Answers.Body: <p>In order to answer your question, I put together a database archive of 30000+ games played in over-the-board tournaments where both players were rated less than 2000.  Only one game had the Halloween, and there were few Traxlers.  Black died quickly in a handful of Fried Liver Attacks.  There were no Parhams 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 nor Fool's mates.</p>
  
  <p>The Triangle/Noteboom complex scored very well for Black as did the Benko Gambit.  1.d4 d5 2.Nc3?! looked to be a bust, and the Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 1.e4 c5 2.f4?! didn't fare well for White.  In the Ruy Lopez, the Steinitz defence 3...d6?! and Cozio 3...Nge7?! led to a lot of Black losses.  Rubinstein's line in the French 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4?! didn't do well either.  A lot of patzers fell for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5?! 3.cxd5! and ended up getting overrun.  1.e4 c6 2.c4! did well against the Caro-Kann.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-10-04T17:14:10.477Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-10-04T21:08:36.607Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-10-04T21:08:36.607Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: A passerby
Answers.Body: <p>I don't think that you can statistically prove which openings are better or worse at the lower levels just because of the nature of players themselves. The lower you go, you are going to get the following situations:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Haven't studied very many openings</li>
  <li>Aren't familiar with many positions (open/closed/tactical etc)</li>
  <li>More likely to fall for or make known move mistakes in later analysis (moves 12+)</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>As players get more experienced (and thus higher rated), they are much more likely to be able to think their way out of mistakes in openings they are not familiar with, more likely to see forks, skewers, "hidden" threats, that a newer player won't be familiar with. All of these are going to skew any opening validity analysis.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-19T19:03:14.627Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-19T19:03:14.627Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnP
Answers.Body: <p>I don't think anomalies can really exist.  The reason is that it takes two people, and The Other Guy will not play the variation where he gets smoked.  Fool's Mate and Legal's Mate are great examples.  A lot of beginners fall for them once, but I suspect that isn't what you're looking for.</p>
  
  <p>Of course, with any opening a player can make a bad move and lose.  But I also suspect this isn't what you're looking for.</p>
  
  <p>In my mind, what you're looking for are openings that reward the skilled tactician who studies hard and learns openings well.  With the Black pieces, the Sicilian Defense springs to mind - Black opts for an asymmetrical game where "ok" moves by either side can be punished.  The King's Indian is similarly aggressive.</p>
  
  <p>On the White side, try sound openings that are not the Ruy Lopez.  I've seen some very booked-up beginners.  Play an English and see if how they handle it.</p>
  
  <p>Make the opening razor sharp, where the opponent has LOTS of bad choices :-D</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T16:25:55.060Z
Answers.Text: Anomalies could come from traps, but more likely source, IMO, would be positions that are practically easier to play for one side than the other, even though the position might be objectively equal.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T16:28:18.990Z
Answers.Text: The reason I am curious about anomalies, is that if they exist then it is a clear evidence that openings should be evaluated differently at different levels.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T16:36:27.957Z
Answers.Text: Your second comment is worth it's own question.  I think it is true, and one can see this easily - beginners get mated by `e4, Bc4, Qf3, Qxf7++`, a sequence that exploits the weakness of Black's `f7`.  When this stops working on a player, the player has reached a new level.  Now he loses to slightly more sophisticated play such as the common `Qh5+ Qe5 Qxh8` double attack.  Then he learns to punish those early adventures by the Queen... another level is gained...
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T16:14:47.503Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-18T16:14:47.503Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.Body: <p>one opening which ive used against many beginner's ( i have used this many times on ppl younger than me ) is queens gambit, which can give a very big advantage.</p>
  
  <p>many times Fanchette works as well, because beginners may not properly understand it, and therefore underestimate it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-19T22:58:14.410Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-19T22:58:14.410Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Math chiller
Body: <p>I was reading this question: <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2708/how-to-know-how-good-an-opening-defense-scores">How to know how good an opening defense scores</a>, and it got me wondering...Have there been very lopsided opening scores in the lower levels. For example, if we found out that the <code>Halloween Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5</code> scores 90% in under 1800 level category it would be quite an anomaly. </p>
  
