more fun with statistics

So when I last left you dear readers I was attempting a pseudo scientific method of coming up with a good repertoire for white.  I will be putting up more tables in  here but I just wanted to go over the criteria again.

• I looked at games between 2001 – 2010, that’s when my database ends. I never upgraded it, once again other things to spend my money on.
• I looked at desirable outcome differential for white based on 100 games, I assumed a desirable outcome would be white wins.  As an example if an opening has a decisive game percentage of 68% and white wins 54% of those games we get 100(.68)(.54) = 37.62 so white wins 37 (round up) out of 100 games.  Black would win 100(.68)(.46) = 31.28 or 31 games.  White is better by 6 games.  This was done to eliminate deceiving openings where white wins 56% of the games but only 52% of them are decisive, in that case white has an expectation of 6 or just about average.  On the surface it looks like white is doing much better but in reality its just an average opening.
• I separated games of those <2200 to those of professionals.  For arguments sake  I consider anyone over 2200 a professional although I realize that many GM’s have other non – chess full time jobs and I’m sure the vast majority of masters do as well.
• The reasoning for this is that as the skill level increases you get a clearer picture of how games “should” go with better skill and a lower probability of being fooled or tricked by an unusual opening.

Shortcomings of methodology

• Assuming a positive expectation for white only when s/he wins.  If I’m playing someone 200 points higher than me then a draw is a perfectly acceptable outcome even with white.  After all the opening is only one phase of the game, and it doesn’t matter how booked up I am my much higher rated opponent should win.
• 10 years is convenient but does not tell the whole story, there are variations which are out of fashion and simply not played much, there are undoubtedly good lines that are just being ignored right now, these will be under if not unrepresented in this survey.
• Transpositions, I didn’t have an unlimited amount of time for this so there are transpositions that I could not cover, so I’m keeping it as simple as possible, I have an example of this later on.
• The professional filter is used on both players, so I am not tracking where one player is rated >2200 and the other is <2200, this should not have a great affect on the data, but it bears mentioning.
• I’m sure there are others but that’s all I can think of now.

So I decided from my last post that 1.d4 is a better first move for white than 1.e4, interestingly Peter, a commenter on my Chess Advantage in Black and White post (which can be read here) mentioned that Larry Kaufman’s revised repertoire book is actually a complete rewrite, with the white repertoire based upon 1.d4 followed with 2.c4.  You can go here to get a sample of the book.  (Thanks to the nice folks at New In Chess.)  I am looking forward to reading this book.

I have already looked at some of the outcomes for symmetrical 1.d4 openings (ones where black plays an early d5 So now let’s look at the Indian defenses.

A few notes:

1. The KID was taken after the move sequence 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, g6 3.Nc4, Bg7 4.e4, d6 5.Nf3, 0-0
2. The Nimzo arises after 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, e6 3.Nc3, Bb4
3. The Queen’s Indian arises after 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, e6 3.Nf3, b6
4. The Bogo Indian arises after 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, e6 3.Nf3, Bb4+
5. The Modern Benoni is r 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, c5 3.d5, e6.
6. The Czech Benoni is 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, c5 3.d5, e5.
7. The Benko Gambit is 1.d4, Nf6 2.c4, c5 3.d5, b5.
8. The Dutch is simply 1.d4, f5, I included the Dutch because I know there has to be a fan or two of the opening that will read this, but this is really only scratching the surface of this versatile defense.  Black my attempt to open 1…d5 if s/he is aiming for a Stonewall or 1…d6 if attempting a Leningrad (although Black must be prepared for a Pirc or Modern if White answers with 2.e4), and then of course Black could throw out 1…e6 if s/he is aiming for a Classical Dutch. (Here Black has to be happy playing the French as 2. e4 puts the game into this opening.  This is also not considering that Black may get into a Leningrad/Stonewall Hybrid with pawns at d5, e6, f5 and g6 with the Bishop at g7.  So I took 1d4, f5 instead.
9. I understand that this doesn’t take into account all transpostional possibilities but I actually have a full time job too, so something has to give.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	King’s Indian	36,844	71	55.0%	45.0%	7.1
Professional	King’s Indian	13,508	62	57.0%	43.0%	8.7
Total	Nimzo	40,096	66	51.0%	49.0%	1.3
Professional	Nimzo	18,663	56	53.0%	47.0%	3.4
Total	Queen’s Indian	26,403	62	54.0%	46.0%	5.0
Professional	Queen’s Indian	13,943	54	55.0%	45.0%	5.4
Total	Bogo Indian	10,653	64	55.0%	45.0%	6.4
Professional	Bogo Indian	5,112	55	57.0%	43.0%	7.7
Total	Modern Benoni	7,888	77	52.0%	48.0%	3.1
Professional	Modern Benoni	2,476	69	57.0%	43.0%	9.7
Total	Czech Benoni	2,409	73	53.0%	47.0%	4.4
Professional	Czech Benoni	997	69	59.0%	41.0%	12.4
Total	Benko Gambit	14,757	74	52.0%	48.0%	3.0
Professional	Benko Gambit	4,317	67	57.0%	43.0%	9.4
Total	Dutch	28,090	73	54.0%	46.0%	5.8
Professional	Dutch	6,854	64	57.0%	43.0%	9.0
Total	Grunfeld	23,181	68	53.0%	47.0%	4.1
Professional	Grunfeld	8,627	56	55.0%	45.0%	5.6

