp play. Then what about the Najdorf and Open Sicilian? Some of the most aggressive openings in chess? That's too much theory apparently, but they spend the time to memorise 40+, 30 move deep, engine lines in some gambit to try to make it work.

Play how you want but that makes no sense lol.

I think that it's important that I point out that the Sokolsky is not an aggressive tactical opening. It is very solid and positional in most lines (this is part of the reason why I gave it up: too much of a style clash).

I personally would probably do quite well with the Najdorf and Open Sicilian. I just haven't had a reason to learn them since I've been doing well with my existing repertoire and am trying to fill other gaps (for example, I've learned the French because I already have the Alekhine and want an opening for situations where I would be okay with a draw).

I generally agree, but I suspect one of the counter-arguments would be that playing those popular openings would mean it is more likely your opponent knows just as much as you do (maybe more), while doing the same thing for the offbeat stuff would mean you are likely to know more ... At least until you start playing the same people repeatedly and they develop refutations to your pet lines.

It actually does follow opening principles, just not in the typical way. The Sokolsky is a very hypermodern opening where you control the centre using mainly your pieces. The c-pawn does usually go to c4 and the d-pawn does sometimes come to d4 though.

An important thing to understand about (good) offbeat openings is that just because an opening is weird, that does not mean that you leave your opening principles (controlling the centre, developing your pieces, getting your king to safety) behind; you just might do them in a different way.

what closed sicilian thing?

Silican Defense: Closed is what they are talking about.

if "inferior opening" means , on par with 1.g3 1.b3. 1.f4 1.nc3 and arguably slightly better than 1.e3 1.d3 and 1.c3 then yes. the first big 4 take longer for black to equalize.

lmao bro, of course i know what it IS , but idk what he is specifically referring to

I can see that perspective but once you play against people who know what they're doing they will be more likely to understand how to exploit the weaknesses of those openings intuitively as well as knowing something about them.

g3, b3 and Nc3 are better than b4.

• g3 can transpose into a KIA, Catalan or English.
• b3 allows the queenside fianchetto without exposing the b pawn.
• Nc3 can transpose into a Vienna, Richter-Veresov or Jobava London.

b4 is in the realm of f4, c3, e3, a3 but to be honest it's still not as good as a lot of these.

• f4 is a reversed Dutch.
• c3 can still transpose into stuff the Torre Attack and London which are somewhat respectable.
• a3 and e3 can transpose into an English.

I would say the Polish is probably better than the Grob g4, and Barnes Opening f3. It's better than these.

naming transpositions means nothing if white cant force them. this is why 1.g3 for example is considered slighty inferior to 1.c4 and 1.nf3.  i thought we were talking about objective evals here...

why do i bother lecturing class players. Listen to the master giving you free advice on the stuff he plays instead of being a smartass.   

no wonder pfren left.
f4 is better than b4 cuz "1.f4 is a reversed dutch" XD. like i cant make up some of these

In general, yes. However, when you play something that isn't usually played at your level, the likelihood you opponent remembers the refutation to a specific idea is much lower. Marc Esserman will often mention his draw against Vishy Anand. Vishy decided to decline the Smith-Morra Gambit instead of trying to recall his notes. If Marc was going to be playing in several tournaments where Vishy was likely to play him, you can be assured Vishy would have looked up his notes and accepted the Gambit. But when you play someone only once there is not much of a reason to have something for it.

At my local club, there are a couple class A players who have an affinity for offbeat stuff. The Sokolsky player has recently switched to the Nimzo-Larsen because he was getting too many draws against 1500s who looked up how to equalize into very drawish endgames and he was not willing to go into more risky lines to try to outplay them The Grob player has switched to the Trompowsky (because literally everyone above 1000 had looked up the lines that kill all his tactics and leave him with a bad game) with mixed results (interestingly enough, he had a decent solid Black repertoire with the French/Caro/Sicilian and has recently decided to try the North Sea Defense with not so pleasant results).

Personally, it is not my preference, but I do know people who would rather get a worse position out of the opening for psychological reasons (i.e. their brain "wakes up" when they are fighting from behind).

Yeah and the Dutch is actually a somewhat respected opening whereas the reversed Polish and St.George are garbage just like the Polish. It's actually relevant to the centre controlling the e5 square and preparing to develop the knight behind the pawn.

Lets go back to the objective evals then.

g3, b3, f4, Nc3, e3 all have way higher winrates than b4.

"Listen to the master giving you free advice" Lmao dude. Don't get ahead of yourself. All you do is lash out and cry at others online because you're mad that they insulted your garbage openings.

I just point out the obvious fact that the Polish isn't a good opening and you start throwing a tantrum like a little toddler.

Sit down, shut your mouth and learn some humility.

darkunorthodox88:

"THE POLISH IS GOOD. SH-SHUDDUP. YOU'RE A CHIMP. I'M A MASTER."