  <p>Edit:</p>
  
  <p>One kind of an anomaly that I can think of at the top-level is the Traxler:</p>
  
  <pre><code>    [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>According to <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=144658&amp;move=4.5&amp;moves=e4.e5.Nf3.Nc6.Bc4.Nf6.Ng5&amp;nodes=21720.21721.21722.21723.24145.24146.144658" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chessgames</a> database black scored 60.1 % wins and 15.9 % draws in 308 games. Of course we don't know relative strength of the players, maybe stronger players had black pieces.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Edit:</strong></p>
  
  <p>Tony Ennis pointed out that according to <a href="http://www.365chess.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">365chess.com</a> there is no advantage for black in the Traxler.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-14T02:14:21.253Z
Comments.Text: There are no easy wins. :-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-14T02:59:28.650Z
Comments.Text: Actually there are easy wins, for example if one player falls into an opening trap.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-14T06:30:57.377Z
Comments.Text: If a Black player allows this he could possibly be well prepared.. or not; no conclusion can be drawn here. Also, 308 games is not statistically significant.
Comments.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T15:07:55.890Z
Comments.Text: @akavall, if one is reduced to depending on cheapshots and poor play from one's opponent in order to score points, one has other problems than the choice of opening.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T15:23:23.813Z
Comments.Text: I checked the opening out on 365chess.com.  It is called, "C57 two knights defence, Wilkes Barre (Traxler) variation".  The most common moves for white are `Nxf7` and `Bxf7+`, with even chances. There are 255 and 205 games with those moves, respectively. If I look at master games only, there are only 8 with equal chances.  I think the Traxler is a good choice for either side - if one is booked up.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T15:32:21.853Z
Comments.Text: Ah, in the OP's Halloween gambit. Is the final move supposed to be `4. Nxe5`?  If so, by playing sensibly, Black can have a good game.  White needs to be booked up and tactically sharp to get the point. Sacrificing a piece for space on the 4th move is pretty ballsy, lol.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T15:54:03.847Z
Comments.Text: @TonyEnnis, thanks for the database, and pointing out a typo. But I want to clarify that my main question is not whether the openings I mentioned are anomalies, but whether anomalies exist. And, yes, given results in `365chess.com` Traxler does not look like an anomaly.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Tags: <opening><statistics>
Title: Are there any very lopsided scores in openings at lower levels?
ThreadText: # Are there any very lopsided scores in openings at lower levels?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-14)
  
  I was reading this question: [How to know how good an opening defense scores](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2708/how-to-know-how-good-an-opening-defense-scores), and it got me wondering...Have there been very lopsided opening scores in the lower levels. For example, if we found out that the `Halloween Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5` scores 90% in under 1800 level category it would be quite an anomaly.
  
  Edit:
  
  One kind of an anomaly that I can think of at the top-level is the Traxler:
  
  ```
      [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5
  
  ```
  
  According to [chessgames](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=144658&move=4.5&moves=e4.e5.Nf3.Nc6.Bc4.Nf6.Ng5&nodes=21720.21721.21722.21723.24145.24146.144658) database black scored 60.1 % wins and 15.9 % draws in 308 games. Of course we don't know relative strength of the players, maybe stronger players had black pieces.
  
  **Edit:**
  
  username_1 username_1 pointed out that according to [365chess.com](http://www.365chess.com/) there is no advantage for black in the Traxler.
  