So what does this mess of numbers tell us?  What I see is that the opportunity to move second and steer the game into waters that are more familiar to you than your opponent is very important at <2200 levels.  The Nimzo and Modern Benoni, and the Benko do very well down here for us normal folk.

So what is a non professional to do.  How about we flip the script as the kids used to say (granted a long time ago but I remember them saying it).  Lets look at system openings for White.

More notes first.

1. Colle vs. King’s Indian Defense (KID) is 1.d4, Nf6 2. Nf3, g6 3.e3, Bg7.
2.  Colle vs. Queen’s Indian Defense (QID) is 1.d4, Nf6 2. Nf3,e6 3.e3, b6.
3. Colle vs. Benoni is 1.d4, Nf6 2. Nf3, c5 3.d5, e6 4.Nc3.  This is the anti – Benoni from Summerscale’s A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire, published by Gambit.
4. Anti Dutch is 1.d4, f5 2.Bg5, again comes from Summerscale.
5. Anti Colle is 1.d4, d5 2.Nf3, Nf6 3.e3, c5.  There are other Anti Colle’s out there but this seems to be the most popular and leads to a reversed Noteboom variation of the Semi-Slav.  Palliser seems to think its a big challenge as well as Summerscale and Kaufman recommends it (at least he used to in The Chess Advantage in Black and White)

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	Colle vs. KID	2,256	72	38.0%	62.0%	-17.3
Professional	Colle vs. KID	176	60	40.0%	60.0%	-12.0
Total	Colle vs. QID	3,870	67	49.0%	51.0%	-1.3
Professional	Colle vs. QID	1,331	59	51.0%	49.0%	1.2
Total	Colle vs. Benoni	482	67	59.0%	41.0%	12.1
Professional	Colle vs. Benoni	217	65	58.0%	52.0%	3.9
Total	Anti Dutch	2,264	75	58.0%	42.0%	12.0
Professional	Anti Dutch	489	69	60.0%	40.0%	13.8
Total	Anti Colle	1,646	70	43.0%	57.0%	-9.8
Professional	Anti Colle	379	63	43.0%	57.0%	-8.8

Well the Colle doesn’t fare well against the KID or the QID.  To be fair no Colle book that I know of thinks that its a good idea to continue in Colle fashion vs. the KID.  Against the QID Colle authors suggest an early c4 but the mainline QID scores well for Black and White is probably a little unfamiliar in these lines so that’ probably why the less than great 51% for White in these lines.  The Anti Benoni and Anti Dutch lines work well but the Anti Colle seems like a deal breaker.  And for those of you wondering about the Barry attack (1.d4, Nf6 2.Nf3, g6 3.Nc3, d5 4.Bf4, Bg7 5.e3) here it is.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	Barry	1,027	70	49.0%	51.0%	-1.4
Professional	Barry	364	63	52.0%	48.0%	2.5

Which leads us to the London.

