Opinion Of The Owen’s

To be fair, if you look at all the games you've played there, you are gifting White a much better position and waiting for them to let their foot off the gas.  That is not so much the strength of the opening, but simply that you are much better than the people you are playing.

To draw a comparison:  In Banter Blitz, Magnus will often play the North Sea Defense (which he also calls the "Norwegian Rat").  He will tell you that objectively, it is a bad opening, but he rarely sees anyone in the Banter Blitz sessions who will play the correct refutations, and then it proceeds to completely outplay them.  Is that because of the opening?  Certainly not.

That said, I agree with your earlier point that at the OP's current level, it does not matter and will not matter for quite a while (if ever).  However, from the theoretical perspective, the LiChess Master database has 1404 master-level games played since 2000 with 1. e4 b6.  White has scored 61% (including 47% wins).  When comparing to virtually every other first move for Black except for 1...g5 and 1...a6, it scores significantly worse.  Again, that does not mean anything for the OP, as he is nowhere near the master level - except that if he were to choose that opening, he will have less model games to choose from than almost any other opening choice.

everyone is a critic.   Thank you for restoring my faith in people's ability to read the eval bar in lichess

i would like to know which positions you have in mind which white is "much better". Because that has never been my experience. There is a world of difference between an opening where black is limping for a mercy draw an outright refutation and an defense where black takes longer to fully equalize.

In your effort to feign sarcasm, you completely missed the points.  Ironically, you attempted to justify playing it by referencing your own stats, but want to dismiss the stats of masters in general.  Physician, heal thyself.

pfren 2.0

you literally compared the stats of an established defense with those of the 19 other moves, and concluded that only 1.g5 and 1a6 score worse. This tells me you dont know how to properly use a database.  If you dont have a core of base practitioners and a sufficient sample size  , your numbers are as a good as useless. By that reasoning 1.na3 is the best opening ever.

you must look at how specific lines score, and then see the average rating of those games, and then see rating discrepancy within those games to make sure they are not heavily one sided (for example, terrible openings score  well often  with with white often because the few times they are played its stronger players giving themselves a handicap to have fun with their low rated opponents). Finally, you have to look at how the masters that play these lines often (Filipovic, Bauer, Khengis, Minasian, Blatny, sometimes, Naka, Bacrot, and mamedyarov  etc) score in different lines.

if you dont do even half of the above, you dont know how to properly use a database. You may as well read of the eval bar on the depth lichess normally stops it and call it a day.

you flatter me.  comparing me to a strong player who shares his wisdom freely in the forum, doesnt suffer fools gladly and values objectivity in his assestment. Thats no faint praise. Prfen's posts are some of the most valuable in the forums

Pfren is amazing. He's helped me with the Orthoschnapp and he's given some insight into what he thought about 1.e4 e5 by Ntrilis to name a few

What you are doing is called a "strawman argument".  Nowhere in my post did I say "these stats prove the opening is bad/refuted".  I simply stated that it has a vastly reduced number of games in comparison to the other defenses, and that Black has not faired well.  That means a 700-rated player would effectively be trying to tread new ground.  I'm sure, that is what you are recommending, right?  That 1...g5 and 1...a6 score worse is a fact.  

Again, your first sentence demonstrates the point I was making.  Without good model games, a 700-rated player is left to his own devices.  That is like asking someone to learn to read Greek by staring at blank pages.

And you continue the strawman nonsense with second sentence.

The irony in this - that is exactly what I did with your games.  You know, where I mentioned that White was significantly better and you were stuck waiting for him to mess up?

For example, take this game:

And if you go back and look, you'll find White did not make the same mistake in a game between 2 equally strong opponents:

- a 700 player shoudnt even know what a database. Why in the world would someone blundering a piece by move 10 use one for? decoration?

-you dont know what a strawman fallacy is. How do i know, im a graduate student in philosophy lol. A stawman is only a fallacy when the "attack" on the person is somehow supposed to be support for your argument. Im literally saying you dont know how to use a database AND a,b and C. Not that Because you dont know how to use database then A....

