The Gibraltar tournament has just ended and its almost 1200 games give us an excellent opportunity to look at chess opening fashion. Why is fashion interesting ? After all, Raetsky & Chetverik claim to have “No Passion for Chess Fashion” ! A line being often played is not a general indicator of soundness, especially in a big open tournament where 2700+ and 1800+ players meet. Personal preferences and emulation of a few champions play a bigger role than the objective assessment of the merits of the frequently played openings. What is more interesting is the relative success of various openings compared with reference points. Then I will turn to the analysis of high-profile games (2650+ for both players) in three openings for which a peculiar success rate was identified.
So let's start with the reference points, namely big averages. My success indicator is the difference between average performance and average Elo. Transpositions are taken into account, so the statistics for the first moves must not be interpreted literally. “1.d4” means all openings that are often reached by playing d4 early. I'm not quoting full statistics if there are less than 20 games in the considered line, except once (the QID).
******************
* White's first moves *
******************
I will stick to the following format all along :
Opening / sample size / %points for White / %draws / average Elo (W/B)/ success
The average Elo is the one of the player who made the last move in the definition of the line, but I'll indicate which player it is (White or Black) anyway to make things clear.
1.e4, 505 games, 54% , 33% draws, Elo 2346 W, +27.
1.d4, 446 games, 57%, 31% draws, Elo 2378 W, +32.
1.Nf3, 125 games, 57%, 32% draws, Elo 2378 W, +29.
1.c4, 66 games, 61%, 39% draws, Elo 2429 W, +47.
Everything else is below 10 games. The English is certainly a bit more drawish and a bit more popular among stronger players, and the latter are slightly more successful with it than with other openings, but all in all the averages are similar enough. The first move advantage makes White's performance superior by 30 points to his average Elo, which is expected.
***************
* Flank openings *
***************
I can't say much about Black's choices against 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, as they are very diverse and each line falls below the threshold of 20 games, with one exception.
1.Nf3 d5 2.g3, 45 games, 66%, 29% draws, Elo 2440 W, +63.
If 14 more games from 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 are added to these 45, the other figures don't change. It is quite surprising to see this line score very well (66% over 45+14 games), with fewer draws than the average. It's not just a surprise weapon to defeat weaker players, as is shown by the performance above 2500.
*******
* 1.e4 *
*******
There are four popular defenses against 1.e4. Let's review them all.
1...c5, 196 games, 52%, 26% draws, Elo 2322 B, -32.
1...e5, 136 games, 53%, 43% draws, Elo 2404 B, -21.
1...e6, 76 games, 59%, 29% draws, Elo 2309 B, -26.
1...c6, 49 games, 59%, 38% draws, Elo 2382 B, -62.
Ironically, the French is now as drawish as the Sicilian... The Open Game is indeed the stronger player's choice and it is unusually drawish (10% more than the average). The Caro-Kann, even though it is also played by relatively stronger players, is suffering right now. Maybe the latest novelties tend to favor White.
Variations of the Sicilian perform very differently.
Najdorf, 39 games, 59%, 26% draws, Elo 2375 B, -78.
Open e6, 34 games, 49%, 27% draws, Elo 2352 B, +25.
3.Bb5(+), 29 games, 52%, 42% draws, Elo 2424 W, -7.
The Najdorf suffers in two lines (6.Be2, 4/5 for White, and 6.h3, 3/4 for White) but earns 50% against the main line 6.Bg5 and other lines. The Taimanov (2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7) is especially successful with 11/18 for Black. That explains why Black has a performance superior to average Elo (“Black is OK !”) in the Open Sicilian with 2...e6. Finally, the Bb5(+) systems are very drawish nowadays.
In the Open Games, we also see a contrasted picture.
Spanish (all), 61 games, 57%, 47% draws, Elo 2470 W, +37.
Spanish (closed), 22 games, 57%, 51% draws, Elo 2478 B, -2.
Italian+2Knights, 34 games, 51%, 45% draws, Elo 2355 W, +53.
Open Games are drawish, but the closed Ruy Lopez sets a record with 51% draws. Breyer (9...Nb8) and Zaitsev (9...Bb7) systems are durable battlegrounds. The move 3.Bc4 is, somewhat surprisingly, the statistical path to a draw against a stronger opponent ; that's why it performs well (+53) with a low score (51%).
*******
* 1.d4 *
*******
Against 1.d4, I'll stick with just one tier of categories. Please notice that the “Slav” category excludes the semi-Slav, which could not be isolated with a sufficient number of games.
KID with e4, 26 games, 67%, 28% draws, Elo 2221 B, -54.
Nimzo, 46 games, 53%, 38% draws, Elo 2471 B, -69.
QID, 17 games, 65%, 36% draws, Elo 2439 B, -96.