1. London vs. KID 1.d4, Nf6 2.Nf3, g6 3. Bf4, Bg7 4. e3, 0-0
2. London vs. QID 1.d4, Nf6 2.Nf3, e6 3. Bf4, b6 4.e3, Bb7 5. Bd3.
3. London vs. Grunfeld (Gru) 1.d4, Nf6 2.Nf3, d5 3. Bf4, g6 4. e3, Bg7.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	London vs. KID	2,366	70	49.0%	51.0%	-1.4
Professional	London vs. KID	565	62	54.0%	46.0%	5.0
Total	London vs. QID	1,302	68	49.0%	51.0%	-1.4
Professional	London vs. QID	261	58	51.0%	49.0%	1.2
Total	London vs. Gru	773	68	55.0%	45.0%	6.8
Professional	London vs. Gru	98	58	49.0%	51.0%	-1.2

Better but the London is not much better than the Colle vs. the KID.

How about the other 1.d4 systems?  What if you tried to marry a Torre attack or Trompowsky to a Colle or London Repertoire?  I will even look at the Pseudo Trompowsky or the Hodgson (1.d4, d5 2. Bg5) system just for giggles.

1. Torre 1.d4, Nf6 2. Nf3, e6 3.Bg5
2. Torre 2: 1.d4, Nf6 2. Nf3, e6 3.Bg5, Ne4
3. Hodgson Attack 2: 2…f6

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	Torre	7,646	68	51.0%	49.0%	1.4
Professional	Torre	2,067	58	49.0%	51.0%	-1.2
Total	Trompowsky	20,667	72	54.0%	46.0%	5.8
Professional	Trompowsky	6,820	64	53.0%	47.0%	3.8
Total	Hodgson Attack	4,315	71	59.0%	41.0%	12.8
Professional	Hodgson Attack	1,048	61	53.0%	47.0%	3.7
Total	Hodgson Attack 2	303	79	48.0%	52.0%	-3.2
Professional	Hodgson Attack 2	130	71	43.0%	57.0%	-9.9

The Trompowsky is a good alternative, and explains its popularity and it would go along nicely with a Colle or London Repertoire, however many London and Colle games begin with 1…Nf6 so you’d probably be playing a Trompowsky repertoire with Colle or London games thrown in and not the other way around.  The Torre doesn’t seem to have much bite to it.  I put the second move in for the Hodgson Attack 2 to show how truly awful results can be in a particular line after just one move.  This probably explains why you don’t see it more often other than as a surprise weapon.

Once again what to make of all of this mess?

The Torre has worked for great players over the years, Petrosian used it, and Julian Hodgson has used his namesake attack against strong opposition with good results.  Gata Kamsky even uses the London from time to time with good results.  The bottom line is most people are not going to be facing opposition that is as good as these gentlemen have faced.

Bottom line is, it’s late and after all of this number monkey business I still didn’t have a solution.  But my next post will let you in on how I made my final decision.

Have a good week folks.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	King’s Indian	36,844	71	55.0%	45.0%	7.1
Professional	King’s Indian	13,508	62	57.0%	43.0%	8.7
Total	Nimzo	40,096	66	51.0%	49.0%	1.3
Professional	Nimzo	18,663	56	53.0%	47.0%	3.4
Total	Queen’s Indian	26,403	62	54.0%	46.0%	5.0
Professional	Queen’s Indian	13,943	54	55.0%	45.0%	5.4
Total	Bogo Indian	10,653	64	55.0%	45.0%	6.4
Professional	Bogo Indian	5,112	55	57.0%	43.0%	7.7
Total	Modern Benoni	7,888	77	52.0%	48.0%	3.1
Professional	Modern Benoni	2,476	69	57.0%	43.0%	9.7
Total	Czech Benoni	2,409	73	53.0%	47.0%	4.4
Professional	Czech Benoni	997	69	59.0%	41.0%	12.4
Total	Benko Gambit	14,757	74	52.0%	48.0%	3.0
Professional	Benko Gambit	4,317	67	57.0%	43.0%	9.4
Total	Dutch	28,090	73	54.0%	46.0%	5.8
Professional	Dutch	6,854	64	57.0%	43.0%	9.0
Total	Grunfeld	23,181	68	53.0%	47.0%	4.1
Professional	Grunfeld	8,627	56	55.0%	45.0%	5.6

fear and loathing…ok you get it i was in las vegas…(warning, looong post ahead)

Yes kids, yours truly was in Vegas for 3 weeks!  But it was for business not pleasure.  I was able to hit a chessclub and play a game with sane time controls (G90) but more on that later.