  **Tags:** opening, statistics
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: There are no easy wins. :-)  
  > **username_0**: Actually there are easy wins, for example if one player falls into an opening trap.  
  > **username_2**: If a Black player allows this he could possibly be well prepared.. or not; no conclusion can be drawn here. Also, 308 games is not statistically significant.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0, if one is reduced to depending on cheapshots and poor play from one's opponent in order to score points, one has other problems than the choice of opening.  
  > **username_1**: I checked the opening out on 365chess.com.  It is called, "C57 two knights defence, Wilkes Barre (Traxler) variation".  The most common moves for white are `Nxf7` and `Bxf7+`, with even chances. There are 255 and 205 games with those moves, respectively. If I look at master games only, there are only 8 with equal chances.  I think the Traxler is a good choice for either side - if one is booked up.  
  > **username_1**: Ah, in the OP's Halloween gambit. Is the final move supposed to be `4. Nxe5`?  If so, by playing sensibly, Black can have a good game.  White needs to be booked up and tactically sharp to get the point. Sacrificing a piece for space on the 4th move is pretty ballsy, lol.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1, thanks for the database, and pointing out a typo. But I want to clarify that my main question is not whether the openings I mentioned are anomalies, but whether anomalies exist. And, yes, given results in `365chess.com` Traxler does not look like an anomaly.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2015-10-04. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  In order to answer your question, I put together a database archive of 30000+ games played in over-the-board tournaments where both players were rated less than 2000. Only one game had the Halloween, and there were few Traxlers. Black died quickly in a handful of Fried Liver Attacks. There were no Parhams 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 nor Fool's mates.
  
  The Triangle/Noteboom complex scored very well for Black as did the Benko Gambit. 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3?! looked to be a bust, and the Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 1.e4 c5 2.f4?! didn't fare well for White. In the Ruy Lopez, the Steinitz defence 3...d6?! and Cozio 3...Nge7?! led to a lot of Black losses. Rubinstein's line in the French 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4?! didn't do well either. A lot of patzers fell for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5?! 3.cxd5! and ended up getting overrun. 1.e4 c6 2.c4! did well against the Caro-Kann.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2013-08-19. Score: 2
  
  I don't think that you can statistically prove which openings are better or worse at the lower levels just because of the nature of players themselves. The lower you go, you are going to get the following situations:
  
  1. Haven't studied very many openings
  2. Aren't familiar with many positions (open/closed/tactical etc)
  3. More likely to fall for or make known move mistakes in later analysis (moves 12+)
  
  As players get more experienced (and thus higher rated), they are much more likely to be able to think their way out of mistakes in openings they are not familiar with, more likely to see forks, skewers, "hidden" threats, that a newer player won't be familiar with. All of these are going to skew any opening validity analysis.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-08-18. Score: 1
  
  I don't think anomalies can really exist. The reason is that it takes two people, and The Other Guy will not play the variation where he gets smoked. Fool's Mate and Legal's Mate are great examples. A lot of beginners fall for them once, but I suspect that isn't what you're looking for.
  
  Of course, with any opening a player can make a bad move and lose. But I also suspect this isn't what you're looking for.
  
  In my mind, what you're looking for are openings that reward the skilled tactician who studies hard and learns openings well. With the Black pieces, the Sicilian Defense springs to mind - Black opts for an asymmetrical game where "ok" moves by either side can be punished. The King's Indian is similarly aggressive.
  
  On the White side, try sound openings that are not the Ruy Lopez. I've seen some very booked-up beginners. Play an English and see if how they handle it.
  
  Make the opening razor sharp, where the opponent has LOTS of bad choices :-D
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Anomalies could come from traps, but more likely source, IMO, would be positions that are practically easier to play for one side than the other, even though the position might be objectively equal.  
  > **username_0**: The reason I am curious about anomalies, is that if they exist then it is a clear evidence that openings should be evaluated differently at different levels.  
  > **username_1**: Your second comment is worth it's own question.  I think it is true, and one can see this easily - beginners get mated by `e4, Bc4, Qf3, Qxf7++`, a sequence that exploits the weakness of Black's `f7`.  When this stops working on a player, the player has reached a new level.  Now he loses to slightly more sophisticated play such as the common `Qh5+ Qe5 Qxh8` double attack.  Then he learns to punish those early adventures by the Queen... another level is gained...  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2013-08-19. Score: 1
  
  one opening which ive used against many beginner's ( i have used this many times on ppl younger than me ) is queens gambit, which can give a very big advantage.
  
  many times Fanchette works as well, because beginners may not properly understand it, and therefore underestimate it.
  
  
  ---
  
  