"Perfect game" by me! (41 moves, Caro Kann Exchange Variation)

@SeaTurtle: This was discussed in another thread as well.

"Perfect" games in the sense of not having any inaccuracies, mistakes, or blunders flagged are not necessarily actually perfect.

Why? The threshold here for Stockfish to comment on a move is 0.5 pawns. Otherwise there would be comments on almost every move.

So yes, it is not so hard to imagine losing without any mistakes being more than half a pawn. If you just make a 0.4 mistake every move for 30 moves, you'll be -12, but the game would be "perfect".

It's not that this stockfish is too weak to notice those mistakes. It does, but comments are only shown for the mistakes that are >0.5.

Hope that clears some of that up :)

still it seems pretty sadly to me

Yeh, OneOthTheQ is completly right.

I dont like so much this system on this website that makes people think they played perfect games :)

Some people are never happy !

http://en.lichess.org/HtLbp6UA#0

MsCaroKann, you did play a good game, but to call that an exchange variation is a travesty. Looking at that game it's clear your opponent didn't know what the exchange variation even was and was just playing random moves against the Caro-Kann. The pawn structure happened to end up the same and that's about the only similarity from the White side. Your opponent badly misplaced almost all their pieces in the opening and it's obvious he had no idea about the typical plans and ideas for both sides in the exchange pawn structure that happened to arise out of his arbitrary moves. Then in the early middlegame, instead of trying to do something normal like put a knight on e5, he flounders around with it on the queenside playing it to a3 then to c2 then to b4 then to c2 again, etc. it's almost like he was trying to help you with your minority attack plan, like he thought it wasn't coming fast enough, so he puts the knight out there as a target for the pawns so they can advance with tempo.

And yeah the whole thing with the Stockfish analysis, I just know a year ago it was significantly stronger than it is now.

If someone plays 1..c6 and doesn't follow up with d5 I don't think this is a Caro-Kann because d5 is the point of c6, especially if they don't even know what the Caro-Kann is.

I'd say you know the Nimzo. It doesn't take much to claim to be playing a certain opening, just a few moves and at least some vague ideas of the reasons and plans. It seemed from that game though that White wasn't trying to use any particular variation but just making random moves in an attempt to get you out of theory. Not only all those moves with the knight, but then after all that he trades this knight that moved five times for your knight that moved twice.

Hopefully he will actually learn about the real Exchange variation because there isn't all that much theory behind it being more pattern based, and the plans are clear for both sides. It's an ideal opening for us amateur players really, whether playing as White or Black.

But you did play a good game MsCaroKann and I'm sure you could probably beat me as Black playing the Exchange variation against you even though I know what to do in it as White.

For many many years I made random moves before i even learned basics of the opening.. and i still dont know a lot about the theory but still i can play fairly well by recognizing patterns. so opening knowledge i think is not necessary if you dont want to play professionally..