Slav, 27 games, 72%, 27% draws, Elo 2257 B, -57.
Without c4 , 27 games 57%, 27% draws, Elo 2330 W, +44
QGD (no Nf3), 23 games, 65%, 36% draws, Elo 2413 W, +110.
QGD (with Nf3), 45 games, 49%, 41% draws, Elo 2439 W, =0
Catalan, 40 games, 64%, 33% draws, Elo 2460 W, +39.
The KID and Slav defense don't score well for Black, because relatively weaker players play them against relatively stronger players. The Queen's Indian Defense seems under pressure, that's why it's my only exception to the 20-games threshold. The success record is set by the QGD with no Nf3 with 110 performance points above average Elo for White. Black is well inspired to choose a move order that makes White play Nf3 (either the Indian move order or 3...Be7 instead of 3...Nf6). I thought this was well-known already for quite some time.
******************************
* Study of some high-profile games *
******************************
I've identified 13 high-profile games during the tournament. These are games between players both rated above 2650. Had I set the threshold to 2600, I would have had to consider 35 games and that was too much. I've looked into the opening of these 13 games to see which ones would overlap with an usual statistical result. Four games were selected for a complete analysis.
As the Bb5 Sicilian seem to score particularly poorly for White (performance not superior to average Elo despite being White), I've chosen to study a game from this opening. It's the 10th round game between Liem Le Quang and Daniil Dubov. The Caro-Kann played in the same round between Maxime Vachier-Lagrave and Richard Rapport was also selected because the Caro-Kann was less successful in Gibraltar than its direct alternative. I also wanted to explore why Nf3/g3 was so successful but numerous transpositions made me keep only two games : David Howell vs Nikita Vitiugov from round 9 and the QID transposition between Hikaru Nakamura and Richard Rapport in round 9 too (the QID has a special record too in Gibraltar). No QGD declined without Nf3 was found in Gibraltar between players above 2650 Elo, and for good reasons.
Here is the link to the study :
Enjoy ! Liem Le Quang vs Dubov has a fascinating position to analyze and demonstrates a wonderful breakthrough in a locked position. Amateurs of the King's Indian Attack will be delighted by seeing Howell-Vitiugov revive a line from 30 years ago, with recent echoes. The Nakamura vs Rapport game might be in the next book on the Queen's Indian. As for Vachier-Lagrave vs Rapport, several strange decisions and transpositions make it real fun !
On a side note, while I was analyzing those games with Komodo, I saw a self-reportedly Norwegian account, named “Pacificrabbit”, who had already gone through them at a considerable depth. I guess those games didn't wait for me to attract some relevant attention !
As always, comments are welcome and a little click on the heart below the study board will be appreciated.
So let's start with the reference points, namely big averages. My success indicator is the difference between average performance and average Elo. Transpositions are taken into account, so the statistics for the first moves must not be interpreted literally. “1.d4” means all openings that are often reached by playing d4 early. I'm not quoting full statistics if there are less than 20 games in the considered line, except once (the QID).
******************
* White's first moves *
******************
I will stick to the following format all along :
Opening / sample size / %points for White / %draws / average Elo (W/B)/ success
The average Elo is the one of the player who made the last move in the definition of the line, but I'll indicate which player it is (White or Black) anyway to make things clear.
1.e4, 505 games, 54% , 33% draws, Elo 2346 W, +27.
1.d4, 446 games, 57%, 31% draws, Elo 2378 W, +32.
1.Nf3, 125 games, 57%, 32% draws, Elo 2378 W, +29.
1.c4, 66 games, 61%, 39% draws, Elo 2429 W, +47.
Everything else is below 10 games. The English is certainly a bit more drawish and a bit more popular among stronger players, and the latter are slightly more successful with it than with other openings, but all in all the averages are similar enough. The first move advantage makes White's performance superior by 30 points to his average Elo, which is expected.
***************
* Flank openings *
***************
I can't say much about Black's choices against 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, as they are very diverse and each line falls below the threshold of 20 games, with one exception.
1.Nf3 d5 2.g3, 45 games, 66%, 29% draws, Elo 2440 W, +63.
If 14 more games from 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 are added to these 45, the other figures don't change. It is quite surprising to see this line score very well (66% over 45+14 games), with fewer draws than the average. It's not just a surprise weapon to defeat weaker players, as is shown by the performance above 2500.
*******
* 1.e4 *
*******
There are four popular defenses against 1.e4. Let's review them all.
1...c5, 196 games, 52%, 26% draws, Elo 2322 B, -32.
1...e5, 136 games, 53%, 43% draws, Elo 2404 B, -21.
1...e6, 76 games, 59%, 29% draws, Elo 2309 B, -26.
1...c6, 49 games, 59%, 38% draws, Elo 2382 B, -62.