I did want to start talking about my upcoming chess plans.  A few things that I’ve realized.

1. I’m getting old.  Not “Get off of my yard!” old, but suffice to say I’m getting older.

2. I’ve been doing this chess thing for 5 years now, I started at a rating of 1008 I’m currently rated 1560, all things considered not bad.

3. I will never be a master.  My ultimate goal is expert, I will have to satisfied with that as I have other shit to do in my life besides chess.

It should come as no surprise to some of you that I have had a devil of a time getting my arms around a suitable opening repertoire, especially with the white pieces.  My score with black is actually better than with white!  I have played the Alekhine and Modern against 1.e4 and I have played the Semi-Slav against 1.d4.  But my white repertoire has been a rather sad affair.  I have tried in vain to play 1.e4 but alas the Sicilian has proven to be beyond my grasp.  I have experimented with the Reti and it has given me good results but sometimes I want something more direct.  Alas chess opening preparation is a zero sum game, compromises must be made.  You can’t get everything, I have finally found something that I think will work.  First let’s see how I came to this conclusion.

When I was in grad school I didn’t have time for chess, and when I did get a few minutes to think about the game I would often fiddle around with Chessbase.  I researched different openings and looked at their statistics.  To see if there is one theoretically best opening for white.

**WARNING: THIS WAS A NON-SCIENTIFIC DIVERSION, I IMPLORE YOU TO NOT READ TOO MUCH WHEN LOOKING AT OPENING STATS***

I’ll cover that later on though.

Here’s my methodology.

• I looked at games between 2001 – 2010, that’s when my database ends. I never upgraded it, once again other things to spend my money on.
• I looked at desirable outcome differential for white based on 100 games, I assumed a desirable outcome would be white wins.  As an example if an opening has a decisive game percentage of 68% and white wins 54% of those games we get 100(.68)(.54) = 37.62 so white wins 37 (round up) out of 100 games.  Black would win 100(.68)(.46) = 31.28 or 31 games.  White is better by 6 games.  This was done to eliminate deceiving openings where white wins 56% of the games but only 52% of them are decisive, in that case white has an expectation of 6 or just about average.  On the surface it looks like white is doing much better but in reality its just an average opening.
• I separated games of those <2200 to those of professionals.  For arguments sake  I consider anyone over 2200 a professional although I realize that many GM’s have other non – chess full time jobs and I’m sure the vast majority of masters do as well.
• The reasoning for this is that as the skill level increases you get a clearer picture of how games “should” go with better skill and a lower probability of being fooled or tricked by an unusual opening.

Shortcomings of methodology

• Assuming a positive expectation for white only when s/he wins.  If I’m playing someone 200 points higher than me then a draw is a perfectly acceptable outcome even with white.  After all the opening is only one phase of the game, and it doesn’t matter how booked up I am my much higher rated opponent should win.
• 10 years is convenient but does not tell the whole story, there are variations which are out of fashion and simply not played much, there are undoubtedly good lines that are just being ignored right now, these will be under if not unrepresented in this survey.
• Transpositions, I didn’t have an unlimited amount of time for this so there are transpositions that I could not cover, so I’m keeping it as simple as possible, I have an example of this later on.
• The professional filter is used on both players, so I am not tracking where one player is rated >2200 and the other is <2200, this should not have a great affect on the data, but it bears mentioning.
• I’m sure there are others but that’s all I can think of now.

Results:

Overall in the past 10 years there are 2,499,604 games in the database, over half of the games in the database are from this period!.

The number of decisive games is 71%, with white winning 54% and black winning 46%.  So overall white has an expectation of 5.68 or 6.

There are 680,238 professional games from this same period with 59% of them being decisive white wins 55% and black 45%.  White has an expectation of 5.9 or 6, just what it is at the less exalted levels of chess.