-you did exactly what i predicted. You puked out a line which may be the first one the comp superficially suggest. Despite the fact this cute little line is virtually NEVER seen in master play and for very good reason. black ends up only slightly worse. Of course if you only trust a cursory look at the eval bar, you may think otherwise. You have proven nothing besides the fact my opponent coudnt play like a computer. All you shown in that blitz master game is  that black didnt do his homework. 

actually there is a line transposition in this very variation that leads to at best a draw for white but is often beyond the comp's calculative horizon involving sacking rook for piece and pawn, involving qh4. But if you literally just look at the eval, it will say +1 until a very high depth.

i hate these petty arguments. Its like arguing with pigeon, no matter how cogent the argument is, the pigeon will just sh!t on the table and claim victory.

You can educate a fool, but all that means is they are a fool with a degree.

A straw man argument is when you state something that was not said, refute that statement, and conclude because you refuted that, that you also refuted the original statement.  You may be a student, but your reading comprehension has always been lacking.

I also find it ironic that you assert "that line is almost never seen ...". By comparison, you know what else is almost never seen?  You guessed it, the Owen's (roughly 1800 total games in the database compared to 500k for just the Sicilian - not to mention the Open Games, French, Caro, Pirc, Modern).  Perhaps there is a reason it is so rarely seen at the master level, or maybe all the other masters don't know how to use a database either.

pigeon wins

actually, to be fair to you, i somehow read strawman as ad hominem lmao. But regardless, it wasnt a straw man either.  By  the analysis you did, you will also conclude 1.na3 is the best opening as you implicitly assumed, 1.nh6 (or 1.a5 or 1.h5 etc) is a better opening than b6 because it scores better. Thats not a straw man, thats a reductio ad absurdum of your argument.

K.O.

Not wrong either, here's the dictionary:
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

dont imitate this at home kids. He still cant use databases to save his life. he can use google though i give him that

Why do you say don't imitate this at home? Just curious actually, legitimate question. And yeah I'll happily admit I don't really know how to study with a database but I'll probably learn at some point.

It wasn't a strawman?  Oh really?. Where exactly did I state that because it scored worse that meant it was a worse opening?  That's right, I didn't.  The point I was making with the database reference was simply that a low level player would have significantly less model games to use when picking an offbeat opening like the Owen's because of the lack of quality games and the difficulty masters have had with the opening.

But if you would like to keep getting smacked down, keep trying to justify your opening choices.  As I have stated several times, for the OP, his opening choice is not going to make a difference in his games right now.  However, if he were to pick a more classical defense (1...e5 for example) he will have a lot more high quality games to study, which will help him in the long run.  Learning and mastering the opening principles would go a long way towards helping him progress, so advocating for an opening that effectively ignores those principles for several moves is counter-productive (the same goes for the Pirc and Modern for the same reason).

OK, this is what I was after from the original post in a sense. Thank you for some actual advice instead of purely argumentative stuff.

I simply cannot wait to read your dissertation.  If this is your level of rhetorical skills, I imagine it will be riveting.

I feel like playing @darkunorthodox88 in the owens would be a bit like playing some king's gambit enthusiast in the main lines... it doesn't matter what the eval bar says on move 10 because you'll need to play around 20 moves before you're going to prove anything.

Which is why I switched to 2...Bc5 in the KG. It makes no sense to be extremely prepared for an opening I'll almost never see. Same for the Owens. If he wants to laugh at me that I got an equal middlegame, well fine, but now we play chess. It makes no sense for me to work to prove an advantage against something I'll almost never see.

This might be a little harder OTB if you develop a reputation for always playing the owens since people will prepare... 1000s of hours into mainlines will have probably yielded better results... but whatever. Some people like offbeat stuff. It makes chess more interesting.

From: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/the-owens-defense

(I just forgot to mention my old source of the defense: a pamphlet by Andy Soltis called, I think, "Why Not the Owen's Defense")

It's lame. I tried to form a repetoire in 1978 around playing 1. b3 and 1...b6 against anything.1. b3 is OK. But 1...b6 was terrible, especially against 1.e4. It doesn't block anything, it doesn't attack the center (for another move) and it doesn't challenge the e-pawn. You are no closer to castling on move 3 than you were on move 1. Of all the openings that don't involve moving a rook-pawn, it's the lamest.

btw, as a treat for those that had to endure this dribble, i will show you the dangerous draw you can transpose to in the early c4 line..

now after all these moves (which honestly, blacks side is fairly intuitive, white has to walk a tight rope of only moves for a long time), white gets a modest advantage in a 3 pawn vs piece endgame which is by no means easy for either side. Good luck finding all of this with the white side even for a master.