Ironically, the French is now as drawish as the Sicilian... The Open Game is indeed the stronger player's choice and it is unusually drawish (10% more than the average). The Caro-Kann, even though it is also played by relatively stronger players, is suffering right now. Maybe the latest novelties tend to favor White.
Variations of the Sicilian perform very differently.
Najdorf, 39 games, 59%, 26% draws, Elo 2375 B, -78.
Open e6, 34 games, 49%, 27% draws, Elo 2352 B, +25.
3.Bb5(+), 29 games, 52%, 42% draws, Elo 2424 W, -7.
The Najdorf suffers in two lines (6.Be2, 4/5 for White, and 6.h3, 3/4 for White) but earns 50% against the main line 6.Bg5 and other lines. The Taimanov (2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7) is especially successful with 11/18 for Black. That explains why Black has a performance superior to average Elo (“Black is OK !”) in the Open Sicilian with 2...e6. Finally, the Bb5(+) systems are very drawish nowadays.
In the Open Games, we also see a contrasted picture.
Spanish (all), 61 games, 57%, 47% draws, Elo 2470 W, +37.
Spanish (closed), 22 games, 57%, 51% draws, Elo 2478 B, -2.
Italian+2Knights, 34 games, 51%, 45% draws, Elo 2355 W, +53.
Open Games are drawish, but the closed Ruy Lopez sets a record with 51% draws. Breyer (9...Nb8) and Zaitsev (9...Bb7) systems are durable battlegrounds. The move 3.Bc4 is, somewhat surprisingly, the statistical path to a draw against a stronger opponent ; that's why it performs well (+53) with a low score (51%).
*******
* 1.d4 *
*******
Against 1.d4, I'll stick with just one tier of categories. Please notice that the “Slav” category excludes the semi-Slav, which could not be isolated with a sufficient number of games.
KID with e4, 26 games, 67%, 28% draws, Elo 2221 B, -54.
Nimzo, 46 games, 53%, 38% draws, Elo 2471 B, -69.
QID, 17 games, 65%, 36% draws, Elo 2439 B, -96.
Slav, 27 games, 72%, 27% draws, Elo 2257 B, -57.
Without c4 , 27 games 57%, 27% draws, Elo 2330 W, +44
QGD (no Nf3), 23 games, 65%, 36% draws, Elo 2413 W, +110.
QGD (with Nf3), 45 games, 49%, 41% draws, Elo 2439 W, =0
Catalan, 40 games, 64%, 33% draws, Elo 2460 W, +39.
The KID and Slav defense don't score well for Black, because relatively weaker players play them against relatively stronger players. The Queen's Indian Defense seems under pressure, that's why it's my only exception to the 20-games threshold. The success record is set by the QGD with no Nf3 with 110 performance points above average Elo for White. Black is well inspired to choose a move order that makes White play Nf3 (either the Indian move order or 3...Be7 instead of 3...Nf6). I thought this was well-known already for quite some time.
******************************
* Study of some high-profile games *
******************************
I've identified 13 high-profile games during the tournament. These are games between players both rated above 2650. Had I set the threshold to 2600, I would have had to consider 35 games and that was too much. I've looked into the opening of these 13 games to see which ones would overlap with an usual statistical result. Four games were selected for a complete analysis.
As the Bb5 Sicilian seem to score particularly poorly for White (performance not superior to average Elo despite being White), I've chosen to study a game from this opening. It's the 10th round game between Liem Le Quang and Daniil Dubov. The Caro-Kann played in the same round between Maxime Vachier-Lagrave and Richard Rapport was also selected because the Caro-Kann was less successful in Gibraltar than its direct alternative. I also wanted to explore why Nf3/g3 was so successful but numerous transpositions made me keep only two games : David Howell vs Nikita Vitiugov from round 9 and the QID transposition between Hikaru Nakamura and Richard Rapport in round 9 too (the QID has a special record too in Gibraltar). No QGD declined without Nf3 was found in Gibraltar between players above 2650 Elo, and for good reasons.
Here is the link to the study :
Enjoy ! Liem Le Quang vs Dubov has a fascinating position to analyze and demonstrates a wonderful breakthrough in a locked position. Amateurs of the King's Indian Attack will be delighted by seeing Howell-Vitiugov revive a line from 30 years ago, with recent echoes. The Nakamura vs Rapport game might be in the next book on the Queen's Indian. As for Vachier-Lagrave vs Rapport, several strange decisions and transpositions make it real fun !
On a side note, while I was analyzing those games with Komodo, I saw a self-reportedly Norwegian account, named “Pacificrabbit”, who had already gone through them at a considerable depth. I guess those games didn't wait for me to attract some relevant attention !
As always, comments are welcome and a little click on the heart below the study board will be appreciated.