OK I hear you all saying or at least thinking it.  So what’s better 1.e4 or 1.d4?  Fear not dear reader I’m coming to that now.  All of this data comes at the earliest point in the game, in other words after black has moved; the earliest possible point where you can tell what opening is being played.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total*	1. e 4	1,316,400	74	53.0%	47.0%	4.4
Professional	1. e 4	320,906	60	54.0%	46.0%	4.8
Total	Open	310,077	75	56.0%	44.0%	9.0
Professional	Open	64,216	55	55.0%	45.0%	5.5
Total	Sicilian	541,379	73	51.0%	49.0%	1.5
Professional	Sicilian	151,315	62	53.0%	47.0%	3.7
Total	French	172,855	72	53.0%	47.0%	4.3
Professional	French	41,653	60	55.0%	45.0%	6.0
Total	Caro-Kann	93,174	71	53.0%	47.0%	4.3
Professional	Caro-Kann	23,867	58	54.0%	46.0%	4.6
Total	Alekhine	28,241	73	51.0%	49.0%	1.5
Professional	Alekhine	5,941	61	56.0%	44.0%	7.3
Total	Modern	35,453	74	51.0%	49.0%	1.5
Professional	Modern	9,466	66	54.0%	46.0%	5.3

* Total games taken, many games in the database have players with no rating, hence they do not show up when attempting to get amateur results ie. rating range 0 – 2199 will eliminate many games and do not give an accurate total result.  I am aware that separating  the amateur games would be ideal but I can’t figure out how to capture it.

So what does this tell us about 1.e4?  Overall it leads to a less than ideal 4.4 – 4.8 positive result for white.  This is due to the myriad of options available to black on move 1, allowing him/her to steer away from open games where white is 9 for amateur players and an acceptable 5.5 for professionals.

Statistically the Sicilian is the most challenging defense for white to face.  No surprises here but look at how truly awful it is for white if you’re not a professional!

“Tricksie” defenses such as the Alekhine and Modern are good choices for an amateur as the Hypermodern practitioner is probably more familiar with the positions, once you go up the rating ladder though, it seems as if White players have it figured out and they get good results.  Specifically my beloved Alekhine does not fare well when those playing are above 2200.  One interesting thing about these Hypermodern Defenses is rating.  In the Modern Defense black’s rating is 36 points higher than white and in the Alekhine it is almost even, with black having a 17 point advantage.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	1. d 4	765,250	70	54.0%	46.0%	5.6
Professional	1. d 4	239,188	58	55.0%	45.0%	5.8
Total	1…d5 2.c4	158,144	69	58.0%	42.0%	11.0
Professional	1…d5 2.c4	52,571	54	57.0%	43.0%	7.6
Total	1…d5 2.Nf3	84,766	69	55.0%	45.0%	6.9
Professional	1…d5 2.Nf3	20,096	55	54.0%	46.0%	4.4
Total	1…Nf6	384,137	69	53.0%	47.0%	4.1
Professional	1…Nf6	133,042	59	55.0%	45.0%	5.9
Total	1…Nf6 2.Nf3	115,561	68	52.0%	48.0%	2.7
Professional	1…Nf6 2.Nf3	34,200	58	53.0%	47.0%	3.5
Total	1…c5	13,260	75	52.0%	48.0%	3.0
Professional	1…c5	2,886	68	58.0%	42.0%	10.9
Total	1…g6	22,379	72	52.0%	48.0%	2.9
Professional	1…g6	6,765	65	54.0%	46.0%	5.2

First off, those of you with a keen eye will realize that the total 1.d4 games for this sample is 765,250 but the sum of the variations I give is 778,247.  The reason for this is my inclusion of 2.Nf3 lines.  They can be reached via the move order 1.Nf3, u 2.d4 and we get data carryover that we did not intend.  I have a rather startling example of this later on.  So while there is some non 1.d4 opening data in here for our (or mine rather) purposes it is fine.

A few things of note, 1.d4 scores better than 1.e4.  The Queen’s Gambit Declined scores better overall than for professionals although at 7.6 it’s still better than any expectations for 1.e4 openings.  Once again “Tricksie” lines such as 1…c5 (heading towards a Benoni structure) or 1.g6 fare better at lower levels.  Although the 1.g6 lines can transpose easily to a Modern or Pirc depending on how White reacts.

So what can we learn from all of this?  Well 1.d4 is a better move from a positive expectation standpoint for white, given that s/he knows the opening in question.   As you and your opponents get better there are going to be more drawn games, but the reality of an opening at top levels can be wildly different down here for us mortals.

I also believe that if you want to become really good 2200+ someday you will probably want to take a mainstream defense.  While the Modern is a great weapon sub 2200 it loses its luster past this mark, although it appears that it is still playable and there are GM’s who employ it.

Does that mean that you should switch your entire repertoire?  No!  If you like what you’re playing then continue playing it.  After all the Modern works for me, but I don’t mind having my pieces be a bit constricted, if you don’t like this you are probably going to have awful results with the Modern.  If you like the King’s Gambit, then 1.d4 followed by 1.c4 is probably going to drive you nuts.

This was just a diversionary exercise for me.  It is at the end of the day just a bunch of numbers and I can’t possibly take in all of the variables for an opening, there are rating discrepancies, dozens of variations to consider.  Here is one example.

What is the difference between these two positions?

AND

Ah, you think me daft eh?  See to the untrained eye it appears as if I have merely copied the same position down.  But not so!  See the first position arises from the following sequence, 1.e4, c5 2.Nf3, d6 3. Bb5+, Nc6.  While the second position arises from the move order 1.e4, c5 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.Bb5, d6.  OK now you are thinking what the hell is the difference well I’ll show you.

See, after 3.Bb5+ there are 3 reasonable responses by Black.  Block the check with the Knight with 3…Nc6 or 3…Nd7 or with the Bishop 3…Bd7.  However as the following table shows.

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	3.Bb5+	14,763	65	51.0%	49.0%	1.3
Total	3… Nc6	5,465	68	54.0%	46.0%	5.4
Total	3… Bd7	9,324	63	54.0%	46.0%	5.0
Total	3… Nd7	3,130	67	47.0%	53.0%	-4.0

The total of the responses equals 17,919 or 3156 more than the total for the sample.  So the only answer is that there must be some move order shenanigans going on.  So to address this I created a separate database using only the 3.Bb5+ move order, in other words I would only get the original 14,763 games that I was originally looking at.  Here are the results.

 

	Opening	Games	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	3… Nc6	2,303	69	48.0%	52.0%	-2.8

So in the 3,162 games where the position was reached through a 2. Nc6 3.Bb5, d6 move order white scores better!  White’s results are terrible with the Moscow (3.Bb5) move order.  What does it mean?  I’m not sure, but my guess is that the 3…Nc6 move order is used by Black players who are comfortable in these positions but what they are trying to avoid?  I’m not sure,  why not just play 2…Nc6?  The rating may give a clue.  On average the black players were 40 points higher than their opponents, perhaps its a trap meant to lure opponents into thinking they can get into the 3…Bd7 lines, which seem to score well for white.

If I make a database simply using the Rossolimo move order (2…Nc6 3.Bb5) we get the following.

 

	Opening	Games*	Decisive	White W	Black W	Delta
Total	3.Bb5	21,787	69	58.0%	42.0%	11.0
Total	3…d6	3,159	67	58.0%	42.0%	10.7
Total	3…g6	10,661	69	58.0%	42.0%	11.0
Total	3…e6	4,240	70	55.0%	45.0%	7.0
Total	3…Nf6	1,137	67	54.0%	46.0%	5.4
Total	3…a6	842	80	65.0%	35.0%	24.0

*There are a few less variations, I didn’t cover them all as combined they equaled less than 1800 games and I didn’t need to get into it for the purposes of this post.

White scores better here in the 3…d6 lines and s/he is rated 16 points higher than his/her opponent.

So what does it all mean?  Statistics can only give you a broad 30,000 foot view.  once you get more than a few moves into a game there are so many transpositions and variations that it doesn’t even make sense to talk about a specific opening any more at least at patzer level.  There are simply too many variables.  I did this over the course of a few weeks to see if I could scientifically come up with a way to determine the best opening repertoire.  But alas I am not a machine and cannot think like one.  I am human and there are going to be far more variable involved in my success at the chessboard than the opening.

I did use this method as a very general guide.  How you may ask?  Well that’s going to have to wait until next post.

Have a good week friends.